1912, 2016

Key Speeches from HoL Debate 15.12.16 : Allegations of child sexual abuse within football clubs

December 19th, 2016|

On the same day as the debate in the House of Lords, Mandate Now issued a press release under the headline ‘Confused Football Association safeguarding policy fails children‘ in which we reviewed the current child protection policy operating at the grassroots of football. Disturbingly the policy was endorsed by the Child Protection Sport Unit of the NSPCC despite it mistakenly claiming law exists to report abuse. A summary of the errors in the policy are available here.

Well meaning employees working in Regulated Activities who have responsibility for children in their care are being failed by a dysfunctional child protection framework, the legal foundation of which has always lacked law to report. It is still discretionary for an employee of a Regulated Activity to report suspected or known child abuse. In the event someone decides to report, they have the dilute Public Interest Disclosure Act to provide nominal protection. (more…)

1512, 2016

Confused Football Association safeguarding policy fails children

December 15th, 2016|

Press Release

FA ‘Grassroots Football Safeguarding Children’ Policy

With this much confusion in the FA’s approach to child protection, it will be no surprise to discover that much abuse in football continues to go unreported.” says Tom Perry of Mandate Now, the pressure group which leads the agenda for the introduction of Mandatory Reporting of known and suspected abuse in ‘Regulated Activities’ including sport.

In advance of today’s debate in the House of Lords ‘Allegations of Child Sexual Abuse within football clubs’ Lord Addington (Estimated start 14.00), Mandate Now has reviewed the FA’s ‘Grassroots Football Safeguarding Children Policy’ and in addition the child protection template for club usage.

Our detailed summary of both is here  (more…)

512, 2016

Labour Party Submission to MRconsult. Good Objectives but Muddled Thinking

December 5th, 2016|

During the week commencing 7th November, the Labour Party submitted its proposals  to the Government Consultation titled : Reporting and acting on child abuse and neglect. In the 2015 Labour manifesto it said :

lab-manifesto-mr-3

Here is our review of it. Our observations are indented in italics between the body of Labour’s submission. (more…)

411, 2016

Government Secures NSPCC Support for Child Protection Proposal Designed to Fail

November 4th, 2016|

Mandate Now review of NSPCC Submission to the consultation: Reporting and Acting on Child Abuse and Neglect, which closed on 13 Oct 2016 :

Mandate Now review comments are italicised.

Conclusion 

The submission appears to have more to do with the relationship the NSPCC has with Government than it does with the effective protection of children by Regulated Activities. Its support for the Government’s preferred option of ‘Duty to Act,’ which relabels the status quo with the prime objective of keeping any increase in referrals to a minimum, indicates the charity’s strapline ‘every childhood is worth fighting for’ is in doubt.  

(more…)

610, 2016

Mandate Now Submission to Consultation: Reporting and Acting on Child Abuse and Neglect

October 6th, 2016|

The Mandate Now submission is here

Within our submission we have reviewed the two Government proposals. Neither provide a framework on which reliable child protection can be delivered by those employed in Regulated Activities. Government is promoting positions close to the status quo that prompted the Home Secretary, now Prime Minister, to initiate the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse. Lessons are not being learned.  

The consultation closed at noon on 13th October 2016.

Updated 17.3.17

210, 2016

MN Response to Option 3 of MR Consult: Duty to Act in relation to child abuse and neglect

October 2nd, 2016|

Option 3 Conclusion : Mandate Now rejects the proposal.

The proposal requires no one to report anything because there is no legal mandate to report. No one is protected if they do report a concern because the report remains discretionary since the required action under the duty is unspecified.  If they don’t act in a way they should have acted,  and with the benefit of hindsight and possibly years later,  the failure to act ‘could’ be criminalised.   (more…)