Category Archives: Inquiry

Call For Evidence: Lords Investigate How The Internet Impacts Children

19 Tuesday Jul 2016

Posted by in child welfare, Inquiry, Researching Reform

≈ 2 Comments

The Communications Committee has just launched an Inquiry into how the internet is affecting children, and will look at online safety concerns, as well as the benefits to children of being able to access information on the web.

The Committee will be investigating how children’s use of the internet is governed and regulated, and will examine potential safeguarding roles that parents, schools, media companies and regulators might play.

If you would like to contribute to this Inquiry, submissions are now being accepted. The deadline for submissions is Friday 26th August, 2016.

Questions the Lords would love to receive answers to are as follows, and can be found in the Call For Evidence Leaflet: 

Risks and benefits

1. What risks and benefits does increased internet usage present to children, with particular regard to: i. Social development and wellbeing ii. Neurological, cognitive and emotional development, iii. Data security.

2. Which platforms and sites are most popular among children and how do young people use them? Many of the online services used by children are not specifically designed for children. What problems does this present?

3. What are the technical challenges for introducing greater controls on internet usage by children?

4. What are the potential future harms and benefits to children from emerging technology, such as Artificial Intelligence, Machine Learning and the Internet of Things? 

Education

5. What roles can schools play in educating and supporting children in relation to the internet? What guidance is provided about the internet to schools and teachers? Is guidance consistently adopted and are there any gaps?

6. Who currently informs parents of risks? What is the role for commercial organisations to teach e-safety to parents? How could parents be better informed about risks?

Governance

7. What are the challenges for media companies in providing services that take account of children? How do content providers differentiate their services for children, for example in respect of design?

8. What voluntary measures have already been put in place by providers of content to protect children? Are these sufficient? If not, what more could be done? Are company guidelines about child safety and rights accessible to parents and other users?

Legislation and Regulation

9. What are the regulatory frameworks in different media? Is current legislation adequate in the area of child protection online? Is the law routinely enforced across different media? What, if any, are the gaps? What impact does the legislation and regulation have on the way children and young people experience and use the internet? Should there be a more consistent approach?

10. What challenges face the development and application of effective legislation? In particular in relation to the use of national laws in an international/cross-national context and the constantly changing nature and availability of internet sites and digital technologies? To what extent can legislation anticipate and manage future risks?

11. Does the upcoming General Data Protection Regulation take sufficient account of the needs of children? As the UK leaves the EU, what provisions of the Regulation or other Directives should it seek to retain, or continue to implement, with specific regard to children? Should any other legislation should be introduced?

12. What more could be done by the Government? Could there be a more joined-up approach involving the collaboration of the Government with research, civil society and commerce?

Committee Chairman, Lord Best:

“The use of the internet by children is now so established, so common, that we need to understand the risks. Are we keeping young people safe in a digital age? How much of an impact is the internet having on the development of children? Are regulations around access, risk, and data protection adequate? How can providers of internet services be encouraged to incorporate concern for the welfare of children in designing their products? These are key issues which we will want to investigate.

“However, we want to make sure that the inquiry does not dismiss the internet as overwhelmingly detrimental to young people, and we will examine closely the opportunities it is giving to children, from learning through to social interaction.”

Researching Reform supports the view that the internet is a force for good which extends to children being able to access such a vital and positive resource. There is no doubt that the internet is a mixed environment however, having watched young people online we are constantly impressed by their ability to suss out suspicious online activity, and avoid it. We very much hope this Inquiry will look to strike a balance between empowering children further to explore the world around them, protecting fundamental rights which touch upon access to information and helping to ensure that critical dangers are tackled by the relevant bodies.

You can send your submission off here (files need to be in Word format).

ImageVaultHandler.aspx.jpg

 

 

Inquiry To Examine Effects Of False Sexual Abuse Allegations

05 Tuesday Apr 2016

Posted by in Inquiry, Researching Reform

≈ 13 Comments

As the nation’s Inquiry into child sexual abuse gets underway, Chair Lowell Goddard has released a statement clarifying the Inquiry’s working methods and the strands of its current investigations, as well as confirming that the Inquiry will not only be looking at the impact of child sexual abuse on its victims, but also the effect of false allegations on those accused of abusing children. 

