• About
    • Privacy Policy
  • GSW
  • Guide To Making A Subject Access Request
  • In Dad’s Shoes
    • An Overview
    • Invitation
    • Media
    • Photos
    • Press Release
    • Soft Launch
    • Speeches
    • Summary
  • Media Coverage
  • Parliamentary Debates
  • Voice of the Child Podcasts

Researching Reform

Researching Reform

Monthly Archives: December 2016

Feel Good Resolutions For 2017

31 Saturday Dec 2016

Posted by Natasha in Articles, Researching Reform

≈ 2 Comments

We were going to leave you all in peace over the holidays but a friend and colleague sent us an excellent article he wrote on resolutions, and we think it makes the perfect read for New Year’s Eve.

Jim Duzak, better know in America as The Attorney At Love, is an author and family lawyer who blends a highly professional legal practice with unique insight. His New Year’s Resolutions are not what you’d expect, and we think you’ll find his perspective refreshing and intelligent:

                Five Feel-Good Resolutions for the New Year

                By Jim Duzak

Being good to yourself is not the same as being selfish. In fact, it’s just the opposite. Your relationship with yourself is the source of all your other relationships, and if it’s not constantly tended to you’ll eventually have nothing to give to the people you care the most about.

With that in mind, let’s talk about New Year’s resolutions. I’ve got nothing against goal-setting and self-improvement, but all too often our resolutions seem like an exercise in self-flagellation or even self-loathing. “No more desserts.” “Stop snacking at work.” “Drop three sizes by summer.” The premise is that we’ve been bad and we have to start being good, and that to be good we have to give up the things we love.

Most such resolutions are soon abandoned, with good reason. Why should any sensible person whip herself incessantly for no greater sin than simply being human?

To be human is to enjoy food, drink, and other pleasures that make us happy and give us reasons to live. Of course, there is such a thing as overindulgence, but the kind of person who makes resolutions is not the kind of person who drinks vodka from morning to night, or eats three dozen cookies a day. The kind of person who makes resolutions feels guilty because she’s not perfect. Perfection may be something to strive for in a spiritual sense, but it shouldn’t be the measure of our self-worth.

So, with no further ado, here are my five feel-good resolutions, resolutions you can actually keep and which will enhance your relationship with yourself in the new year and beyond.

Resolution Number One is: Drink More. OK, this doesn’t apply to recovering alcoholics. But if you’ve never had a problem controlling your alcohol consumption, your life would improve if you enjoyed an extra glass of wine a couple of times a week. But I really mean enjoy. Savor the wine, sip it slowly, feel it relax your body and renew your spirit. If you still feel a bit guilty, just call it “mindful drinking.”

Resolution Number Two is: Exercise More. Wait; didn’t I just say no self-flagellation? I did, but exercise doesn’t have to be punishment. Nor does exercise have to be merely a means to an end, if by end you mean losing weight. Enjoy exercise for its own sake. Feel how energizing it is to breathe fresh air on an early morning walk, or to stretch your arm and shoulder muscles for five minutes, or to dance deliriously to a Donna Summer song when no one’s home but you. If you lose a few pounds, fine, but don’t measure your progress by that. In fact, don’t think in terms of “progress” at all. Live in the moment, however briefly it may last.

Resolution Number Three is: Maximize the Time You Spend with Fun People. My guess is you know someone who makes you smile just by hearing their name. If you’re lucky, you know several people like that, people who are warm, humorous, upbeat, and life-affirming. Do everything you can to see those people early and often this coming year, or at least stay in touch with them. They’re helping to keep you alive.

Resolution Number Four is the flip side of Number Three: To the extent possible, Avoid People Who Suck the Air out of the Room, and Who Suck the Life out of You. Just as there are people who make me smile when I hear their names, there are people who make me want to drive my car off a cliff rather than spend time with them. Unfortunately, there’s someone like that in every family and every office, so it’s impossible to avoid them altogether. But it’s vital to your emotional health that you keep your interaction with such people to a minimum.

