PeteM retweeted
Read this and weep - girls count for nothing.
Thank you @MaggieOliverUK for never giving up on them.
Today is the day. David vs Goliath. Today we go to the High Court for our landmark judicial review against the Government. We have been shocked at the arguments being advanced by the Home Secretary in defence of its failure to implement key recommendations made by the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (IICSA). These arguments include, that The Maggie Oliver Foundation does not have standing to bring this challenge on behalf of children, that the Government is under no obligation to implement child protection measures, and that the public at large cannot rely upon promises made by the Prime Minister and Ministers that are made in Parliament.
The Government's legal defence raises fundamental questions about public trust, accountability and whether promises made to survivors following public inquiries mean anything at all.
At the centre of the judicial review are 20 key recommendations issued by the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (IICSA) proposed to better protect children across the UK from sexual abuse. These include properly collecting data relating to child abusers and victims of abuse and exploitation, ending the use of pain-inducing restraint techniques on children in custody and regulation of staff in children’s homes.
We are concerned that more effort and public money appears to be going into defending a challenge designed to ensure these critical improvements in child protection are made than into implementing them.
The simplest example of this is this – if the Government had implemented the first recommendation of the IICSA, there would have been no need for a further three-year, £65 million public Inquiry (The Statutory Independent Inquiry into Grooming Gangs).
WHO IS ALLOWED TO ASK THE QUESTION?
The Secretary of State is a challenging whether The Maggie Oliver Foundation and our founder and Chair, @MaggieOliverUK , have standing to bring the case at all.
This raises a deeply troubling question.
If organisations representing survivors and working every day with the consequences of child sexual abuse are not entitled to ask why promised child protection measures have not been implemented, who is?
The Government is trying to exclude from the debate the very people closest to the consequences of these failures.
For years survivors have been told to come forward. Speak up. Tell the truth. Many have done so at enormous personal cost, but now the Government says they, and those who represent them, cannot object to failures to protect children. Their voices must be silenced.
This challenge was never about politics. Governments of all stripes have let down children. It is astonishing that the Government's first argument in this judicial review is that victims can have no voice.
If organisations representing survivors, and survivors themselves, cannot ask why promised child protection measures have not been implemented, who can?
IF GOVERNMENT DOESN'T HAVE TO ACT, WHAT IS THE POINT?
A central plank to the Government's defence is that ministers are under no legal obligation to implement recommendations made by public inquiries.
If that is right, why spend hundreds of millions of pounds on public inquiries if Government is just going to ignore what they find? We genuinely struggle to understand how anyone can think that is acceptable.
Millions are spent, years of hearings are had, victims pour out their hearts, findings and recommendations are made, promises are made by Government and then broke – but when someone has the temerity to ask why those promises haven't been kept, the Government's response is we never had to keep our promises.
If that is right, the Government must be open about it, and explain to the public why they hold expensive public inquiries at all.
IICSA took seven years, heard from more than 7,000 survivors, cost more than £200 million and made twenty recommendations intended to protect children. But the Government now says, we have no obligation to fulfil its promises to implement recommendations to protect children.
CAN POLITICIANS DENY THEIR PROMISES MATTER?
We are also challenging the Government's position regarding promises made by the Prime Minister and ministers following publication of IICSA's recommendations.
Repeated assurances that action would be taken have been made by senior politicians across successive governments.
The Government's defence includes arguments relating to parliamentary privilege. In effect the Government say that The Foundation cannot rely upon ministerial promises made in Parliament, and that such promises cannot give rise to expectations about future action.
If the public cannot rely on promises made in Parliament, what can they rely on?
Survivors and the public hear ministers make promises.
They hear repeated assurances that lessons have been learned and change will follow.
They build their expectations around those promises.
Many survivors have spent years believing ministers when they said action was coming.
To now be told that those promises cannot be relied upon is not just a legal argument, it is a fundamental betrayal of the trust survivors (and children across the UK) were asked to place in the process.
Trust works both ways.
Survivors are asked to trust public inquiries with the most painful experiences of their lives.
Governments should not then be able to argue that survivors cannot rely on the promises they receive in return.
WHILE GOVERNMENT ARGUES, CHILDREN ARE STILL BEING ABUSED
Government figures show that approximately 2 million children have been sexually abused since IICSA published its recommendations in October 2022.
That astonishing number must not be lost amidst legal arguments and the Government’s technical defences. This case is about the protection of all British children.
What shocks us most is how much ingenuity and effort has gone into finding reasons not to act.
Imagine if half of the same energy had been invested in implementing child protection measures.
Imagine if the resources currently being spent defending this case had instead been spent protecting children.
How many children might already be safer?
While well paid Government lawyers argue, children are still being sexually abused.
That is the reality we cannot lose sight of.
This case was never about clever legal arguments.
It is about whether promises made to children and survivors mean anything at all.
