[Politics] Labour Party meltdown incoming.......

[n1 gull]

This is horrific, setting aside party politics there has been some severe corruption by authorities in those towns and those involved, Police, government workers & Councillors need to bee bought to justice

Agree This is so much bigger than petty partisan politics. It’s an absolute disgrace there isn’t a public enquiry that forces people to give evidence

 

[Chicken Run]

It’s an absolute disgrace there isn’t a public enquiry that forces people to give evidence

Me thinks that certain people will want this to go away as it has far reaching ramifications that would shake this country’s fabric to the core

Put it this way, it would make the Oost Office scandal look tame by comparison

 

[WATFORD zero]

This is horrific, setting aside party politics there has been some severe corruption by authorities in those towns and those involved, Police, government workers & Councillors need to bee bought to justice

Before you get too outraged, see if you can find the minister's response to that question. It was in the house of parliament so it should be widely available in today's online age shouldn't it. Maybe once you've heard it, you could post it here, and then we've heard both sides, we can consider and discuss it, before we go off on one.

Good luck

 

[PascalGroß Tips]

Before you get too outraged, see if you can find the minister's response to that question. It was in the house of parliament so it should be widely available in today's online age shouldn't it. Maybe once you've heard it, you could post it here, and then we've heard both sides, we can consider and discuss it, before we go off on one.

Good luck

This is on the thread on 'X'

 

[Is it PotG?]

Before you get too outraged, see if you can find the minister's response to that question. It was in the house of parliament so it should be widely available in today's online age shouldn't it. Maybe once you've heard it, you could post it here, and then we've heard both sides, we can consider and discuss it, before we go off on one.

Good luck

Why be so patronising?

Enlighten us.

 

[Chicken Run]

Why be so patronising?

Enlighten us.

Come on he’s the most patronising member of this forum, forever trying to be popular amongst his peers, you must know that by now

 

[n1 gull]

Before you get too outraged, see if you can find the minister's response to that question. It was in the house of parliament so it should be widely available in today's online age shouldn't it. Maybe once you've heard it, you could post it here, and then we've heard both sides, we can consider and discuss it, before we go off on one.

Good luck

You sound like such a dick

 

[Greenbag50]

You sound like such a dick

He’s obviously ok with the response and prefers this not to a statutory investigation, and ok for councils to just apply if they want some funding for a quick chat and to be thrown into long grass….

 

[Mellor 3 Ward 4]

Before you get too outraged, see if you can find the minister's response to that question. It was in the house of parliament so it should be widely available in today's online age shouldn't it. Maybe once you've heard it, you could post it here, and then we've heard both sides, we can consider and discuss it, before we go off on one.

Good luck

Strange and very patronising response.

Do you think it right that enquiries are dropped?

Oops, almost forgot (yet another) patronising emoji

 

[WATFORD zero]

Why be so patronising?

Enlighten us.

Come on he’s the most patronising member of this forum, forever trying to be popular amongst his peers, you must know that by now

You sound like such a dick

He’s obviously ok with the response and prefers this not to a statutory investigation, and ok for councils to just apply if they want some funding for a quick chat and to be thrown into long grass….

Strange and very patronising response.

Do you think it right that enquiries are dropped?

Oops, almost forgot (yet another) patronising emoji

If you don't have any comments on the actual response there's always the other option

 

[Chicken Run]

Strange and very patronising response.

Do you think it right that enquiries are dropped?

Oops, almost forgot (yet another) patronising emoji

The response he seems to be interested in here is completely irrelevant, the British public are interested in what Phillips is going to do about it, not waffle about what the last lot did ffs

 

[WATFORD zero]

The response he seems to be interested in here is completely irrelevant, the British public are interested in what Phillips is going to do about it, not waffle about what the last lot did ffs

She is implementing the recommendations of the enquiry which ran from 2015-2022, if the British Public are interested maybe they should read this

https://www.gov.uk/government/publi...quiry-into-child-sexual-abuse-recommendations

 

[n1 gull]

She is implementing the recommendations of the enquiry which ran from 2015-2022, maybe the British Public should read this

https://www.gov.uk/government/publi...quiry-into-child-sexual-abuse-recommendations

That enquiry does not force anyone to give evidence

You don't care about the girls that got raped

You care about the Labour party and scoring political points

It's a national disgrace and you are a pratt

 

[Chicken Run]

That enquiry does not force anyone to give evidence

You don't care about the girls that got raped

You care about the Labour party and scoring political points

It's a national disgrace and you are a pratt

Tbf a good acquaintance of mine knows him and believe or not told me, off NSC he’s actually alright

 

[WATFORD zero]

Tbf a good acquaintance of mine knows him and believe or not told me, off NSC he’s actually alright

You have a friend in real life who knows me ? I can't believe that (either part of it) because if you did, I'm sure they would have told you that I am absolutely charming in real life, not merely 'alright'

 

[SouthSaxon]

That enquiry does not force anyone to give evidence

You don't care about the girls that got raped

You care about the Labour party and scoring political points

It's a national disgrace and you are a pratt

People on this thread are fighting like rats in a sack, calling people names, about one of the biggest societal problems we face and something that everyone with a shred of decency should be united about. Have a word with yourselves.

