2306, 2016

Spectator article Against Mandatory Reporting: A Blizzard of Ill-informed Comment

June 23rd, 2016|

On 22.6.16 the Spectator published an article by Josie Appleton who does not appear to be a regular contributor. She is convener for a pressure group that writes against regulations in everyday life. She also periodically contributes to the Guardian. Clearly Mandatory Reporting seems to be considered a soft target to which, just like any other piece of proposed legislation, Ms Appleton can contribute using her adult logic without appreciating the first two rules of child protection are (i) suspend adult logic (ii) apply significant experience because it is a complex subject. The piece is available here

Uploaded to Spectator website 22.6.16

There are several points of interest in the article. Firstly that it appeared in this Conservative publication at this time at all. The Government has repeatedly deferred the consultation ‘reporting and acting on child abuse and neglect’ despite there being no reason for delay.  We understand it was ready to begin in December 15 and that it might now be launched just before the recess. Let’s not forget Mr Cameron described child abuse as a ‘national threat.’

Within the article there is a thumb print that suggests Ms  Appleton was briefed by  the Department for  Education media team. The idea that referrals from Mandated reporters are poor, while referrals from elsewhere are reliable is pure DfE fantasy spin.  

The Spectator declined to publish a comment from a reader maybe because it was too long or perhaps because of embedded links to evidence.  (more…)

806, 2016

Mandatory Reporting of Known and Suspected Abuse: Guardian and Observer Articles June 2016

June 8th, 2016|

Louise Ticklle 060616




You can read the article here







Observer 280516

Although the positions of the two child protection NGO’s appear to differ in this article their approaches to mandatory reporting are in reality almost identical in that both are keen on the status quo. The NSPCC sidesteps the question on mandatory reporting and talks of sanction predicated on ‘known abuse’ The view of these two organisations seems to be that neither want to be seen to hold a different position to Government.

The NSPCC’s raising ‘known abuse’ hints at its position statement launched in July 2014 which we reviewed it in detail here and concluded  : If the objective is the introduction of sound legislative foundations the proposals from the NSPCC are profoundly flawed. 

In July 2014, to coincide with the NSPCC’s ‘strengthening duties’ policy statement, Peter Wanless said to the Independent newspaper

“However, our focus for criminalisation is on cover-up, not the merest suspicion that a child might have been harmed.

Why does the NSPCC adopt a seemingly discriminatory approach to regulated activity staff being required and supported to report concerns about the safety of a child, but not concerns arising from talking PANTS?

Please read our review of the April 2016 article by Professor Ben Mathews entitled – Impact of new mandatory reporting law on reporting and identification of child sexual abuse: A seven year time trend analysis. The empirical evidence contradicts the NSPCC.

102, 2016

Mandate Now: Putting the spotlight on UK child abuse

February 1st, 2016|

1901, 2016

Mandatory Reporting of Child Abuse: Malcolm Underhill Speaks to Tom Perry of Mandate Now

January 19th, 2016|

903, 2015

Regulated Activities are petri dishes for abuse – Mandate Now on preventing child abuse scandals

March 9th, 2015|

103, 2015

Child abuse needs mandatory reporting to create a high-risk environment for paedophiles: Independent March 2015

March 1st, 2015|


Independent article 010315



The article is available here