The Maggie Oliver Foundation will not be silent on that question.
PeteM retweeted
The Government has looked survivors in eyes for years and swore that “lessons would be learned” from the suffering of millions of little girls and boys. They promised they would do better.
SPOILER ALERT: they haven’t.
Ministers have made countless promises to implement the recommendations of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse. They promised justice, action, accountability, and change.
Those promises have been rehashed time and time again by senior politicians across successive governments.
But now?
The Government says that we cannot rely upon ministerial promises made in Parliament, and that such promises cannot give rise to expectations about future action. They are trying to hide behind Parliamentary privilege to claim immunity against anything they say in the Chamber of power.
They are using their privilege to do the very thing they promised to put a stop to:
Avoiding accountability.
If the public can’t rely on promises made in Parliament, what can we rely on?
If survivors can’t trust that those in power will finally admit their failings and act to prevent other little girls and boys from suffering the way they did, what can they trust?
We hear ministers make promises.
We’re told lessons have been learned.
We expect change to follow.
Despite being ignored by the political elite for decades, survivors have been asked to put their faith in those very same people.
Survivors have spent years putting their faith into Ministers who had never once proven themselves worthy of that faith, hoping that they weren’t lying when they promised that this time would be different.
To now be told that Ministerial promises cannot be relied upon is not just a legal argument, it is a fundamental betrayal of survivors.
More than that, it is a betrayal of every little girl and boy across the UK who is vulnerable to abuse because the Government refuses to make the changes they promised to protect against future abuse.
Today, the Government has to answer for their inaction without any Parliamentary privilege to hide behind.
This is David vs. Goliath.
And we’re all rooting for David.
Thank you, @TMOFCharity.
Thank you. x.com/TMOFCharity/st…
PeteM retweeted
Thank heavens some still have principles, courage and a backbone.
Fingers crossed for justice, decency and common sense to prevail… 🤞🏻
Today is the day. David vs Goliath. Today we go to the High Court for our landmark judicial review against the Government. We have been shocked at the arguments being advanced by the Home Secretary in defence of its failure to implement key recommendations made by the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (IICSA). These arguments include, that The Maggie Oliver Foundation does not have standing to bring this challenge on behalf of children, that the Government is under no obligation to implement child protection measures, and that the public at large cannot rely upon promises made by the Prime Minister and Ministers that are made in Parliament.
The Government's legal defence raises fundamental questions about public trust, accountability and whether promises made to survivors following public inquiries mean anything at all.
At the centre of the judicial review are 20 key recommendations issued by the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (IICSA) proposed to better protect children across the UK from sexual abuse. These include properly collecting data relating to child abusers and victims of abuse and exploitation, ending the use of pain-inducing restraint techniques on children in custody and regulation of staff in children’s homes.
We are concerned that more effort and public money appears to be going into defending a challenge designed to ensure these critical improvements in child protection are made than into implementing them.
The simplest example of this is this – if the Government had implemented the first recommendation of the IICSA, there would have been no need for a further three-year, £65 million public Inquiry (The Statutory Independent Inquiry into Grooming Gangs).
WHO IS ALLOWED TO ASK THE QUESTION?
The Secretary of State is a challenging whether The Maggie Oliver Foundation and our founder and Chair, @MaggieOliverUK , have standing to bring the case at all.
This raises a deeply troubling question.
If organisations representing survivors and working every day with the consequences of child sexual abuse are not entitled to ask why promised child protection measures have not been implemented, who is?
The Government is trying to exclude from the debate the very people closest to the consequences of these failures.
For years survivors have been told to come forward. Speak up. Tell the truth. Many have done so at enormous personal cost, but now the Government says they, and those who represent them, cannot object to failures to protect children. Their voices must be silenced.
This challenge was never about politics. Governments of all stripes have let down children. It is astonishing that the Government's first argument in this judicial review is that victims can have no voice.
If organisations representing survivors, and survivors themselves, cannot ask why promised child protection measures have not been implemented, who can?
IF GOVERNMENT DOESN'T HAVE TO ACT, WHAT IS THE POINT?
A central plank to the Government's defence is that ministers are under no legal obligation to implement recommendations made by public inquiries.
If that is right, why spend hundreds of millions of pounds on public inquiries if Government is just going to ignore what they find? We genuinely struggle to understand how anyone can think that is acceptable.
Millions are spent, years of hearings are had, victims pour out their hearts, findings and recommendations are made, promises are made by Government and then broke – but when someone has the temerity to ask why those promises haven't been kept, the Government's response is we never had to keep our promises.
If that is right, the Government must be open about it, and explain to the public why they hold expensive public inquiries at all.
IICSA took seven years, heard from more than 7,000 survivors, cost more than £200 million and made twenty recommendations intended to protect children. But the Government now says, we have no obligation to fulfil its promises to implement recommendations to protect children.
