An invitation was extended to Mandate Now to attend a meeting in the Oval with the Home Secretary. An agenda was hastily assembled among the attendees and voted on by the group. Changing the inquiry's status to statutory was unanimously agreed. Why? Disclosure
In her statement to the House on 4.2.15 the Home Secretary conferred statutory status on the inquiry. hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2015-0… Quite why it was ever started as a panel Inquiry one has to wonder. As we know, further disruptions happened but the #IICSAfinalreport arrives tomorrow
The #iicsabigticket recommendation is the mandatory reporting of known and suspected child sexual abuse. There is a live PMB in parliament seeking it which uses our model. bills.parliament.uk/bills/3328
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
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.
@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
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