In the wake of former MP Harvey Proctor’s very public outburst at having been investigated over allegations relating to an alleged VIP paedophile ring in Westminster, and conflicting evidence surrounding the late Lord Janner’s involvement in past child sexual abuse, we can see that the issues surrounding false allegations are complex.

But what constitutes a false allegation? Should a lack of evidence automatically allow us to say that the accused is innocent, and if so, should that accused then have the right to compensation? Should we have higher standards of proof when it comes to false allegations, and should we extend those standards to any allegation, including child sexual abuse?

Are our burdens of proof simply out of date and out of touch with modern advances in science and a progressive ethical code which forces us to question the difference between hard evidence and a lack of it?

Another difficult area lies in both how we treat allegations and how we deal with them once proved. Public figures since cleared of abuse, through lack of evidence rather than hard evidence disproving their involvement in many cases, have been very vocal about the way they felt the police treated them during their investigation despite the fact that they would have been treated in much the same way as non high profile members of the public (perhaps treated worse, even). Should we then also be looking at how ‘celebrity’ psychology impacts the effectiveness of police investigations and also, how police handling of suspects in general, whether high profile or not, needs updating?

What do you think? Which issues surrounding false allegations do you think are important and how do you think the Inquiry should approach them?

IICSA Logo

 

 

Goddard Inquiry Appoints Neo-Conservative To Run Its Communications

16 Wednesday Mar 2016

Posted by in child abuse inquiry, Inquiry, Researching Reform

≈ 1 Comment

The nation’s independent inquiry into child sexual abuse, also known as the Goddard Inquiry after Chair Justice Lowell Goddard, has appointed a communications agency to oversee certain aspects of its work. 

Crest Advisory, which is run by Gavin Lockhart-Mirams, a former adviser to David Cameron, has been tasked with delivering a public awareness campaign to encourage victims and survivors of child sexual abuse to come forward and share their story. The contract runs for nine months.

We haven’t yet had a chance to see if there is available information on which agencies if any are currently running the Inquiry’s social media platforms, which to date has implemented a no engagement policy with the public – a move which sits completely at odds with the purpose of social media and PR generally – but we hope Crest Advisory will take a more progressive approach.

Management consultant Lockhart, comes to the Inquiry from the criminal justice sector, where he put together the current reform programme being used to revamp the system. After resigning from government in 2011 (there is no indication online as to why he resigned), he set up Crest Advisory.

Lockhart worked for the neoconservative think-tank Policy Exchange as Head of the Crime and Justice Unit from August 2006 to 2009 and then worked as Criminal Justice and Health Policy Adviser in the Conservative Policy Unit. He is also the author of the Reform Report, which looked at G4S and Serco failures over electronic tagging roll out for offenders.

It’s not clear yet what a conservative leaning management consultant operating a campaign drive to encourage survivors to come forward might look like, but there have been suspicions over Lockhart’s motivations in the past, most notably the suggestion that Lockhart developed policy on Police and Crime Commissioners so that he could eventually profit commercially from the provisions.

Good luck, Crest, the child welfare sector is much tougher than it looks.

gavin (1)

Gavin Lockhart

 

Commons Select Committee Examines Mental Health & Wellbeing Of Looked After Children

16 Wednesday Dec 2015

Posted by in Inquiry, Researching Reform

≈ 6 Comments

Today, the Commons Select Committee will be taking evidence from charities who represent children and  young people as part of an inquiry into the mental health and wellness of looked after children.

The sessions are organised as follows:

At 9.30am

Lisa Harker, Director of Strategy, Policy and Evidence, NSPCC
Kevin Williams, Chief Executive, The Fostering Network
Sarah Brennan, Chief Executive, Young Minds
David Graham, National Director, Care Leavers’ Association

At 10.30am

Tony Clifford, Head of Virtual School for Children in Care, City of Stoke-on-Trent
Carol Jones, Specialist for Leadership and Teacher Professionalism, Association of School and College Leaders
Natasha Devon, Founder, Self-Esteem Team

The first session is set to focus on issues affecting children and young people, from the perspective of organisations who work directly with looked after children and their carers. The second session will look at schools and their part in supporting children in care with mental health issues.

You can watch the sessions on Parliament TV and learn more about the Education Committee’s Inquiry here. 