CAN POLITICIANS DENY THEIR PROMISES MATTER?
We are also challenging the Government's position regarding promises made by the Prime Minister and ministers following publication of IICSA's recommendations.
Repeated assurances that action would be taken have been made by senior politicians across successive governments.
The Government's defence includes arguments relating to parliamentary privilege. In effect the Government say that The Foundation cannot rely upon ministerial promises made in Parliament, and that such promises cannot give rise to expectations about future action.
If the public cannot rely on promises made in Parliament, what can they rely on?
Survivors and the public hear ministers make promises.
They hear repeated assurances that lessons have been learned and change will follow.
They build their expectations around those promises.
Many survivors have spent years believing ministers when they said action was coming.
To now be told that those promises cannot be relied upon is not just a legal argument, it is a fundamental betrayal of the trust survivors (and children across the UK) were asked to place in the process.
Trust works both ways.
Survivors are asked to trust public inquiries with the most painful experiences of their lives.
Governments should not then be able to argue that survivors cannot rely on the promises they receive in return.
WHILE GOVERNMENT ARGUES, CHILDREN ARE STILL BEING ABUSED
Government figures show that approximately 2 million children have been sexually abused since IICSA published its recommendations in October 2022.
That astonishing number must not be lost amidst legal arguments and the Government’s technical defences. This case is about the protection of all British children.
What shocks us most is how much ingenuity and effort has gone into finding reasons not to act.
Imagine if half of the same energy had been invested in implementing child protection measures.
Imagine if the resources currently being spent defending this case had instead been spent protecting children.
How many children might already be safer?
While well paid Government lawyers argue, children are still being sexually abused.
That is the reality we cannot lose sight of.
This case was never about clever legal arguments.
It is about whether promises made to children and survivors mean anything at all.
The Maggie Oliver Foundation will not be silent on that question.
PeteM retweeted
I’ve been speaking with journalists again today about the r*pe of children in the UK and the challenges we are facing in relation to mass immigration.
I’m now heading back to London to meet with the Restore Britain team. Looking forward to seeing everyone! @RestoreBritain
PeteM retweeted
MAGGIE OLIVER ❤️
Today is the day. David vs Goliath.
Maggie Oliver and The Maggie Oliver Foundation are in the High Court challenging the Government over its failure to implement key recommendations from the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (IICSA).
A privately funded charity taking on the full weight of the state — on behalf of survivors and every child who deserves better protection.
If organisations working with the consequences of child sexual abuse aren’t allowed to ask why promised reforms haven’t happened, who is?
#MaggieOliver #IICSA #ProtectChildren
PeteM retweeted
Do you stand by and fully support JK Rowling and think she is a wonderful human being
@jk_rowling
PeteM retweeted
⚠️LYING LABOUR SCUMBAGS⚠️
The @UKLabour Gov is lying to our faces constantly
They have forgotten whom they work for and while giving it the big kicks on TV pretending to care about the safety of woman and girls they’re also actively fighting to cover up the decades of abuse of woman and girls who’s voices were ignored
Who were given back to perpetrators by the police who were supposed to protect them….
By those who didn’t believe victims and called them little sl*gs and prostitutes….
They’re saying one thing while actively doing the other, same with the EU given the leaked documents
They won’t listen until we have civil war and we see justice dished out to these treasonous rats imo
#LabourPartyLiars
#FightingToCoverUpForRapists
#BrokenPromises
#ParliamentaryPrivilege
PeteM retweeted
Sending strength 💪🏼 and support to Maggie Oliver at the High Court today. Thank you for your unwavering bravery ❤️in fighting for justice, exposing institutional failures, and being a tireless voice for victims of grooming and abuse.
Please show your support.
#IStandWithMaggieOliver #JusticeForVictims #MaggieOliverFoundation
PeteM retweeted
🚨🚨Well done Maggie, Labour dont want to do anything on Grooming Gangs because their muslim and none muslim MP's are up to their necks in this scandal, inlcuding actually raping the kids and thats a fact!!!!
PeteM retweeted
Good luck Maggie 🇬🇧
Today is the day. David vs Goliath. Today we go to the High Court for our landmark judicial review against the Government. We have been shocked at the arguments being advanced by the Home Secretary in defence of its failure to implement key recommendations made by the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (IICSA). These arguments include, that The Maggie Oliver Foundation does not have standing to bring this challenge on behalf of children, that the Government is under no obligation to implement child protection measures, and that the public at large cannot rely upon promises made by the Prime Minister and Ministers that are made in Parliament.
The Government's legal defence raises fundamental questions about public trust, accountability and whether promises made to survivors following public inquiries mean anything at all.
