Child Sex Abuse Inquiry: Survivors should unite not fight

David Hencke

The future of the current child sex abuse inquiry reaches a  ” make or break ” moment this Wednesday. On that day it will either be wound up or reinvented.

What has particularly depressed me about the whole business is the way it has been handled. The Home Office, in particular, has not covered itself in glory – recommending two chairs that had to resign – and with a new chair still to be appointed months after the inquiry was originally set up.

What started with great hopes when seven MPs of opposing parties got together to ask Theresa May, the home secretary, to set this up has ended in despair with people quarrelling with each other on-line, demanding resignations  of panel members and refusing to co-operate or attend listening events.

I don’t think people realise what a mean feat it is – thanks to the open-mindedness of Tory Mp, Zac Goldsmith-…

View original post 613 more words

Advertisements

11 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

11 responses to “Child Sex Abuse Inquiry: Survivors should unite not fight

  1. colette sherratt

    Sent from my ASUS

  2. artmanjosephgrech

    Whatever the Coalition government decides the consultations meetings which commenced in December are to continue with that in Newcastle on January 30th confirmed

  3. Andy Barnett

    Should we not also consider the *possibility* that one or more of the protagonists is deliberately working to stir up infighting between campaigners, so as to undermine the campaign and hence the inquiry? Such tactics are hardly unheard of. I certainly won’t be suggesting names, but at least one has sent me DMs making allegations against key, long-term supporters of this campaign, leading me to seriously wonder about their own aims and intentions.

    Perhaps the Baroness BS had a point when she warned of the dangers of putting survivors in control of the inquiry. As laudible as it seems, how do we decide which particular survivors to follow and how do we protect against wolves in sheep’s clothing? And maybe we do need someone in charge that understands how the establishment operates and the sort of dirty tricks to look out for?

  4. dpack

    i am fortunate to not be a survivor ,im just a concerned citizen .
    imho to chair a hearing or deal with tricky arrogant scumbags isnt that hard if one has the real powers to do what is required .

    what is needed in a chair is somebody who wants truth and is not easily distracted by bribes ,threats,confusions or lies.

    i recon an inquiry might add to truth but im open to persuasion that other means might be more effective.

  5. godhelpus

    Does anyone have any ideas? on Who Could chair and be Confident/ Honest enough to do the Job properly? Not so difficult you would Think?…….Such a fiasco and will continue to be so, what a sorry state of affairs. It’s a New Year but looks like the same old same, not for the lack of decent people doing their up most to get this investigation started.

  6. david lambert

    the thing is none of us trust the authorities, when we originally went to the police they laughed at us and since then several who have spoken out have gone missing. jimmy savile himself told several boys from our orphanage that mossad would come and eliminate them. we were 10 years old we did not know what mossad and eliminate meant, but we understood it was a threat. no many of us will never speak openly about what was done to us
    i later became a rent boy because its all i knew and had been taught

  7. dpack

    i recon a good chair person is easier to find than it is to find the means to provide the power to hold a proper inquiry and the power to act upon the truths that will emerge .

    • Mia

      Maybe co-chairs. Most important would be full disclosure with power to call people who ever they are. Not surprising it might get dropped as the election is soon and if you read the Mirror on Sunday some MPs might want to lose themselves on the campaign trail. This would seem like a distraction and might lose votes.

  8. For an untainted, trustworthy chair with judicial expertise and understanding of the British legal system, the UK Govt should consider someone like this: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silvia_Cartwright

  9. GMB

    Survivors need to be careful who they put their trust in.

  10. dpack

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/11343120/David-Cameron-personally-orders-Tories-to-open-Whips-dirt-books-to-child-abuse-investigators.html

    a slight aside from choice of chair but very relevant to trust in the state investigating itself

    how many shredders have needed replacement over the last couple of years?
    a secondary point is the most damaging admissions to a whip might never be put on paper or have generated a paper trail whilst being “dealt with”,it might be sufficient that the whip is assumed to have kept evidence by a wrong un mp in order for them to vote as required when a whips direction is issued to all mp’s the ones who are “owned”will always do as required just in case it isnt a bluff and the evidence against them has been retained with the details being passed to each successive whip.
    there would be no need to keep proof of misdeeds the fact that the mp knows they were saved is enough ,it does not even require a new whip to be briefed as to which mp’s were saved as a general instruction to all will be followed by those who think they were saved and could be exposed .

    the problem with a successful cover up and subsequent blackmail is that if it was intended to clean the slate and leave no traces it would be conducted in a way that it removes evidence rather than creates more.