Professor Alexis Jay, who lead IICSA, has also said publicly that further inquiries are not needed because those we've already had have shown what needs to be done. Are you suggesting that one of Britain's foremost investigators of child sexual abuse also doesn't care about the survivors?

The desire to see "heads on pikes" is completely understandable, and I feel the same way. The cold reality is that there is truth in both positions, but also a big elephant in the room. I think we would agree on both of these statements:

National disgrace 1:
There lack of progress on implementing IICSA recommendations means more children have been abused since that inquiry concluded and more will be in future. Labour’s commitment and ongoing effort to implement them is welcome.

National disgrace 2:
The actions of people who had opportunities to protect the abused, and instead protected the abusers and themselves, have not been scrutinised enough. Labour’s avoidance of further inquiries perpetuates this problem.

There are two camps here, of those who want to prioritise:

1. Justice for survivors by pursuing those who engaged in cover-ups or who did nothing.
2. Action to prevent more children from being abused in future, through changes to the law

These are not mutually exclusive positions - you're arguing about two parts of the same problem.

But there's also a group that is using this to 1) score opportunistic points about immigration - it was very clear that the desire is to investigate non-white grooming gangs only - and 2) protect elements of the establishment that are complicit and culpable, which includes some of their own.

A lot of child abuse in this country happens within institutional settings - religions, scouting groups, sports clubs etc. One of the current scandals that doesn't involve immigrants is that senior members of the Church of England, including the most senior, had full knowledge that abuse was occurring inside the church but didn't report it to police. Rather than shop their colleagues/friends, they would instead transfer the accused abuser from one diocese to another and the cycle would begin again.

One of the key recommendations of IICSA was to bring in a law that makes failure to report a criminal offence. This legislation is currently going through parliament, as Labour promised it would when this all came to national prominence in January.

These are the key points:

• Government inquiries "cannot determine criminal or civil guilt – a function reserved for the courts" (link to source). They might lead to subsequent prosecutions, but this will not happen at the same time. The most that results from inquiry alone is public condemnation and reputational damage. That's not nothing, but I doubt the victims would call it justice either.
• If Labour announced today that it was setting up another national inquiry, it would face immediate demands from this (very influential) third group to pause all work on implementing the existing recommendations. That would be for the duration of the inquiry, which would take years. Look at how long police forces have been able to drag out justice for Hillsbrough victims. During that time, many more children will be abused because the protections they need are not in place.

To an extent, Labour is damned if they do, damned if they don't.

I'm not a legal expert by any means, but I'd guess that the same lack of legal protections make it much harder for historical failures to be held to account. Take football's own scandal that centred on Barry Bennell. He was convicted, along with 13 other abusers. There were no charges brought against anyone for enabling their abuse to go unchallenged for so many years. Don't tell me nobody connected with those individuals and their clubs knew anything. Civil cases were brought against 8 clubs by survivors - some settled out of court, but I can't find details of any being found liable that did go to court.

What I also know, because someone very important to me is a survivor who has participated in IICSA and various forms of campaigning, is that this is a global problem, not a uniquely British one. The institution that protected their abuser is global and has been very successful at evading attempts to hold it to account for their many failures all over the world.

Therefore, my position on this is: while it's enraging that people who covered up abuse or failed to investigate it properly have not been held to account, there's a greater chance of progress and, therefore, protecting children in the future, via the route Labour is taking.

 

[n1 gull]

We need a public enquiry so the victims can tell their story

We can learn and not let it happen again

And yes make people accountable

Why anyone would be against this is beyond me unless they have something to hide

 

[SouthSaxon]

We need a public enquiry so the victims can tell their story

Many survivors told their story at the 7-year IICSA. I know or have met several who did. The website with some of those stories is freely available.

We can learn and not let it happen again

That’s what the IICSA was for. It produced nearly 20 reports and many recommendations, which the last government hadn’t acted on.