At the centre of the judicial review are 20 key recommendations issued by the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (IICSA) proposed to better protect children across the UK from sexual abuse. These include properly collecting data relating to child abusers and victims of abuse and exploitation, ending the use of pain-inducing restraint techniques on children in custody and regulation of staff in children’s homes.
We are concerned that more effort and public money appears to be going into defending a challenge designed to ensure these critical improvements in child protection are made than into implementing them.
The simplest example of this is this – if the Government had implemented the first recommendation of the IICSA, there would have been no need for a further three-year, £65 million public Inquiry (The Statutory Independent Inquiry into Grooming Gangs).
WHO IS ALLOWED TO ASK THE QUESTION?
The Secretary of State is a challenging whether The Maggie Oliver Foundation and our founder and Chair, @MaggieOliverUK , have standing to bring the case at all.
This raises a deeply troubling question.
If organisations representing survivors and working every day with the consequences of child sexual abuse are not entitled to ask why promised child protection measures have not been implemented, who is?
The Government is trying to exclude from the debate the very people closest to the consequences of these failures.
For years survivors have been told to come forward. Speak up. Tell the truth. Many have done so at enormous personal cost, but now the Government says they, and those who represent them, cannot object to failures to protect children. Their voices must be silenced.
This challenge was never about politics. Governments of all stripes have let down children. It is astonishing that the Government's first argument in this judicial review is that victims can have no voice.
If organisations representing survivors, and survivors themselves, cannot ask why promised child protection measures have not been implemented, who can?
IF GOVERNMENT DOESN'T HAVE TO ACT, WHAT IS THE POINT?
A central plank to the Government's defence is that ministers are under no legal obligation to implement recommendations made by public inquiries.
If that is right, why spend hundreds of millions of pounds on public inquiries if Government is just going to ignore what they find? We genuinely struggle to understand how anyone can think that is acceptable.
Millions are spent, years of hearings are had, victims pour out their hearts, findings and recommendations are made, promises are made by Government and then broke – but when someone has the temerity to ask why those promises haven't been kept, the Government's response is we never had to keep our promises.
If that is right, the Government must be open about it, and explain to the public why they hold expensive public inquiries at all.
IICSA took seven years, heard from more than 7,000 survivors, cost more than £200 million and made twenty recommendations intended to protect children. But the Government now says, we have no obligation to fulfil its promises to implement recommendations to protect children.
CAN POLITICIANS DENY THEIR PROMISES MATTER?
We are also challenging the Government's position regarding promises made by the Prime Minister and ministers following publication of IICSA's recommendations.
Repeated assurances that action would be taken have been made by senior politicians across successive governments.
The Government's defence includes arguments relating to parliamentary privilege. In effect the Government say that The Foundation cannot rely upon ministerial promises made in Parliament, and that such promises cannot give rise to expectations about future action.
If the public cannot rely on promises made in Parliament, what can they rely on?
Survivors and the public hear ministers make promises.
They hear repeated assurances that lessons have been learned and change will follow.
They build their expectations around those promises.
Many survivors have spent years believing ministers when they said action was coming.
To now be told that those promises cannot be relied upon is not just a legal argument, it is a fundamental betrayal of the trust survivors (and children across the UK) were asked to place in the process.
Trust works both ways.
Survivors are asked to trust public inquiries with the most painful experiences of their lives.
Governments should not then be able to argue that survivors cannot rely on the promises they receive in return.
WHILE GOVERNMENT ARGUES, CHILDREN ARE STILL BEING ABUSED
Government figures show that approximately 2 million children have been sexually abused since IICSA published its recommendations in October 2022.
That astonishing number must not be lost amidst legal arguments and the Government’s technical defences. This case is about the protection of all British children.
What shocks us most is how much ingenuity and effort has gone into finding reasons not to act.
Imagine if half of the same energy had been invested in implementing child protection measures.
Imagine if the resources currently being spent defending this case had instead been spent protecting children.
How many children might already be safer?
While well paid Government lawyers argue, children are still being sexually abused.
That is the reality we cannot lose sight of.
This case was never about clever legal arguments.
It is about whether promises made to children and survivors mean anything at all.
The Maggie Oliver Foundation will not be silent on that question.
PeteM retweeted
There shouldn't be a single penny of public money spent on 'Islamophobia Awareness Month'.
PeteM retweeted
Let’s break down what Maggie Oliver is doing in the High Court today. Taxpayers funded a seven-year inquiry into child sexual abuse, costing over £200 million. Survivors relived their trauma, institutional failures were exposed and 20 recommendations were made to protect children.
And the Government’s defence? That it is not legally obliged to implement those recommendations. So we pay for public inquiries, victims suffer all over again, and governments can simply choose not to act. What is the point of an inquiry if its findings can be ignored?