Child

 

The Inquiry’s Restriction Order Doesn’t Gag Survivors But It Does Affect Transparency

19 Thursday Nov 2015

Posted by in child abuse inquiry, Inquiry, Researching Reform

≈ 18 Comments

Much is being made this week of a Restriction Order put in place by the nation’s Inquiry Into Child Sexual Abuse, which effectively bans participants of the Inquiry’s Truth Project from speaking about the sessions. Some are calling it a gagging order of sorts and others a muddled policy which didn’t seem to include Victim and Survivor Panel Member participation, but are we right to view the Order in this light, and what does the Order actually mean for survivors and their stories?

On first inspection, it does seem as if the Inquiry is trying to suppress survivors – this has more to do with the muddled language used in the Questions and Answers document, than within the Order itself. In one paragraph in the Q&A page we are told:

“The Restriction Order is a legal ruling that prohibits public access to the Truth Project private sessions and prevents anyone from making public…
­ the details of the experiences shared with the Inquiry.”

That gives the distinct expression that survivors will not be able to talk about their own cases to others. And yet, further down the Q&A page, we have this paragraph:

“The Restriction Order does not prevent you from:
­ talking about your experience of sexual abuse with anyone else;
­ telling others that you wrote to the Inquiry or attended a Truth Project private session; discussing how you felt about sharing your experience with the Inquiry.”

and

“There is an exception in the Restriction Order that allows you to discuss all the details of what happened as part of the Truth Project with a therapist, counsellor or doctor.”

It’s easy to see how survivors, or anyone for that matter, might get confused about what can, and can’t be said. Jump over to the actual Order itself, and things become clearer. The Order states:

“Disclosure or publication of the identity, or any details tending to indicate the identity, of any person who has provided or intends to provide an account within the scope of the Truth Project, is prohibited, except in the following circumstances:
i. where the person making the disclosure or publication is the same person as the person who is providing or has provided the account of child sexual abuse to the Inquiry.”

Clearly then, the Order is designed to protect other survivors from having their stories discussed in the media and elsewhere without their consent.

The Order goes further – it says disclosure is also allowed where that victim or survivor consents to the Inquiry publishing an anonymous summary of what they reported to the Inquiry. The Order also says that a survivor can disclose what they said during the session to a third party, as long as they don’t also mention that they made, or did not make, the same disclosure during the Truth Project session.

And whilst this is understandable, and an attempt at allowing survivors the freedom to express themselves as far as possible without compromising other survivors, it does pose one problem in relation to the transparency of the meeting itself.

What if survivors end up discussing a visible flaw within the Inquiry? Or they challenge the Inquiry on a point of operation that could be of public interest? Or worse still, an Inquiry member says or does something wrong?

Under the Inquiries Act 2005, which is where the current Inquiry gets its power to create a Restriction Order, the legislation makes it clear that any restriction on reporting must not “inhibit the allaying of public concern.”

And yet, public concern must exist in this context, without any reassurance from the Inquiry at this time that confidentiality is to be balanced properly with an appropriate level of transparency.

Nevertheless, the Inquiry could create that balance by ensuring that all meetings are recorded formally, and sign off from every participant in each meeting given once they have read the Minutes of those meetings. It is also crucial that the Inquiry details clearly what can be reported in such meetings, for example comments relating to Inquiry process or matters likely to be of public interest beyond survivor testimony. 

We have tried to ask the Inquiry whether they will be doing this, via their Twitter account, however they don’t seem to have a clear understanding of how social media works, and their engagement level with the public on this platform is non existent, so we are unlikely to get a response. If any team member from the Inquiry is reading this, please do at least consider writing an update on the IICSA website, giving us an indication of how the Inquiry will be recording the sessions and what kind of involvement Victim and Survivor Panel Members have had in this process.

Good luck.

IICSA Home Page

 

 

 

 

 

Michael Mansfield QC: “I Am More Than Willing To Consider Chairing An Inquiry into Child Abuse.”

15 Thursday Jan 2015

Posted by in Children, Inquiry

≈ 7 Comments

After yesterday’s very successful meeting in the House of Commons for survivors of child sexual abuse – it’s estimated around 400 people attended – Michael Mansfield QC has, in a statement, confirmed that he would be willing to Chair the nation’s Inquiry into child sexual abuse.

In his statement, which was not read out at the meeting due to a lack of time, Michael welcomed the opportunity to Chair the Inquiry, and even suggests creating a People’s Commission, rather than going ahead with the current Inquiry should the government’s proposals for reviewing the Inquiry fall short.

