@GympalGB@uk_sport@Sport_England@DCMS@CommonsDCMS@InquiryCSA the very organisations under whose umbrellas the alleged and discovered abuses were committed. The last sports review on which we recently tweeted is here and note who RT'd it. This was also commissioned by @DCMS which hoofed it into the long-grass /2
@GympalGB@uk_sport@Sport_England@DCMS@CommonsDCMS@InquiryCSA Whyte's date band (para #5 ToR) is v. limited, as though there’s nothing to learn outside the dates despite the non-existent legislative underpinning for reporting abuse remaining unchanged for >70 yrs. It's still a discretionary expectation that reports *should* be made which /3
@GympalGB@uk_sport@Sport_England@DCMS@CommonsDCMS@InquiryCSA simply makes reliable and consistent safeguarding unattainable. Para #7 provides a 'discretionary' possibility for the reviewer to consider matters outside the time period. Fundamentally, the ToR's indicate the review is into whether safeguarding *expectations* i.e. ink on /4
@GympalGB@uk_sport@Sport_England@DCMS@CommonsDCMS@InquiryCSA paper plus unaccredited Sg training absent of statutory legislation, have been delivered by these settings in which children are placed in the personal care of adults other than their parents. It’ll generate many words but few changes on which functioning safeguarding can be /5
@GympalGB@uk_sport@Sport_England@DCMS@CommonsDCMS@InquiryCSA belatedly built. Para 4 (b) (ii) is an over ask even for a QC because the ToR’s exclude any mention of an examination into the extent to which the statutory framework has facilitated or inhibited staff to make known/suspected child abuse referrals to the authorities. To assume /6
@GympalGB@uk_sport@Sport_England@DCMS@CommonsDCMS@InquiryCSA Here's an extract from our second submission to IICSA in advance of #MR seminars. Some others recognise the dysfunction that exists in EW. The framework in Sco is a clone. The organisations that commissioned this *review* have remained silent about the #bagofbits but have they /9
@GympalGB@uk_sport@Sport_England@DCMS@CommonsDCMS@InquiryCSA recognised it? Not doing so is unimaginable and if they have, what representations have they made to DCMS for a functioning framework that enables their umbrella orgs to deliver safeguarding on which reliance can be placed? You can see our submission to Reporting and Acting /10
@GympalGB@uk_sport@Sport_England@DCMS@CommonsDCMS@InquiryCSA Should you decide to read our submission you will recognise the extract below. The last three signatories are academics that have significant involvement in athlete welfare and safeguarding. /End
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Along with the non-mandatory "mandatory reporting" measure the government introduced today, it also introduced an offence of "preventing or deterring a person from complying with duty to report child sex offences".
A 🧵
This is completely backwards. It's not an offence to fail to report child sex abuse but it is an offence to discourage someone else from reporting. I mean, how mad is this?
This is obviously the bit they want to bring forward to show how performatively tough they are. You can always tell by the size of the sentences they wave around to display their manhood. In this case 7 years maximum.
This is the key measure. It is framed as a "duty". But there is no offence of failing in that duty. There is no criminal or other sanction for failing to report suspected child sex abuse.
This is not mandatory reporting, it is just expressing the status quo in new words.
1/ #MR of #CSA exists in most jurisdictions in the rest of the world. Empirical evidence and data demonstrate it's a vital component of significantly improved safeguarding in complex institutional settings. So why do Eng + Wal not have it?
2/ The short answer is that the safeguarding framework, as created by the Dept of Education, is dominated by 'neglect' in the family. It is then panel beaten into a framework that is misapplied to complex institutional settings which have entirely different demands.
Fiona Scolding QC asked about paragraph 31 of Baumgarten's statement. Can you spot an answer her question?
"People in positions where disclosure is mandatory ..." - could you tell me what you mean by that? Clearly Baumgarten is oceanically unfamiliar with the subject /2
Para 31 from his statement is below together with footnote 21. It asserts 'mandatory disclosure' exists. But it doesn't except for FGM. Baumgarten swerves away from the subject as the transcript demonstrates and is not again taken back to the question. /3