PeteM retweeted
Praying David will win today and for @MaggieOliverUK
Today is the day. David vs Goliath. Today we go to the High Court for our landmark judicial review against the Government. We have been shocked at the arguments being advanced by the Home Secretary in defence of its failure to implement key recommendations made by the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (IICSA). These arguments include, that The Maggie Oliver Foundation does not have standing to bring this challenge on behalf of children, that the Government is under no obligation to implement child protection measures, and that the public at large cannot rely upon promises made by the Prime Minister and Ministers that are made in Parliament.
The Government's legal defence raises fundamental questions about public trust, accountability and whether promises made to survivors following public inquiries mean anything at all.
At the centre of the judicial review are 20 key recommendations issued by the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (IICSA) proposed to better protect children across the UK from sexual abuse. These include properly collecting data relating to child abusers and victims of abuse and exploitation, ending the use of pain-inducing restraint techniques on children in custody and regulation of staff in children’s homes.
We are concerned that more effort and public money appears to be going into defending a challenge designed to ensure these critical improvements in child protection are made than into implementing them.
The simplest example of this is this – if the Government had implemented the first recommendation of the IICSA, there would have been no need for a further three-year, £65 million public Inquiry (The Statutory Independent Inquiry into Grooming Gangs).
WHO IS ALLOWED TO ASK THE QUESTION?
The Secretary of State is a challenging whether The Maggie Oliver Foundation and our founder and Chair, @MaggieOliverUK , have standing to bring the case at all.
This raises a deeply troubling question.
If organisations representing survivors and working every day with the consequences of child sexual abuse are not entitled to ask why promised child protection measures have not been implemented, who is?
The Government is trying to exclude from the debate the very people closest to the consequences of these failures.
For years survivors have been told to come forward. Speak up. Tell the truth. Many have done so at enormous personal cost, but now the Government says they, and those who represent them, cannot object to failures to protect children. Their voices must be silenced.
This challenge was never about politics. Governments of all stripes have let down children. It is astonishing that the Government's first argument in this judicial review is that victims can have no voice.
If organisations representing survivors, and survivors themselves, cannot ask why promised child protection measures have not been implemented, who can?
IF GOVERNMENT DOESN'T HAVE TO ACT, WHAT IS THE POINT?
A central plank to the Government's defence is that ministers are under no legal obligation to implement recommendations made by public inquiries.
If that is right, why spend hundreds of millions of pounds on public inquiries if Government is just going to ignore what they find? We genuinely struggle to understand how anyone can think that is acceptable.
Millions are spent, years of hearings are had, victims pour out their hearts, findings and recommendations are made, promises are made by Government and then broke – but when someone has the temerity to ask why those promises haven't been kept, the Government's response is we never had to keep our promises.
If that is right, the Government must be open about it, and explain to the public why they hold expensive public inquiries at all.
IICSA took seven years, heard from more than 7,000 survivors, cost more than £200 million and made twenty recommendations intended to protect children. But the Government now says, we have no obligation to fulfil its promises to implement recommendations to protect children.
CAN POLITICIANS DENY THEIR PROMISES MATTER?
We are also challenging the Government's position regarding promises made by the Prime Minister and ministers following publication of IICSA's recommendations.
Repeated assurances that action would be taken have been made by senior politicians across successive governments.
The Government's defence includes arguments relating to parliamentary privilege. In effect the Government say that The Foundation cannot rely upon ministerial promises made in Parliament, and that such promises cannot give rise to expectations about future action.
If the public cannot rely on promises made in Parliament, what can they rely on?
Survivors and the public hear ministers make promises.
They hear repeated assurances that lessons have been learned and change will follow.
They build their expectations around those promises.
Many survivors have spent years believing ministers when they said action was coming.
To now be told that those promises cannot be relied upon is not just a legal argument, it is a fundamental betrayal of the trust survivors (and children across the UK) were asked to place in the process.
Trust works both ways.
Survivors are asked to trust public inquiries with the most painful experiences of their lives.
Governments should not then be able to argue that survivors cannot rely on the promises they receive in return.
WHILE GOVERNMENT ARGUES, CHILDREN ARE STILL BEING ABUSED
Government figures show that approximately 2 million children have been sexually abused since IICSA published its recommendations in October 2022.
That astonishing number must not be lost amidst legal arguments and the Government’s technical defences. This case is about the protection of all British children.
What shocks us most is how much ingenuity and effort has gone into finding reasons not to act.
Imagine if half of the same energy had been invested in implementing child protection measures.
Imagine if the resources currently being spent defending this case had instead been spent protecting children.
How many children might already be safer?
While well paid Government lawyers argue, children are still being sexually abused.
That is the reality we cannot lose sight of.
This case was never about clever legal arguments.
It is about whether promises made to children and survivors mean anything at all.
The Maggie Oliver Foundation will not be silent on that question.
PeteM retweeted
Please share…..