Resolution Number Five is: Try Something New and Different Every Day. We all get into ruts. We tend to watch the same TV shows, read the same magazines, visit the same websites, talk about the same subjects….There’s nothing wrong with doing things you love, but if you’re doing them solely out of habit you should shake things up a little. Instead of going to the same restaurant, try one you’ve never been to. Instead of socializing with the same couples all the time, invite a single friend over for dinner. When you were younger, you were open to different perspectives, different experiences, different people. You can’t turn the clock back, but you can feel a lot younger just by being open to possibility.

I was going to add as a sixth feel-good resolution: Have More Sex. But if you follow the other five resolutions, the sex should take care of itself. If you’re unstressed, energetic, intellectually adventurous, and not constantly down on yourself, you’re probably going to feel sexually alive as well, and other people will recognize that in you.

So, ditch the “thou shalt not” resolutions of the past, and let this be the year you start having fun again, and start getting in touch with your truest and best self.

Wishing you all a wonderful New Year’s Eve, and a very Happy New Year.

aal

Share this:

  • WhatsApp
  • Pocket
  • Telegram
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Email
  • Print

Like this:

Like Loading...

Merry Christmas From Researching Reform

24 Saturday Dec 2016

Posted by Natasha in Researching Reform

≈ 2 Comments

Another year’s flown by here at Researching Reform, and as always we would like to wish you a very merry Christmas and a wonderful holiday which we hope will be filled with family, friends and good food.

As is the tradition, we’re offering you lots of festive cheer in the form of slightly left field articles, songs and other alternative seasonal stuff. Post your complaints below, just remember, Santa’s still checking his list…

Merry Xmas RR.gif

If you’ve got smarty pants for children or will find yourself in contact with some over the holidays, be sure to read this article telling you exactly how Father Christmas manages to fly around the world delivering presents in just one night – and it’s all backed up by science.

We like our Christmas songs but there are some that we think should be banned from public spaces. (Fairy Tale Of New York is one – any person caught mentioning it in a positive light on this post will face the consequences). So, onto some of the better tunes:

  • We like a mischievous reindeer, and we love Chuck. This one’s a no brainer.
  • Possibly the best cover of this song, ever.
  • Santa’s got soul, it’s official.
  • This one’s allowed, and…
  • For the cool cats. 

If you like your Christmas full on, check out the Christmas Channel on YouTube – you can listen to every conceivable yuletide song, its cover and its remix….

For anyone who likes espionage, and we love it, follow Santa Claus around as he travels the world delivering presents – he’s in Thailand as we type…

(PS You won’t be the only one tracking his movements, the US military follows Santa every year…)

santa-thailand

For those of you who won’t be with your children this holiday, our heart goes out to you and we will be thinking of you. May 2017 bring you the strength and the courage to push on through.

With love and festive good wishes,

Researching Reform xxx

Addams Family Banner Xmas.jpg

 

 

 

Share this:

  • WhatsApp
  • Pocket
  • Telegram
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Email
  • Print

Like this:

Like Loading...

Survivor Complains About Child Abuse Inquiry’s Truth Project

23 Friday Dec 2016

Posted by Natasha in child abuse inquiry, Researching Reform

≈ 4 Comments

A survivor in Wales has made a formal complaint about the way he was treated during an attempt to log his experiences with the nation’s child abuse inquiry. A lack of efficiency and a support worker who broke down in tears whilst on the phone with him have left the survivor feeling let down and critical of the level of support at the inquiry.

An urgent review has since been carried out, and an apology has been made to the survivor.

This event has been translated by some as yet another sign that the inquiry is doomed to fail, however Chair Professor Jay insists the inquiry is not in crisis.

Whilst this latest incident is unfortunate, given the sheer scale and size of the inquiry, one complaint about the support it is offering through its Truth Project doesn’t seem like cause for alarm at this stage.

It might do us good to remember that whilst other child abuse inquiries both at home and abroad have come and gone, with little groundbreaking insight, this Inquiry is attempting to do something unique – it hopes to get to the root causes of child sexual abuse in society not just in England, but around the world.

