BBC Radio 4 this morning mentioned that as the second meeting between survivors of child sexual abuse and the current Child Abuse Inquiry Panel (minus a Chair) takes place today, a call from Survivors to scrap the entire panel and start again may well cause the discussions to come to a head.
The call comes after the Inquiry’s abysmal track record with its Chairs having to step down and what is being perceived as a less than transparent election process used to choose panel members. And although a small minority of the members have been affected by abuse, only Graham Wilmer’s experience is similar to the kind of abuse being examined in this inquiry – a fact the media have not yet picked up on (presumably they have not read the Letters to the Home Secretary yet).
Quite understandably, survivors of child sexual abuse want to see the whole panel scrapped, and a public consultation process put in place to field suggestions as to who should sit on the Inquiry Panel.
For what it’s worth, we think the panel should have at least a significant minority of survivors on the panel. Without them, the Inquiry is doomed to be nothing more than a PR stunt.
Good luck today, Survivors.
(If you want to learn more about this inquiry and child abuse inquiries generally, check ou the BBC website)
Researching Reform 
Child abuse
is like being run over.
—
you don’t know
what it’s like
unless it happens to
you.
…………
So, how wise is a panel
who have little real cognizance of the problem ?
LikeLike
Well, that’s just it. The trouble is, you need a balance. Survivors are usually very upset (which is completely understandable), but that can cause problems when you’re trying to mount a full scale investigation. So you need a mix of people who have experienced the phenomenon being examined, and people who can take the victims’ cues, get the evidence and also contain everyone so the inquiry doesn’t lose focus or momentum. The other problem of course, relates to the motives of each panel member and how much those containing the victims are doing so for the good of the cause or the good of the establishment. Which means both victims and non victims on a panel have to be truly independent, and the only way to do that is with a full scale and transparent election process, I think.
LikeLike
Reblogged this on World4Justice : NOW! Lobby Forum..
LikeLike
Natasha, eloquently put.
You have also unintenionally given the reason why the family court doesn’t work for families! Too much bias against families and too much covering the backs of those in this money making industry that fails to protect children, that are obviously in need of protection and yet takes those considered easy pickings that then become at risk of abuse merely because they are in state care!
LikeLike
Thanks D. Yes, bias is a big problem. Just heard on the radio that the survivors are also now asking for an increase in the remit and powers of the inquiry and have questioned the election of two of the panel members who they say were elected by MPs, which could be seen to be prejudicial. All very interesting.
LikeLike
The remit of the current inquiry is castrated by words from the start, as they always are in this country. “Investigating failings” is not the same as providing specific details on what was done and who did it. It’s only about what or what was not done about it, which we already know the answer to.
LikeLike
I am reminded of the quote from Albert Einstein,
You cannot solve your problems with the same mind that created them.
LikeLike