Today is the day. David vs Goliath. Today we go to the High Court for our landmark judicial review against the Government. We have been shocked at the arguments being advanced by the Home Secretary in defence of its failure to implement key recommendations made by the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (IICSA). These arguments include, that The Maggie Oliver Foundation does not have standing to bring this challenge on behalf of children, that the Government is under no obligation to implement child protection measures, and that the public at large cannot rely upon promises made by the Prime Minister and Ministers that are made in Parliament.
The Government's legal defence raises fundamental questions about public trust, accountability and whether promises made to survivors following public inquiries mean anything at all.
At the centre of the judicial review are 20 key recommendations issued by the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (IICSA) proposed to better protect children across the UK from sexual abuse. These include properly collecting data relating to child abusers and victims of abuse and exploitation, ending the use of pain-inducing restraint techniques on children in custody and regulation of staff in children’s homes.
We are concerned that more effort and public money appears to be going into defending a challenge designed to ensure these critical improvements in child protection are made than into implementing them.
The simplest example of this is this – if the Government had implemented the first recommendation of the IICSA, there would have been no need for a further three-year, £65 million public Inquiry (The Statutory Independent Inquiry into Grooming Gangs).
WHO IS ALLOWED TO ASK THE QUESTION?
The Secretary of State is a challenging whether The Maggie Oliver Foundation and our founder and Chair, @MaggieOliverUK , have standing to bring the case at all.
This raises a deeply troubling question.
If organisations representing survivors and working every day with the consequences of child sexual abuse are not entitled to ask why promised child protection measures have not been implemented, who is?
The Government is trying to exclude from the debate the very people closest to the consequences of these failures.
For years survivors have been told to come forward. Speak up. Tell the truth. Many have done so at enormous personal cost, but now the Government says they, and those who represent them, cannot object to failures to protect children. Their voices must be silenced.
This challenge was never about politics. Governments of all stripes have let down children. It is astonishing that the Government's first argument in this judicial review is that victims can have no voice.
If organisations representing survivors, and survivors themselves, cannot ask why promised child protection measures have not been implemented, who can?
IF GOVERNMENT DOESN'T HAVE TO ACT, WHAT IS THE POINT?
A central plank to the Government's defence is that ministers are under no legal obligation to implement recommendations made by public inquiries.
If that is right, why spend hundreds of millions of pounds on public inquiries if Government is just going to ignore what they find? We genuinely struggle to understand how anyone can think that is acceptable.
Millions are spent, years of hearings are had, victims pour out their hearts, findings and recommendations are made, promises are made by Government and then broke – but when someone has the temerity to ask why those promises haven't been kept, the Government's response is we never had to keep our promises.
If that is right, the Government must be open about it, and explain to the public why they hold expensive public inquiries at all.
IICSA took seven years, heard from more than 7,000 survivors, cost more than £200 million and made twenty recommendations intended to protect children. But the Government now says, we have no obligation to fulfil its promises to implement recommendations to protect children.
CAN POLITICIANS DENY THEIR PROMISES MATTER?
We are also challenging the Government's position regarding promises made by the Prime Minister and ministers following publication of IICSA's recommendations.
Repeated assurances that action would be taken have been made by senior politicians across successive governments.
The Government's defence includes arguments relating to parliamentary privilege. In effect the Government say that The Foundation cannot rely upon ministerial promises made in Parliament, and that such promises cannot give rise to expectations about future action.
If the public cannot rely on promises made in Parliament, what can they rely on?
Survivors and the public hear ministers make promises.
They hear repeated assurances that lessons have been learned and change will follow.
They build their expectations around those promises.
Many survivors have spent years believing ministers when they said action was coming.
To now be told that those promises cannot be relied upon is not just a legal argument, it is a fundamental betrayal of the trust survivors (and children across the UK) were asked to place in the process.
Trust works both ways.
Survivors are asked to trust public inquiries with the most painful experiences of their lives.
Governments should not then be able to argue that survivors cannot rely on the promises they receive in return.
WHILE GOVERNMENT ARGUES, CHILDREN ARE STILL BEING ABUSED
Government figures show that approximately 2 million children have been sexually abused since IICSA published its recommendations in October 2022.
That astonishing number must not be lost amidst legal arguments and the Government’s technical defences. This case is about the protection of all British children.
What shocks us most is how much ingenuity and effort has gone into finding reasons not to act.
Imagine if half of the same energy had been invested in implementing child protection measures.
Imagine if the resources currently being spent defending this case had instead been spent protecting children.
How many children might already be safer?
While well paid Government lawyers argue, children are still being sexually abused.
That is the reality we cannot lose sight of.
This case was never about clever legal arguments.
It is about whether promises made to children and survivors mean anything at all.
The Maggie Oliver Foundation will not be silent on that question.
