News

On the 9^th April 2015 the child abuse inquiry website published a “Call for applications or nominations” for something called the “Victims and Survivors Consultative Panel” (VSCP).

The call starts with some fine words. “Justice Goddard has made it clear that she fully agrees with the Home Secretary’s view that the experiences of victims and survivors need to be placed at the centre of the Inquiry’s work. Victims and survivors will be given a strong voice and play a defined role in the institutional arrangements that she is putting in place.”

The document goes on to explain that there will be eight members of the VSCP. It describes the key criteria for membership of the panel:

a) Experience of issues associated with institutional responses to child sexual abuse
b) Experience of working collectively and collaboratively as part of a team and
c) Holds a current mandate to represent the interests of a defined group of victims or survivors of child sexual abuse.

Strictly speaking the role doesn’t require VSCP members to be victims or survivors of abuse. (more…)

The Government statement today once more relies on ‘common sense’ to change the culture and approach of ‘professionals’ (public servants) to the crime of #CSE. Reliance on this flimsy hope mirrors the statement from Mr Hunt (Health Minister) which detailed the breakdown of safeguarding at Stoke Mandeville and how the future is best served by doses of ‘common sense.’ Add to this the Conservative initiative of holding public officials to account with a charge of ‘wilful neglect,‘ and in Government imaginings, #CSE issue is sorted. In a Panorama programme about #MR Keir Starmer the former DPP explains why wilfil neglect is little more than a ‘fall back’ provision.

Anne Lawrence of MandateNow on #bbcpm explains the difference between MR and wilful neglect. Excellent interview.

And others agree. Under the headline Prosecutions Unlikely Under New Child Expolitation Offence  a law firm confirms the inadequacies of the proposals which are very far from a culture changer and are unlikely to be effective.

In Mr Mair’s introduction he alluded to the NSPCC supporting MR. Unfortunately this misrepresents the position of the NSPCC because the NGO’s proposal does not deliver MR.  We  explain here. 

A personal observation from a supporter of mandatory reporting of CSA.

In 2008, I had a conversation with a senior member of the safeguarding ‘establishment.’   He said to me: ‘You know you are never going to get Mandatory Reporting (“MR”) – that’s never going to happen.‘ I asked why and was given a lesson in politics followed by an introduction to the culture and mindset of the Civil Service. Sadly, as I have now come to appreciate, this same culture also exists in bigger child protection charities where many senior personnel are ‘whitehall exiles’ as some describe themselves. And what does the phrase mean? – ‘anyone separated from his or her country or home either voluntarily or by force of circumstances.‘ Revealing use of language particularly when applied to the hypersensitive subject of child protection/abuse where language is so important and has a very long distance to travel before reliance can be placed upon it.  (more…)

As you may be aware, Mandate Now contributed significantly to the amendment moved in the House of Lords by Baroness Walmsley. The amendment would have delivered effective MR but instead a now long overdue Consultation was promised. We are still waiting to have its terms of reference agreed.

The opposition amendment NC 17 debated in the House of Commons yesterday was incapable of delivering Mandatory Reporting.  It appears to contain the watermark of the NSPCC’s inadequate August initiative ‘Strengthening duties on professionals…’  to which we responded – see link.

Cheryl Gillan (C) Chesham and Amersham brought to the attention of the House the conflicts and contradictions within the amendment that rendered it an ineffective proposition. Among the many reasons it could not deliver suggested mandatory reporting was its continued reliance on ‘discretionary opinion’ which undermines the concept of Mandatory Reporting.  We posted about this on Saturday. (more…)

Interview on SkyNews 22/2/15

And here is our review of the amendment

The Manchester Evening News  brought to our attention on 19th Feb an amendment Yvette Cooper tabled in the Serious Crimes Bill to be debated on Monday.  We are pleased that the Labour Party has made a committment to Mandatory Reporting, and we hope it will positively consider our review of the amendment.

An earlier MR amendment to the SCR Bill was moved in the House of Lords by Lib Dem Peer Baroness Walmsley, to which Mandate Now contributed (28th October 2015). It was withdrawn on an assurance from the Government that a long needed and inclusive ‘consultation’ on Mandatory Reporting would happen. Disappointingly, the terms of reference have still not yet been announced.

MR in Regulated Activities is inevitable, but its design is critically important.  MR is not a component that can be lifted from a shelf, applied and switched on. It is a complicated and nuanced subject that requires tailoring to be effective. Unfortunately this amendment prompts a number of concerns –  (more…)

This letter is the contribution from the highly motivated activists who coalesce around Mandate Now.  A further copy of the letter was sent to the CSA inquiry Secretariat on 11/2/15 following a meeting at the Home Office.

Please click to enlarge the image. The full letter is available here

Mandate Now attended a debate on the 21st November 2014 kindly hosted by the Loudoun Trust at the Portman Clinic in London. The invitation and the subject of the debate feature below:

Speaking for the proposition, surprisingly, was the NSPCC. It was an odd choice given the charity’s sustained hostility to Mandatory Reporting until just a few months before the debate when, as a  result of increasing public pressure over reporting failures in ‘Regulated Activities’, it released a porous proposal for mandatory reporting in August 2014. (more…)

Ian Dale discusses with Harriet Harman QC – Shadow Deputy Prime Minister, issues relating to the #CSAinquiry following a call from a listener who rightly wanted to see the inquiry statutory from the start.  Following Harman’s easy criticisms of the HO’s performance to date, Dale then asked if Labour would support the general principle of an SI. Harman says she thought there would be cross-party support for such a move.

Dale then asked ‘would you back a statutory inquiry or a Royal Commission?’ Harman hesitates and  aligns Labour firmly behind the Government’s position.

(more…)