In a controversial interview released today, former Child Abuse Inquiry panel member Sharon Evans makes a startling number of revelations about the Inquiry.

A child abuse survivor and journalist who founded children’s charity Dot Com, Sharon accuses the Inquiry of trying to stifle concerns about the way the investigation was being run so that Theresa May could be pushed into office as Prime Minister.

Ms Evans also said that there was no independence whatsoever at the Inquiry, and that the confidentiality clause which all panel members had to sign, effectively prevented her and others from exposing the truth.

She goes on to allege that Ben Emmerson QC, who was lead counsel for the Inquiry at the time, warned her that if she made her concerns public, she would be discredited. Sharon tells Talk Radio:

“I was taken to one side and it was made clear to me, I was told that Theresa May was going to be the Prime Minister, this inquiry was going to be part of this, and that if I didn’t toe the line and do as I was told, if I tried to get information out, I would be discredited by her advisors.”

Ms Evans also claims that she was given a 23 page document which she was to take her cues from when speaking to the Home Affairs Select Committee. The restrictions left her feeling unable to tell the Committee what she felt was the truth about the Inquiry and the way in which it was being governed.

In answer to the radio host’s question about who she felt was responsible for trying to suppress information, Ms Evans replied, The Home Office.

Ms Evans first came to the public’s attention for her initial attempts at speaking out about what she felt were internal conflicts within the Inquiry. She also went head to head with then lead counsel Ben Emmerson, telling the Home Affairs Select Committee that Mr Emmerson had threatened and intimidated panel members whilst acting as interim Chair for the Inquiry. Emmerson retaliated by telling the Committee that Evans had done “a great deal of damage” to the Inquiry.

The Home Office, which Miss Evans says is responsible for sweeping important information under the carpet, had previously sent Evans a letter accusing her of “extremely serious” breaches of confidentiality, a letter which the Home Affairs Committee went on to publish.

Fast forward two years and current Inquiry Chair, Professor Alexis Jaye, suspects that there are forces at work trying to destroy her investigation. She cites the incident of alleged sexual assault at the Inquiry as the catalyst for its near death experience.

Professor Jaye told the media in July of this year that “dark forces” were attempting to shut her down, and that, “strong vested interests would like to see this inquiry implode… There are institutions which would prefer to see us fail, because we are such a threat.’

The nation’s Independent Inquiry Into Child Sexual Abuse has heard how British children were sent to Australia to face lives of physical and sexual exploitation at the request of the British government, in order to populate colonial territories with “good, white British stock.”

In order to ensure that enough children were sent across, British authorities would lie to the children, telling them their parents were dead.

Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt gave a statement to the Inquiry this week, in which he apologised on behalf of the government for the policy which spanned several decades, saying it was “fundamentally flawed”. The policy led to the sexual abuse of thousands of children.

Hunt acknowledged that the abuse was not unknown to British authorities, and said the government would consider the recommendations made by the Inquiry, which are due to be published at the end of this year.

Yesterday saw the last of the public hearings looking at child migrants within the Inquiry’s Child Migration Programmes case study, part of its Protection of Children Outside the UK investigation.

Some links relating to the investigation:

• IICSA Public Hearing, Wednesday 26th July (Transcript)
• Former child migrant criticises former Prime Minister’s comments about abuse
• Inquiry Contact Page 

Photo courtesy of Merseyside Maritime Museum.

Welcome to another week.

After leaving survivors and victims furious when it suggested that an investigation into serious child sexual abuse allegations at schools run by Ealing Abbey monks would be dropped, The inquiry has backtracked and confirmed that it will now hear evidence on the allegations at hearings scheduled for November and December, but not before the criminal proceedings on the matter are concluded.

Inquiry Chair, Alexis Jay’s statement from the IICSA website is added below:

Following the preliminary hearing this week, the Chair of the Inquiry has announced a decision in regard to the English Benedictine case study hearing in the Roman Catholic Church investigation.  Prof Alexis Jay’s decision is as follows:

“One of the issues for determination arising out of this hearing is whether or not evidence should be heard in relation to Ealing Abbey/St Benedict’s during the English Benedictine Congregation (EBC) case study hearing due to commence on 27 November 2017 and continue in December 2017.  Related to this is the issue as to whether or not the EBC hearing should be adjourned so as to enable such evidence to be heard alongside the evidence relating to the other EBC institutions currently proposed for investigation at that hearing.

