Welcome to the week.
With the recent revelation that the Statutory Inquiry Into Child Sexual Abuse may take 8 years to complete, many have started to question the Inquiry’s intentions as a result. Some victims and survivors have responded to the news with anger, accusing the Inquiry of foul play, that justice delayed is justice denied. Others have defended the Inquiry, taking the view that the time line is an estimate and is an indication of the Inquiry’s earnest desire to hear all victims of abuse who wish to come forward.
Our question to you then, is just this: do you think an extended Inquiry, regardless of the reasons behind an extended investigation, can offer survivors the redress they seek?
Researching Reform 
Reblogged this on World4Justice : NOW! Lobby Forum..
LikeLike
No because the majority of activists did not do not understand what any Inquiry can do. Given the terms of reference and statutory nature I have always anticipated two full Parliaments
LikeLike
I believe the inquiry could be completed in a shorter time span than 8 years. They should put more manpower on it if necessary. Victims should not have to wait for justice any more than they have to. They need closure to get on with their lives.
LikeLike
That would be a good solution. They also need to streamline the whole process so that victims and survivors can get police action fast and get their abusers into court before they die…. then the Inquiry can focus on collecting that data and incorporating it into a definitive critique of child abuse in practice and deal with any residual matters like state negligence and genuine improvements going forward.
LikeLike
Agreed Natasha, They have had enough practise, with all the investigations they have done and are still doing.
LikeLiked by 1 person
8 years to investigate child abuse of years gone by, that all over and done, they can then start the next 8 years debating of the kids being abused now in care, so 16 years gone by and it will continue and continue as it has for 100s of years, they have the bloody answers how to protect kids but only listen to the social workers, court experts and as for cafcass well they all need locking up, the judges what do they know OH yes money and falling asleep in the case, we cannot save every kid but there are many kids we could save if grandparents were given rights and the family courts were to close down, one grandmother was accussed of being abusive and the child was taken into care, and the word of the S/W was gospal and yet the headmaster of the school gave a report of truth so 2 different statements not even questioned the judge did not even bother to question 2 different statements of the day and for this another child sent to be abused, children and families need the crimanal courts and lawyers who will stand up and question, but then the whole system is so corrupt. But then if the family courts were to shut down think of how many people would become unemployed so of course they cannot close them, it is all “In a child’s best interest” to keep millions of people employed. same as it will be for the next 8 years debates and dabtes money and money all “In a child’s best interest” and the kids continue to be abused, poor little things all Screaming to be heard the silent witnesses and here lies the truth, but who listens to them 8 years my god what planet do the do-gooders live on OH yes their own.
LikeLike
Yes Maggie, whilst there are a few pockets of good successful family work trials going on in various parts of the country that have kept the child with their family it doesn’t address what is happening mainstream. Since mainstream policies are clearly not working for the families and outcomes for the children are poor, you would have thought they get a move on and change policy. As Natasha would say chop chop!
As a first step the government needs to get rid of the forced adoption policy!
Secord, early intervention.
Third, stop kids going into care, work with the families not the courts!
Fourth, don’t oust extended families as kin carers. That’s just lazy social work!
Fifth, if there is really no alternative and the kids have to go into care they should have regular contact with their families.
Sixth, kids in care should be returned to families where possible.
Chop chop Cameron! He wanted to be the “family” party, well, now is his chance to prove it!
LikeLike
Hi Dana, Cameron wanted the family party YES to find his own kids when he forgets he has lost one, as for the plebs kids he needs them kids lost in the system to create the millions of job and to contorle the population from the young to the old, but then he is only a front man, look at Tony Blair how did he become a president when he was penniless charged with a????? in a loo set the target for adoptions you name he did it and was he for the family party none of them in governments are, just all front men. Same as a certain president do you really think America would allow a black guy to be a president and tell the Americans what they can and cannot do NO he is just another front guy. I tell you i am sick and tired of the so called polititions who rule us from birth to the grave.
LikeLike
No, I think the scope has now become too big and should be concentrating on the Westminster inquiry. Anything that leads on from this should the be investigated separately.
I feel it has been deliberately delayed to allow those that walk the corridors of power to die off (or their victims!) or retire from public view and scrutiny.
LikeLike
I agree Teri, the principals of cleaning should be applied to clean up Westminster, start from the top and work your way down!
LikeLike