PeteM retweeted
This is very important
Well done @MaggieOliverUK & @TMOFCharity
High Court starts today 👇🏻
Today is the day. David vs Goliath. Today we go to the High Court for our landmark judicial review against the Government. We have been shocked at the arguments being advanced by the Home Secretary in defence of its failure to implement key recommendations made by the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (IICSA). These arguments include, that The Maggie Oliver Foundation does not have standing to bring this challenge on behalf of children, that the Government is under no obligation to implement child protection measures, and that the public at large cannot rely upon promises made by the Prime Minister and Ministers that are made in Parliament.
The Government's legal defence raises fundamental questions about public trust, accountability and whether promises made to survivors following public inquiries mean anything at all.
At the centre of the judicial review are 20 key recommendations issued by the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (IICSA) proposed to better protect children across the UK from sexual abuse. These include properly collecting data relating to child abusers and victims of abuse and exploitation, ending the use of pain-inducing restraint techniques on children in custody and regulation of staff in children’s homes.
We are concerned that more effort and public money appears to be going into defending a challenge designed to ensure these critical improvements in child protection are made than into implementing them.
The simplest example of this is this – if the Government had implemented the first recommendation of the IICSA, there would have been no need for a further three-year, £65 million public Inquiry (The Statutory Independent Inquiry into Grooming Gangs).
WHO IS ALLOWED TO ASK THE QUESTION?
The Secretary of State is a challenging whether The Maggie Oliver Foundation and our founder and Chair, @MaggieOliverUK , have standing to bring the case at all.
This raises a deeply troubling question.
If organisations representing survivors and working every day with the consequences of child sexual abuse are not entitled to ask why promised child protection measures have not been implemented, who is?
The Government is trying to exclude from the debate the very people closest to the consequences of these failures.
For years survivors have been told to come forward. Speak up. Tell the truth. Many have done so at enormous personal cost, but now the Government says they, and those who represent them, cannot object to failures to protect children. Their voices must be silenced.
This challenge was never about politics. Governments of all stripes have let down children. It is astonishing that the Government's first argument in this judicial review is that victims can have no voice.
If organisations representing survivors, and survivors themselves, cannot ask why promised child protection measures have not been implemented, who can?
IF GOVERNMENT DOESN'T HAVE TO ACT, WHAT IS THE POINT?
A central plank to the Government's defence is that ministers are under no legal obligation to implement recommendations made by public inquiries.
If that is right, why spend hundreds of millions of pounds on public inquiries if Government is just going to ignore what they find? We genuinely struggle to understand how anyone can think that is acceptable.
Millions are spent, years of hearings are had, victims pour out their hearts, findings and recommendations are made, promises are made by Government and then broke – but when someone has the temerity to ask why those promises haven't been kept, the Government's response is we never had to keep our promises.
If that is right, the Government must be open about it, and explain to the public why they hold expensive public inquiries at all.
IICSA took seven years, heard from more than 7,000 survivors, cost more than £200 million and made twenty recommendations intended to protect children. But the Government now says, we have no obligation to fulfil its promises to implement recommendations to protect children.
CAN POLITICIANS DENY THEIR PROMISES MATTER?
We are also challenging the Government's position regarding promises made by the Prime Minister and ministers following publication of IICSA's recommendations.
Repeated assurances that action would be taken have been made by senior politicians across successive governments.
The Government's defence includes arguments relating to parliamentary privilege. In effect the Government say that The Foundation cannot rely upon ministerial promises made in Parliament, and that such promises cannot give rise to expectations about future action.
If the public cannot rely on promises made in Parliament, what can they rely on?
Survivors and the public hear ministers make promises.
They hear repeated assurances that lessons have been learned and change will follow.
They build their expectations around those promises.
Many survivors have spent years believing ministers when they said action was coming.
To now be told that those promises cannot be relied upon is not just a legal argument, it is a fundamental betrayal of the trust survivors (and children across the UK) were asked to place in the process.
Trust works both ways.
Survivors are asked to trust public inquiries with the most painful experiences of their lives.
Governments should not then be able to argue that survivors cannot rely on the promises they receive in return.
WHILE GOVERNMENT ARGUES, CHILDREN ARE STILL BEING ABUSED
Government figures show that approximately 2 million children have been sexually abused since IICSA published its recommendations in October 2022.
That astonishing number must not be lost amidst legal arguments and the Government’s technical defences. This case is about the protection of all British children.
What shocks us most is how much ingenuity and effort has gone into finding reasons not to act.
Imagine if half of the same energy had been invested in implementing child protection measures.
Imagine if the resources currently being spent defending this case had instead been spent protecting children.
How many children might already be safer?
While well paid Government lawyers argue, children are still being sexually abused.
That is the reality we cannot lose sight of.
This case was never about clever legal arguments.
It is about whether promises made to children and survivors mean anything at all.
The Maggie Oliver Foundation will not be silent on that question.