What do you think? 

sign-of-things

The victim said he had concerns about other people who had come forward

 

Share this:

  • WhatsApp
  • Pocket
  • Telegram
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Email
  • Print

Like this:

Like Loading...

The Buzz

21 Wednesday Dec 2016

Posted by Natasha in Researching Reform, The Buzz

≈ 5 Comments

The news that should be right on your radar:

  • Child abuse ‘affects health decades later’ – part of a growing body of research
  • Research finds that children in residential care feel unsafe – from Australia, however correlations with our system are inevitable
  • More than 120,000 homeless children spending Christmas in temporary accommodation, figures reveal

Buzz

Share this:

  • WhatsApp
  • Pocket
  • Telegram
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Email
  • Print

Like this:

Like Loading...

Troubled Families Programme ‘Ineffective, Unethical And Evasive.’

20 Tuesday Dec 2016

Posted by Natasha in Researching Reform, Troubled Families Programme

≈ 6 Comments

Here at Researching Reform, we have always viewed The Troubled Families Programme with huge scepticism since its announcement in 2012, both for its shoddy methods (remember the bizarre 7 point checklist?), and its lack of transparency and now a damning report issued by the Public Accounts Committee confirms the worst.

The report says it can find no evidence of the programme actually helping families in need; that the programme overstated its success; the claimed saving of 1.2 billion was also overstated and that the department responsible for publishing the programme’s evaluation was ‘evasive’ when asked to explain the delay in publishing this evaluation.

More worrying still is the revelation that financial incentives continue to drive highly sensitive programmes likes these – the ‘payment by results’ scheme used by the Troubled Families Programme led to some councils trying to move families quickly through the programme at the expense of genuine support.

The committee is not the first to point these failings out. Back in February of this year, a social worker on the front line of the programme felt so strongly about the unethical way in which the programme was being run that she spoke out. Many of the findings the Committee make in their report mirror hers exactly. 

And if you thought the government was embarrassed about its pay by results scheme, you’d be wrong. Eric Pickles, then Communities Secretary, announced this initiative back in 2012 , and specifically mentions the financial incentives on offer. This is what he told The Independent in an exclusive interview:

ep2ep3

Also interesting to read is Committee Chair Meg Hillier MP’s statement on the findings:

“Government officials might be inclined to consider our comments on the delay in publishing its Troubled Families evaluation as a slap on the wrist about Whitehall bureaucracy.

Let me assure them that given the ambitions for this programme, the implications for families and the significant sums of money invested, it is far more serious than that.

But it is particularly important with a new initiative that there is transparency so that the Government can learn and adapt the programme.

The Department has undermined any achievements the Government might legitimately claim for its overall work in this area.

In particular it was a mistake to use short-term criteria as the measure for successfully ‘turning around’ families, many of whom are grappling with long-term social problems.

A tick in a box to meet a Prime Ministerial target is no substitute for a lasting solution to difficulties that may take years to properly address.

We would also question the suitability of the Government’s ‘payment by results’ model, which similarly risks incentivising quantity over quality.

The Department has now committed to providing Parliament with an annual report on progress with the Troubled Families programme, starting in March next year.

For this to be meaningful Government must be far clearer about the benefits that can be directly attributed to the public investment in it.

Only then can Parliament and others properly assess the value for money of this programme and its merits as a model to bring about lasting change in the lives of those families it is intended to support.”

Everything about this Programme was wrong – from the language used at its inception, to the way councils were lured to the scheme through cash for results, it was a terrible deception, at the expense of the most vulnerable.

su-02-pickles-getty

Share this:

  • WhatsApp
  • Pocket
  • Telegram
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Email
  • Print

Like this:

Like Loading...

Researching Reform For Jordans – Looking Back At 2016

20 Tuesday Dec 2016

Posted by Natasha in Researching Reform

≈ 1 Comment

For our column at Jordans this month, we offer a recap of the main events in Family Law and child welfare policy in 2016, and what we can expect from the year to come.