Having considered all of the submissions, my decision is that the EBC hearing should take place as planned in November and December 2017 and that evidence in relation to Ealing Abbey/St Benedict’s will be heard but not before the relevant criminal proceedings have concluded. Reasons for this decision and my decisions in respect of any other matters will follow.”

The news will no doubt be welcomed by survivors and victims.

Mention the nation’s Independent Inquiry Into Child Sexual Abuse and what most people remember are the fiascos over its Chairs and the seemingly never-ending conflicts of interest amongst its advisers. Few outside of Twitter will have noticed the Inquiry’s beleaguered twitter feed, which has caused considerable problems for the Inquiry, too.

The Inquiry’s refusal to investigate two catholic schools responsible for decades of abuse is the latest scandal to hit the headlines, and is an unfortunate development because whilst the project’s Twitter page has been a disaster in its own right, frustrating survivors and victims and damaging the Inquiry’s credibility, it is finally getting its act together.

The Inquiry’s initial social media approach featured an uninspiring Twitter feed populated with bland, almost mechanical updates on the Inquiry’s work but it was its ‘no engagement’ policy which angered victims and survivors the most, looking to the account for answers to questions that weren’t being answered by the Panel or the mainstream media. At its worst, the silence on the Twitter page forced survivors to look for important information through the press, which came to a head when victims’ personal statements were leaked and destroyed by an IT bungle at the Inquiry. 

The silence was interpreted as indifference by members of the public, and child abuse survivors who have strong links with the social media site, using it as both a lobbying platform and a way to highlight issues around child sexual abuse. It was a policy that cost the inquiry some of the small bit of goodwill it had managed to scrape back after its rocky start, and also highlighted the social media team’s complete lack of understanding around engagement and the nature of social media.

Within the last few days, a dramatic shift has taken place over on the Inquiry’s Twitter page. Gone is the utterly unmemorable logo (another, less important story) that was being used as the account’s background image and in its place a pleasant photo of Inquiry Chair Alexis Jay with a supportive message for survivors. The account has changed its handle from the slightly confusing @IICSA_Media to a much more focused handle – @InquiryCSA – and it is, at last, engaging with the public and the platform it is using.

Occasional, robotic tweets about its meetings have been replaced with warmer, more accessible language describing the Inquiry’s work, and the sharing of information both from survivors, the media and the general public. The team is ‘liking’ messages of encouragement and featuring uplifting stories from survivors who have chosen to go public with their experience. It’s refreshing. And it’s working.

To date the account doesn’t seem to have responded directly to individual questions, but hopefully this will come with time. Twitter is the perfect platform for supporting survivors and victims of abuse, offering the ability to both direct people to the right place and show the public a more human side to what is essentially a profoundly human project.

Researching Reform wishes the Inquiry’s social media team lots of luck. You can follow the Inquiry’s Twitter account here.

This just in.

Lord Janner’s family will be meeting with lawyers at the child abuse inquiry later on today, after previously deciding not to take part in the inquiry process. The family will argue that as Lord Janner is no longer alive, it would be unfair to include him in the Inquiry as he is not able to defend himself.

They will now be asking for Core Participant Status (CPS) in order to address the panel and counter any allegations made.

The Inquiry has very specific guidelines as to who can apply for CPS, with sole discretion to accept individuals resting with the Chair.

The rules tell us that:

“When determining any applications the Chair must, in particular, consider whether:

a. the person played, or may have played, a direct and significant role in relation to the matters to which the inquiry relates;

b. the person has a significant interest in an important aspect of the matters to which the inquiry relates; or

c. the person may be subject to explicit or significant criticism during the inquiry proceedings or in the report, or in any interim report.”

As Lord Janner is no longer alive, his family hope to represent him as Core Participants, however that alone will not be enough to guarantee a successful application as there is an obvious conflict of interest that could cause difficulties. Lord Janner’s relatives have always claimed his innocence, so it is not clear what kind of evidence they could offer the Inquiry, at least not under item a. above.

Even under item b. a ‘significant interest’ may not include an interest to prove a person’s innocence.

Item c. could offer the Janner family a stronger claim for Core Participant Status. It is likely that Lord Janner will be implicated in a series of child sexual abuse incidents, however item c. refers to the person in question, and not family members.

The final decision though, will rest with Professor Jay. As the rules go on to say:

“While the Chair is bound to consider the factors set out in Rule 5(2), it is open to her to take into account other relevant matters. The Chair is also not obliged to designate a person or organisation that meets the criteria set out in Rule 5 of the Inquiry Rules as a core participant. She has a wide discretion that she will exercise fairly, consistently and with an open mind.”

We will keep you posted.