Other statements were also released by The White Flowers Campaign today from actress Samantha Jane Morton, Pauline A. CLARE, England’s First Female Chief Constable, Jim Gamble, former Head of CEOPs and Carl, a survivor of child sexual abuse.

All of the statements are added below:

Statement from Michael Mansfield QC

“I welcome this opportunity to make my position clear.

From the start of this initiative, for me last July, when I became aware of the public petition, I have been more than willing to consider chairing an Inquiry into Child Abuse as requested by the survivors and their families. I say ‘consider’ because I am currently engaged in the Hillsborough Inquests representing the families of the deceased. There would therefore have to be some negotiation around this. Logistically there are many ways in which difficulties can be accommodated or resolved, particularly as the early stages of any Inquiry are devoted to preparatory matters.

I am honoured to be approached by the families because much of my working life and practice at the Bar has been spent representing communities, groups, and families seeking truth and justice in the face of obfuscation, hostility and deceit by the authorities.

As you are acutely aware, however, the authorities have a habit of ignoring the wishes and needs of those most affected. This has happened yet again on a massive scale until the whole process was ground to a standstill by the second proposed chair standing down. Now of course all kinds of blandishments are being offered to the survivors. I’m sure no one will be taken in and everyone will exercise circumspection.

There are many other issues besides the chair. There are question marks over some of the panel members and the behaviour of at least one already; the terms of reference are restrictive both historically and geographically.

Plainly a Government Inquiry, properly constituted and empowered, would have the best chance of succeeding. I am sanguine about the real possibility of achieving this when none of the obvious steps were adopted in the first place. The ramifications are hugely political and everything will be done to ring-fence these risks.

It is for these reasons that I am also prepared to consider an alternative course should the Government renege on their promises and obligations, namely a People’s Commission. I have served on a number of these over the last decade concerned with Northern Ireland, Palestine, Iran and London. They have all provided an effective forum for the exposure of malpractice and the determination of accountability. Usually they come into play when the normal institutions have failed. Therefore should this Government or the next fail to meet the basic criteria, the alternative could then be engaged.

Put shortly I want Government to fulfil its democratic remit. To that end I would wish to assist in that exercise as chair of full and fair Inquiry. ”

MM 10 Jan 2014

Message from Samantha Jane Morton

“A message to survivors – We will not be forgotten, we will not be quiet. The abuse that we suffered is happening right now to a child / infant that is in desperate need of rescuing. We come together as one to stop child abuse and so the perpetrators of these horrific crimes can be brought to justice. I keep peace in my heart which I share with you all.”
Samantha Jane Morton, Mother, Campaigner for Children’s Rights, Actress, Writer, Director
Pauline A. CLARE, England’s First Female Chief Constable

“I’m sorry I’m not available to attend the public meeting at the House of Commons on the 14th January 2015 – though I would like to say that I support the intentions of that meeting. (the 7 listed issues).

The sexual abuse of children has impacted on the lives of so many young and vulnerable people and has wrecked the lives of many others. It is time the truth is established about what has happened in the past and that offenders are identified and brought to justice for their crimes. It is also important that this is done in a timely manner and in a way that give confidence to victims and survivors that they have been heard. And finally that measures are put in place to protect vulnerable young people in the future.”
Pauline A. CLARE, Former Chief Constable of the Lancashire Constabulary (1995-2002)
9th January 2015
Survivor Carl’s Message

“Pete McKelvie wishes you to know of this statement from Carl he hoped to read out yesterday. Carl is a survivor of horrendous rape and brutality at the hands of the most powerful elite yet to be identified and brought to the Police’s attention. Carl’s allegations include murder.
Carl wants to speak out in the hope that the many petrified victims also abused by this most powerful group of Establishment abusers will have the courage to come forward. He also wants to emphasise how supportive and determined the Police team that he has disclosed to are and express his disappointment that the Government and The Home Office have to date failed to deliver a truly Independent Inquiry fit for purpose.
“Some of you will follow me on Twitter, some of you will have read some of my story via my blogs and the national media. I was full of hope for this national inquiry into child abuse, however I also have to recognise that without the delay I would not have finally gone to the police. Despite the majority of Main Street media ignoring the calls for inquiry, over a very short space of time over 100 MPs from all parties, survivors of child abuse and supporters were speaking with one voice. Over 100,000 people makes one loud voice and something which could not be ignored.