We look at the projects that made a difference to people’s lives, the consultations that were launched and the due dates for their publication; the changes at the nation’s Child Abuse Inquiry and the way the public fought to protect key resources like legal aid and Freedom Of Information requests.

Looking at 2017, we make some pessimistic predictions about how the child welfare sector will fare over the next 12 months, but we’d love to hear your predictions, too.

You can catch our piece over at Jordans.

jordans-lexis-nexis-logo

 

Share this:

  • WhatsApp
  • Pocket
  • Telegram
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Email
  • Print

Like this:

Like Loading...

Question It!

19 Monday Dec 2016

Posted by Natasha in Researching Reform

≈ 9 Comments

Welcome to another week.

The nation’s Child Abuse Inquiry has once again divided victims and survivors of abuse, this time with its latest proposals. An internal review of the Inquiry published last week revealed that convicted paedophiles would be interviewed as part of a new research programme. 

The internal review does not attempt to explain this new branch of its investigation with sensitivity or depth, which could in part be responsible for the backlash it is now seeing.

Some survivors have called the move insulting, and have suggested that nothing new can be learned from interviewing paedophiles with convictions for child sexual abuse. Inquiry Chair Professor Jay argues that research in this area is very limited and so these interviews could provide key information about how paedophiles prey on children.

Our question then, is just this: do you think these interviews are a good idea?

pm-iicsa

 

 

Share this:

  • WhatsApp
  • Pocket
  • Telegram
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Email
  • Print

Like this:

Like Loading...

Global Project Needs University Students To Mentor Peers In War Zones – Can You Help?

16 Friday Dec 2016

Posted by Natasha in Researching Reform

≈ 1 Comment

A new project to help university level students in areas impacted by war is currently looking for students around the world to get involved in its online peer-to-peer programme.

The Global Youth Development Initiative, which also matches professionals in a variety of fields with students, has been set up by  lawyers and academics from around the world, and hopes to offer advice and guidance to students in war zones, many of whom have been unable to go back to their schools and universities to finish their courses.

The project needs university students, graduates and newly qualified professionals to offer support, delivered through online platforms like Skype and Whatsapp.

If you are a university or a professor who feels their students might be interested, the Initiative would also love to hear from you. Anyone who would like to find out more can email Co-Founder Thomas Valenti for further details at tpv@valentilaw.com

And if you can spare the time, we would be so grateful if you could forward this post on to anyone you feel might be interested and please do share with your networks online. Thank you so much.

This is an incredibly worthwhile project, which is needed now more than ever.

War.jpg

 

 

Share this:

  • WhatsApp
  • Pocket
  • Telegram
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Email
  • Print

Like this:

Like Loading...

Tory Politicians Defend Their Friends In Parliament Over Child Abuse Allegations

15 Thursday Dec 2016

Posted by Natasha in Researching Reform

≈ 5 Comments

It seems almost impossible today to witness a broadly intelligent, balanced and considered discussion in Parliament, so when we saw a debate looking at ways to address police mistakes over the handling of certain child sex abuse allegations, we decided not to hold out breath.

Good thing we didn’t.

The debate, hosted by Conservative MP for Aldershot, Gerald Howarth looks at Operation Midland and the Henriques Report.

Operation Midland was set up to look at allegations of child sexual abuse within what was called a VIP paedophile ring, believed to be based in London’s Dolphin Square. The main complainant was a man known to the media as Nick. His testimony was later set aside and doubts were raised over whether his allegations were sound. Police conduct during the investigation was also questioned and a review of the Operation followed. That review, The Henriques Report, set out several concerns relating to the weight police gave to Nick’s evidence and the way in which high profile suspects were treated.

Howarth’s main concern in the debate, which took place this week, is the way in which these high profile suspects were treated by investigating officers.

It all starts out well enough. Howarth says how important it is to reinforce the principle that high profile individuals who have committed crimes are not above the law. He also expresses concern at the way police handled the investigation into Dolphin Square.

And then he loses it.