PeteM retweeted
Go get em Maggie 🙏🏻🫡🇬🇧
Today is the day. David vs Goliath. Today we go to the High Court for our landmark judicial review against the Government. We have been shocked at the arguments being advanced by the Home Secretary in defence of its failure to implement key recommendations made by the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (IICSA). These arguments include, that The Maggie Oliver Foundation does not have standing to bring this challenge on behalf of children, that the Government is under no obligation to implement child protection measures, and that the public at large cannot rely upon promises made by the Prime Minister and Ministers that are made in Parliament.
The Government's legal defence raises fundamental questions about public trust, accountability and whether promises made to survivors following public inquiries mean anything at all.
At the centre of the judicial review are 20 key recommendations issued by the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (IICSA) proposed to better protect children across the UK from sexual abuse. These include properly collecting data relating to child abusers and victims of abuse and exploitation, ending the use of pain-inducing restraint techniques on children in custody and regulation of staff in children’s homes.
We are concerned that more effort and public money appears to be going into defending a challenge designed to ensure these critical improvements in child protection are made than into implementing them.
The simplest example of this is this – if the Government had implemented the first recommendation of the IICSA, there would have been no need for a further three-year, £65 million public Inquiry (The Statutory Independent Inquiry into Grooming Gangs).
WHO IS ALLOWED TO ASK THE QUESTION?
The Secretary of State is a challenging whether The Maggie Oliver Foundation and our founder and Chair, @MaggieOliverUK , have standing to bring the case at all.
This raises a deeply troubling question.
If organisations representing survivors and working every day with the consequences of child sexual abuse are not entitled to ask why promised child protection measures have not been implemented, who is?
The Government is trying to exclude from the debate the very people closest to the consequences of these failures.
For years survivors have been told to come forward. Speak up. Tell the truth. Many have done so at enormous personal cost, but now the Government says they, and those who represent them, cannot object to failures to protect children. Their voices must be silenced.
This challenge was never about politics. Governments of all stripes have let down children. It is astonishing that the Government's first argument in this judicial review is that victims can have no voice.
If organisations representing survivors, and survivors themselves, cannot ask why promised child protection measures have not been implemented, who can?
IF GOVERNMENT DOESN'T HAVE TO ACT, WHAT IS THE POINT?
A central plank to the Government's defence is that ministers are under no legal obligation to implement recommendations made by public inquiries.
If that is right, why spend hundreds of millions of pounds on public inquiries if Government is just going to ignore what they find? We genuinely struggle to understand how anyone can think that is acceptable.
Millions are spent, years of hearings are had, victims pour out their hearts, findings and recommendations are made, promises are made by Government and then broke – but when someone has the temerity to ask why those promises haven't been kept, the Government's response is we never had to keep our promises.
If that is right, the Government must be open about it, and explain to the public why they hold expensive public inquiries at all.
IICSA took seven years, heard from more than 7,000 survivors, cost more than £200 million and made twenty recommendations intended to protect children. But the Government now says, we have no obligation to fulfil its promises to implement recommendations to protect children.
CAN POLITICIANS DENY THEIR PROMISES MATTER?
We are also challenging the Government's position regarding promises made by the Prime Minister and ministers following publication of IICSA's recommendations.
Repeated assurances that action would be taken have been made by senior politicians across successive governments.
The Government's defence includes arguments relating to parliamentary privilege. In effect the Government say that The Foundation cannot rely upon ministerial promises made in Parliament, and that such promises cannot give rise to expectations about future action.
If the public cannot rely on promises made in Parliament, what can they rely on?
Survivors and the public hear ministers make promises.
They hear repeated assurances that lessons have been learned and change will follow.
They build their expectations around those promises.
Many survivors have spent years believing ministers when they said action was coming.
To now be told that those promises cannot be relied upon is not just a legal argument, it is a fundamental betrayal of the trust survivors (and children across the UK) were asked to place in the process.
Trust works both ways.
Survivors are asked to trust public inquiries with the most painful experiences of their lives.
Governments should not then be able to argue that survivors cannot rely on the promises they receive in return.
WHILE GOVERNMENT ARGUES, CHILDREN ARE STILL BEING ABUSED
Government figures show that approximately 2 million children have been sexually abused since IICSA published its recommendations in October 2022.
That astonishing number must not be lost amidst legal arguments and the Government’s technical defences. This case is about the protection of all British children.
What shocks us most is how much ingenuity and effort has gone into finding reasons not to act.
Imagine if half of the same energy had been invested in implementing child protection measures.
Imagine if the resources currently being spent defending this case had instead been spent protecting children.
How many children might already be safer?
While well paid Government lawyers argue, children are still being sexually abused.
That is the reality we cannot lose sight of.
This case was never about clever legal arguments.
It is about whether promises made to children and survivors mean anything at all.
The Maggie Oliver Foundation will not be silent on that question.