”However, here we are 191 days since it was announced, we have to inappropriate chairs appointed and subsequently resigned, a panel has been established and had met with survivors and groups that support the, the Home Secretary has even met with survivors and survivor groups. And now with rumours that the panel will be scrapped, no news on the next chair, no news from the Home Secretary and the continued silence from the prime minister. Are we any further forward? I’m not sure.

”What I have seen is division amongst survivors, people having a go at each other, and it appears we are no longer speaking with one voice. What I would like to see from today is that we get this unity back. We all want the same thing, we want an inquiry that is fit for purpose, that is open and transparent with us and that has teeth to get to the truth. It’s ok to have different ideas, that’s what makes us who we are, but on such an important issue that affects so many, let’s use the power of our collective voice to make a difference. I desperately want this inquiry to take place, I want it for me, I want it for my friends that I held close as they died, I want it for other people who have been though the horror of abuse in childhood and I want it for today’s children and future generations. No child should have to go through what I and others went through.

”Finally I just wanted to say that we are all human, we all make mistakes and sometimes say things we either didn’t mean to say or didn’t think first. I personally would not he here now if it had not been for a friend of mine encouraging me to use my voice. I would not have been able to speak out, carried on, or reported it to the police without the continued support from Mark Conrad at Exaro, Peter McKelvie, Tom Watson and more recently Tom Symonds.”
Message from Jim Gamble, former Head of CEOPs

“Following the memorial I sat amongst the audience as I did not wish to push myself forward, on a day that was all about survivors, their stories, hopes and fears.
I have tweeted several times about the day which left me sad, emotionally exhausted, but overwhelmingly impressed.
I thought the meeting represented a good start and was certainly a step in the right direction. If you repeat it, I think it would be important to give survivors from the audience an opportunity to speak and question. Fewer speakers would allow for this.
It would also be good to either survey the attendees, as this would strengthen your future negotiating position and, or, have two or three key points to agree/disagree during the meeting.
What you have achieved is remarkable. Bringing so many people together and managing the pain and anger in the room was no small thing. Harnessing the power of yesterday’s group and focusing their influence must, in my opinion, be your next step.
I don’t think it’s too late for government to pause and plan a way forward using a more sensitive and sensible approach.
This is what I think should happen.
The government should first and foremost establish a fund to support survivors. This would give them better access to specialist services, resources and other support. Such a gesture would be an immediate recognition of the fact that they have been let down over many years by establishment bodies and governments.
The inquiry should begin/recommence with a survivors forum. Not dissimilar to your large meeting yesterday. The group must be as inclusive as possible and be given the difficult task of achieving consensus on key/critical terms of reference. They should then be asked to elect an advisory panel. That panel would provide advice and oversight from a survivors perspective to government. It would provide a forum to discuss the pros and cons of different types of inquiries and achieve some sense of agreement on what is needed and the best method of achieving it, i.e., statutory v Royal Commission.
A chair should then be appointed and an expert panel established via a ‘transparent’ process. All of this would be overseen and informed by the survivors oversight panel, who would have representation on the expert panel. Whilst survivor experience must be represented the expert panel would also require investigators, academics and other appropriate child protection professionals.
I am sure many of the individuals on the current panel are good people, this is not about them, it’s about a process that lacks transparency and therefore undermines the confidence of many survivors in it.
This approach would be a good first step in the long process of rebuilding trust.
Once established the inquiry should be fundamentally independent and that includes government. An inquiry imposed by government is very different from one facilitated by it.
If this process had been followed in the first instance survivors would have had ownership and government credible advice and support.
The handling of appointments has been disastrous and demonstrates that the current government don’t do detail. They don’t take time to listen, to plan or to consider better options.
The recent Wanless review, of reviews, only reinforces the need for government to be distanced from the inquiry. That review was in my opinion about the government retaining control. You cannot successfully review yourself by choosing the method, no matter how honourable the individual. The loss of documents by the Home Office needs to be investigated, not reviewed and their approach to it demonstrates they have yet to learn lessons from the past.
I am content for you to share this email with whomever you think appropriate. If I can help in anyway please don’t hesitate to let me know.

Jim Gamble, QPM Chief Executive

Home Secretary Takes Researching Reform’s Advice And Scraps Child Abuse Inquiry Panel

21 Sunday Dec 2014

Posted by in Children, Inquiry, Update

≈ 3 Comments

In a move which has left several if not all of the current Child Abuse Inquiry Panel members livid, it’s been reported that Home Secretary Theresa May has written to the panel to let them know she will be scrapping the panel and starting again. 

This move comes days after we published our piece on the Inquiry advising the very same course of action, over at our Column for Jordans Family Law. Of course we don’t know whether Theresa May read our article, but her plan of action reads very similarly to what we felt the government should do in order to mount the kind of inquiry survivors could place their trust in, and be a part of.

If the news items today are anything to go by, May is hoping to give the Inquiry some teeth by giving it statutory status, which would enable the panel chair to compel people to give evidence and would also allow the Inquiry to enforce criminal sanctions against those who deliberately conceal evidence or refuse to come forward. May is also considering turning the Inquiry into a Royal Commission.

As a result, current panel members would have to be scrapped, but could be re-appointed if considered appropriate. Amongst the arguments put forward by current panel members for not scrapping, well, them, is the view that to do so would be to pander to a small vocal minority that does not represent the majority of abuse survivors. This is utter bollocks of course. The panel members do not themselves know how the majority of survivors feel, and the minority who are speaking out represent a much larger group who do feel that a new panel would be best. And regardless of the size of the group raising concerns, those concerns should still be addressed and resolved, because without that resolution the Inquiry has no credibility whatsoever. (The other excuses given are even less convincing and completely irrelevant to the Inquiry’s future, but can be accessed in the news items linked to above should you feel like casting your eyes over wanton drivel).

Pouting panel members aside, it’s not clear yet when and if May will scrap the panel, despite reports to the contrary over at Exaro news. She has hinted at three possibilities, all of which she is still currently considering. The third option has not been openly reported upon but may simply involve keeping the current panel and raising the Inquiry to that of statutory status. But with some of the panel members facing criticism over their conduct towards survivors and two failed chairs with a third replacement nowhere in sight, now is the time to put this panel to bed and let a newer, fresher, professional panel rise from the ashes.

As we wrote in our article for Jordans, we would like to see a panel that represents the best of British Child Welfare – diverse professionals, from all walks of life, with a passion for children and a deep insight into the world of child abuse. That panel should include survivors, as well as members of religious communities and professionals from diverse ethnic backgrounds with cutting edge knowledge of child sexual abuse and its many different guises. We expect nothing less from the new panel.

And we want to see the list of candidates (all 100 plus of them) for the chair position, out in the public domain and be able to cast our own vote as to who should lead this most important Inquiry.

Good luck, Theresa.

Theresa May

 

 

Child Abuse Inquiry -Today’s Meeting Between The Panel and Survivors

08 Monday Dec 2014

Posted by in Children, Consultation, Inquiry, Update

≈ 1 Comment

As we mentioned in a recent post, last week’s meeting between survivors of child abuse and panel members detailed a further meeting for today (you can catch a more complete schedule here).

That meeting has now taken place and one of the attendees, Ian Pace, has written a good summary of that session.

The points up for discussion and the matters raised are very similar to the 5th December meeting; namely making the inquiry a statutory one, getting a Chair sorted out sooner rather than later, expanding the terms of reference and looking at support for survivors who wish to talk about their own personal experiences during the Inquiry process.

The issue of chair also raised the notion of an English judge leading the inquiry. Ian mentions some hesitancy over this by the Home Office, who cite difficulties with asking judges to be relieved of their duties. The clue in relation to the preferred judicial contender is clear, as they mention the awkwardness of relieving a Supreme Court judge for example, which may then cause problems as the Supreme Court may be left with a deeply imbalanced crew in terms of gender. Lady Hale, of course, would be the perfect choice but having a member of the British judiciary, it could be argued, would be tantamount to allowing the Executive to have control over what is supposed to be a fully independent inquiry, and this in turn could have a negative effect on the process.

In order to counteract that point perhaps and to fulfill certainly the government’s and perhaps survivors’ wishes, it looks as if a judicial Chair will be found from farther afield, in another country, so watch this space.

Do read the summary if you have time; we are sure these meetings will prove to be important in the future.

Hat tip to JG for alerting us to this item.