A paragraph down, Howarth tells us that he intends to look at what he feels are grave miscarriages of justice against Lords Brittan and Bramall, and Harvey Proctor. All people, it turns out, who are or were friends or colleagues of Howarth’s. And instead of having a sophisticated and thought provoking debate about the need to balance complainants’ rights with those of suspects, he just decides to have a good rant.

Howarth suggests that because he knows these former suspects well and considers them to be of good character, that alone should have been enough to confirm their innocence. This, after opening his speech with the sentiment that no man, or woman, is above the law. And then goes on to criticise the police for not sticking to protocol when trying to gather evidence, accusing them of a lack of common sense and inability to follow due process. It’s like reading a transcript from Yes Minister. It’s just not terribly funny.

Keeping it personal, he describes Lady Brittan’s distress at having her home searched, how she had to suffer “the indignity” of her possessions being touched as officers “invaded” her house, and that it was like “witnessing a robbery of one’s treasured possessions.”

Whilst we have every sympathy for this scenario, this is what happens to thousands of ordinary citizens a year who are under investigation. 

Howarth then defends his friend Harvey Proctor, who was convicted in 1987 of sexual offences against two teenagers, complaining on Proctor’s behalf that Operation Midland cost him his job and his home.

And although this shouldn’t happen, this does and will happen to thousands of ordinary citizens every year who are under investigation.

Clearly missing from Howarth’s speech is the need to ensure that the general public are treated fairly by the police during any evidence gathering process, but he’s too busy defending “People in public life.”

The debate is Tory heavy, but Labour’s Simon Danczuk makes an appearance, and his contribution is worth reading. It is a thoughtful and balanced speech, from someone who has been investigated, and also as an advocate encouraging victims and survivors to speak out. He expresses his thoughts about Nick with sensitivity and a rare grace for the House, though he isn’t without controversy. Others too, add much needed equilibrium to Howarth’s tantrum, and the whole debate, which isn’t very long is worth a read if you have five gingersnaps and some chocolate milk.

For our part, we very much hope that this debate and the Henriques Report, will spread out and affect the handling of criminal investigations nationwide, so that the general public can benefit from any measures eventually put in place to make the investigation process more humane and less demeaning. Justice and fair treatment are not just for the famous and the financially well off, they are for everyone.

metpolice

 

 

 

Share this:

  • WhatsApp
  • Pocket
  • Telegram
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Email
  • Print

Like this:

Like Loading...

New Law Seeks To Prevent Disclosure Of Victims’ Identities To Suspects

14 Wednesday Dec 2016

Posted by Natasha in Researching Reform

≈ 2 Comments

As part of the debate currently taking place on the Policing and Crime Bill in the House of Lords, a very interesting idea is being discussed. The section, which could be inserted after clause 152 of the Bill, prevents a suspect accused of a serious violent or sexual crime from finding out the identity of a witness or person accusing them of the offence in question.

The latest draft of the clause reads:

145

The clause, moved by Lord Wigley, has been met with resistance by Government. Its argument against allowing the clause to pass is a human rights one: the fundamental right to a fair trial, which includes the right to know who is accusing you of a crime.

Baroness Chisholm, who is Lords Spokesperson for the Cabinet Office (and to that end representing the Government’s viewpoint on the issue) explains:

whip

The Baroness goes on to say:

whip-3

Lord Wigley then challenges the idea that the right to a fair trial includes the right to know the name of the person accusing you. He suggests that knowledge of the accuser’s name does not prejudice trial proceedings in any way and that as the accused may not have known the accuser’s name previously any how, identity is not material to a fair trial. Although this skirts the issue of the accused’s ‘right to know’ at the point at which the allegation is made, as the Baroness herself points out anonymity can already be granted where the alleged victim is considered to be at risk of harm if their identity is revealed.

Essentially, Baroness Chisholm’s argument is that the proposed clause is too broad and could lead to a breach of the accused’s Article 6 rights. She also feels there are enough protections in place so that the Clause is not needed. Baroness C  highlights the measures on offer for victims today, which include detaining the accused for up to 96 hours before charge, bailing the suspect with conditions not to contact the accuser, witness protection programmes and witness anonymity orders.