And yes make people accountable

Which requires a change in the laws and introduction of new criminal offences, which is already in progress.

Why anyone would be against this is beyond me unless they have something to hide

As per my post above, there’s a way in which further inquiries help some of the people with something to hide.

Government inquiries have a long history of being used to kick things into the long grass. I am against people being allowed to do that, especially when it might lead to more abuse of innocent children.

 

[BadFish]

People on this thread are fighting like rats in a sack, calling people names, about one of the biggest societal problems we face and something that everyone with a shred of decency should be united about. Have a word with yourselves.

Professor Alexis Jay, who lead IICSA, has also said publicly that further inquiries are not needed because those we've already had have shown what needs to be done. Are you suggesting that one of Britain's foremost investigators of child sexual abuse also doesn't care about the survivors?

The desire to see "heads on pikes" is completely understandable, and I feel the same way. The cold reality is that there is truth in both positions, but also a big elephant in the room. I think we would agree on both of these statements:

National disgrace 1:
There lack of progress on implementing IICSA recommendations means more children have been abused since that inquiry concluded and more will be in future. Labour’s commitment and ongoing effort to implement them is welcome.

National disgrace 2:
The actions of people who had opportunities to protect the abused, and instead protected the abusers and themselves, have not been scrutinised enough. Labour’s avoidance of further inquiries perpetuates this problem.

There are two camps here, of those who want to prioritise:

1. Justice for survivors by pursuing those who engaged in cover-ups or who did nothing.
2. Action to prevent more children from being abused in future, through changes to the law

These are not mutually exclusive positions - you're arguing about two parts of the same problem.

But there's also a group that is using this to 1) score opportunistic points about immigration - it was very clear that the desire is to investigate non-white grooming gangs only - and 2) protect elements of the establishment that are complicit and culpable, which includes some of their own.

A lot of child abuse in this country happens within institutional settings - religions, scouting groups, sports clubs etc. One of the current scandals that doesn't involve immigrants is that senior members of the Church of England, including the most senior, had full knowledge that abuse was occurring inside the church but didn't report it to police. Rather than shop their colleagues/friends, they would instead transfer the accused abuser from one diocese to another and the cycle would begin again.

One of the key recommendations of IICSA was to bring in a law that makes failure to report a criminal offence. This legislation is currently going through parliament, as Labour promised it would when this all came to national prominence in January.

These are the key points:

• Government inquiries "cannot determine criminal or civil guilt – a function reserved for the courts" (link to source). They might lead to subsequent prosecutions, but this will not happen at the same time. The most that results from inquiry alone is public condemnation and reputational damage. That's not nothing, but I doubt the victims would call it justice either.
• If Labour announced today that it was setting up another national inquiry, it would face immediate demands from this (very influential) third group to pause all work on implementing the existing recommendations. That would be for the duration of the inquiry, which would take years. Look at how long police forces have been able to drag out justice for Hillsbrough victims. During that time, many more children will be abused because the protections they need are not in place.

To an extent, Labour is damned if they do, damned if they don't.

I'm not a legal expert by any means, but I'd guess that the same lack of legal protections make it much harder for historical failures to be held to account. Take football's own scandal that centred on Barry Bennell. He was convicted, along with 13 other abusers. There were no charges brought against anyone for enabling their abuse to go unchallenged for so many years. Don't tell me nobody connected with those individuals and their clubs knew anything. Civil cases were brought against 8 clubs by survivors - some settled out of court, but I can't find details of any being found liable that did go to court.

What I also know, because someone very important to me is a survivor who has participated in IICSA and various forms of campaigning, is that this is a global problem, not a uniquely British one. The institution that protected their abuser is global and has been very successful at evading attempts to hold it to account for their many failures all over the world.

Therefore, my position on this is: while it's enraging that people who covered up abuse or failed to investigate it properly have not been held to account, there's a greater chance of progress and, therefore, protecting children in the future, via the route Labour is taking.

Brilliant post that accurately and clearly describes why a further inquiry is inappropriate at this stage.

I would like to see an investigation into those that covered up or failed to report.

 

[SouthSaxon]

Brilliant post that accurately and clearly describes why a further inquiry is inappropriate at this stage.

Thanks.

I would like to see an investigation into those that covered up or failed to report.

As would we all. However, until there is a legal obligation to report, I’m not sure what anyone could be charged with that would realistically result in a conviction.

As I understand it (happy to be corrected) existing UK law covers interfering with current investigations, not a failure to report something which would trigger one.

The Crime & Policing bill, currently in committee stage, introduces mandated reporting of child abuse. This means that failure to report becomes a prosecutable crime.