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…

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…)

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

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.

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?

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.

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.