Lord W’s view focuses on cases where the parties don’t know each other (‘stranger perpetrator’) and the gaps the current protections don’t seem to be filling in these kinds of cases. He mentions that the Metropolitan Police also accepts that there is a lack of clarity in this area. A formal statement from The Met:

met-police

The debate highlights an interesting tension between the presumption of innocence  in law, and the reality on the ground for a genuine victim of abuse who may be at risk of more harm if the person who has harmed them in the first instance is able to find where they live using information available on the internet, for example. And that is the point Lord Wigley is trying to make. With the onset of the internet, and modern technology generally, it has become much easier to track people down.

What do you think? Is Lord Wigley’s Clause a good idea, or is it a protection too far?

no-policy-or-legislation

Share this:

  • WhatsApp
  • Pocket
  • Telegram
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Email
  • Print

Like this:

Like Loading...
← Older posts

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 8,452 other subscribers

Contact Researching Reform

Huff Post Contributer

For Litigants in Person

Child Welfare Debates

December 2016
M T W T F S S
 1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
262728293031  
« Nov   Jan »

Children In The Vine : Stories From The Family Justice System

Categories

  • Adoption
  • All Party Parliamentary Group on Family Law and The Court of Protection
  • Articles
  • Big Data
  • Bills
  • Case Study
  • child abuse
  • child abuse inquiry
  • child welfare
  • Children
  • Children In The Vine
  • Circumcision
  • Civil Partnerships
  • Consultation
  • Conversations With…
  • Corporal Punishment
  • CSA
  • CSE
  • Data Pack
  • Domestic Violence
  • Encyclopaedia on Family and The Law
  • event
  • Family Law
  • Family Law Cases
  • FGM
  • FOI
  • forced adoption
  • Foster Care
  • Fudge of the Week
  • Fultemian Project
  • Huffington Post
  • Human Rights
  • IGM
  • Inquiry
  • Interesting Things
  • Interview
  • Judge of the Week
  • Judges
  • judicial bias
  • Law to lust for
  • legal aid
  • LexisNexis Family Law
  • LIP Service
  • LIPs
  • Marriage
  • McKenzie Friends
  • MGM
  • News
  • Notes
  • petition
  • Picture of the Month
  • Podcast
  • Question It
  • Random Review
  • Real Live Interviews
  • Research
  • Researching Reform
  • social services
  • social work
  • Spotlight
  • Stats
  • Terrorism
  • The Buzz
  • The Times
  • Troubled Families Programme
  • Twitter Conversations
  • Update
  • Voice of the Child
  • Voice of the Child Podcast
  • Westminster Debate
  • Who's Who Cabinet Ministers
  • Your Story

Recommended

  • Blawg Review
  • BlogCatalog
  • DaddyNatal
  • DadsHouse
  • Divorce Survivor
  • Enough Abuse UK
  • Family Law Week
  • Family Lore
  • Flawbord
  • GeekLawyer's Blog
  • Head of Legal
  • Just for Kids Law
  • Kensington Mums
  • Law Diva
  • Legal Aid Barristers
  • Lib Dem Lords
  • Lords of The Blog
  • Overlawyered
  • PAIN
  • Paul Bernal's Blog
  • Public Law Guide
  • Pupillage Blog
  • Real Lawyers Have Blogs
  • Story of Mum
  • Sue Atkins, BBC Parenting Coach
  • The Barrister Blog
  • The Magistrate's Blog
  • The Not So Big Society
  • Tracey McMahon
  • UK Freedom of Information Blog
  • WardBlawg

Archives

  • Follow Following
    • Researching Reform
    • Join 813 other followers
    • Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
    • Researching Reform
    • Customize
    • Follow Following
    • Sign up
    • Log in
    • Report this content
    • View site in Reader
    • Manage subscriptions
    • Collapse this bar
 

Loading Comments...
 

    %d bloggers like this: