MPs Weigh In On Child Abuse Inquiry Woes (And A Peer Declares An Eyebrow Raising Interest)

The Inquiry shows up the short-comings of what money and sex can buy: power over others, dishonesty, cover-ups and reputational ruin… With deep sighs, high hopes and HUGE respect for you, Natasha!

Researching Reform

As victims, survivors and Inquiry panel members continue to go head to head on the latest issues to plague the nation’s Independent Inquiry Into Child Sexual Abuse, politicians and peers have been having it out in Parliament this week, too.

The debate transcript from the House of Commons makes for a very frustrating read. Lisa Nandy’s Urgent Question, which asked for an update on how the Inquiry is handling the latest setbacks, was met with resistance by Sarah Newton, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department. Every time a question was asked about the state of the Inquiry – was the Chair recruiting new Lead Counsel, was a new Chair going to be put forward – the response was always the same: the Inquiry functions ‘Independently’ from Government, so…. no comment.

The argument the government puts forward for not giving any details about the Inquiry’s current state is a legal one. Under…

View original post 732 more words

Advertisements

About Sabine Kurjo McNeill

I'm a mathematician and system analyst formerly at CERN in Geneva and became an event organiser, software designer, independent web publisher and online promoter of Open Justice. My most significant scientific contribution is www.smartknowledge.space
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to MPs Weigh In On Child Abuse Inquiry Woes (And A Peer Declares An Eyebrow Raising Interest)

  1. truth1 says:

    Rome learned too late that big government leads to big money which leads to big corruption and decadence. Sadly, we do not retain the lessons of Rome, as good as they were. Big national government is the problem. No government should be bigger than a community or perhaps about 250 people. Very small so that it can not accumulate that much in wealth, power, or abuse. The small size keeps everyone close, familiar, and accountable. Everyone knows everyone else’s business and that is a good thin. Being strangers is dangerous. Its easy to neglect or not care about strangers as in a dense city. So London, on size alone, could not possibly be healthy or good.

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s