This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/oct/31/fiona-woolf-child-abuse-survivors-inquiry-establishment
The article has changed 3 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 1 | Version 2 |
|---|---|
| The Fiona Woolf row shows child abuse survivors are still not being heard | The Fiona Woolf row shows child abuse survivors are still not being heard |
| (35 minutes later) | |
| Update 17:21 GMT: Fiona Woolf resigns | Update 17:21 GMT: Fiona Woolf resigns |
| Update 17:57 GMT, by Phil Frampton | |
| Fiona Woolf’s resignation represents a great victory for survivors and a bloody nose for Cameron and May. It is the second occasion that the prime minister and the home secretary have insisted that their appointee to head the inquiry was perfectly suitable in the face of near unanimous opposition from victims of child abuse. Any child abuse inquiry is pointless without the co-operation of the victims, so what do Cameron and May want from this inquiry? The victims’ representatives stated their demand to raise the inquiry’s status to statutory level with a senior judge. They want an inquiry with teeth. | |
| Clearly this must be led by someone who has demonstrated that they’re able and willing to stand up to the establishment. And we need this appointment to be made urgently. | |
| -- | |
| Halloween could hardly have been more haunting for David Cameron and home secretary Theresa May. A meeting they called with representatives of child abuse victims resulted in unanimous condemnation of the appointment of Fiona Woolf to head the government’s child abuse inquiry. The survivors’ representatives declared that Woolf’s appointment left the inquiry dead in the water. And we are left asking: “If the inquiry is dead, where is the smoking gun?” | Halloween could hardly have been more haunting for David Cameron and home secretary Theresa May. A meeting they called with representatives of child abuse victims resulted in unanimous condemnation of the appointment of Fiona Woolf to head the government’s child abuse inquiry. The survivors’ representatives declared that Woolf’s appointment left the inquiry dead in the water. And we are left asking: “If the inquiry is dead, where is the smoking gun?” |
| Back in July, Cameron assured the public that his government would “leave no stone unturned” to secure the truth about historical child sex abuse allegations. Given the nature of inquiries, it was reasonable to expect that the first stones the government would upturn would be those around those appointed to head the inquiry. More than a month on, after Elizabeth Butler-Sloss was forced to resign, and while abuse survivors were still waiting to hear who the new chair of the inquiry was to be, a Times reporter was reassured that the delay was caused by a “due diligence test” to secure an appointee in whom survivors and the public could put their trust. | Back in July, Cameron assured the public that his government would “leave no stone unturned” to secure the truth about historical child sex abuse allegations. Given the nature of inquiries, it was reasonable to expect that the first stones the government would upturn would be those around those appointed to head the inquiry. More than a month on, after Elizabeth Butler-Sloss was forced to resign, and while abuse survivors were still waiting to hear who the new chair of the inquiry was to be, a Times reporter was reassured that the delay was caused by a “due diligence test” to secure an appointee in whom survivors and the public could put their trust. |
| No stone was apparently left unturned, but what were Cameron and May looking for? It seems that they were more focused on weeding out any potential loose cannons, such as the popular victims’ legal representative, Michael Mansfield QC. In the glasshouse of government, were they only too wary of people who might throw stones? | No stone was apparently left unturned, but what were Cameron and May looking for? It seems that they were more focused on weeding out any potential loose cannons, such as the popular victims’ legal representative, Michael Mansfield QC. In the glasshouse of government, were they only too wary of people who might throw stones? |
| Fiona Woolf, self-proclaimed ordinary solicitor, who claims she is not a member of the establishment but has advised 29 governments, who invites people she refuses to declare are her friends to her home, can’t remember who is on her 3,000-strong Christmas card list, and refers to child abuse survivors as “the victim community”, appears completely unaware that in her denials she has created a grotesque parody of – a member of the establishment. Whatever due diligence May’s minions were up to, they didn’t manage to unearth whether their chosen appointee was linked to any of the key establishment figures on whom the inquiry might be asked to focus. The real work of checking on the suitability of the government appointee would be left to abuse survivors and the investigative media. | Fiona Woolf, self-proclaimed ordinary solicitor, who claims she is not a member of the establishment but has advised 29 governments, who invites people she refuses to declare are her friends to her home, can’t remember who is on her 3,000-strong Christmas card list, and refers to child abuse survivors as “the victim community”, appears completely unaware that in her denials she has created a grotesque parody of – a member of the establishment. Whatever due diligence May’s minions were up to, they didn’t manage to unearth whether their chosen appointee was linked to any of the key establishment figures on whom the inquiry might be asked to focus. The real work of checking on the suitability of the government appointee would be left to abuse survivors and the investigative media. |
| When Butler-Sloss resigned, she declared that she did not have the confidence of survivors. Does Woolf consider this important? Many survivors have said that they may boycott the inquiry if she is left in charge. Without victim testimony, the inquiry cannot get to the truth. If this is the case, the public is left to conclude that the truth is not the main purpose of the inquiry. | When Butler-Sloss resigned, she declared that she did not have the confidence of survivors. Does Woolf consider this important? Many survivors have said that they may boycott the inquiry if she is left in charge. Without victim testimony, the inquiry cannot get to the truth. If this is the case, the public is left to conclude that the truth is not the main purpose of the inquiry. |
| At the beginning of the 20th century the persecution and framing of a Jewish army officer, which became known as the Dreyfus affair, became notorious not so much because of the framing itself, but because of the way it exposed the rotten nature of the French establishment in its attempts to hide the truth from the public and the courts. Cameron and May’s bumbling and the half-truths and arrogance of Woolf have, in many ways, exposed the British ruling elite to the public. | At the beginning of the 20th century the persecution and framing of a Jewish army officer, which became known as the Dreyfus affair, became notorious not so much because of the framing itself, but because of the way it exposed the rotten nature of the French establishment in its attempts to hide the truth from the public and the courts. Cameron and May’s bumbling and the half-truths and arrogance of Woolf have, in many ways, exposed the British ruling elite to the public. |
| A common refrain is that the establishment cannot be trusted to investigate itself. Cameron and May would now be in even more trouble if there was a political party worth its salt in opposition. Where is the uproar on the floor of the House of Commons or from the Lords? Ed Miliband has remained quiet, as do most Labour MPs. Is it that they are also an entrenched part of the establishment? Even the outspoken Labour MP Tom Watson, who has devoted so much time to bringing the matter of government-level protection of child abusers within and beyond its ranks, has gone silent. | A common refrain is that the establishment cannot be trusted to investigate itself. Cameron and May would now be in even more trouble if there was a political party worth its salt in opposition. Where is the uproar on the floor of the House of Commons or from the Lords? Ed Miliband has remained quiet, as do most Labour MPs. Is it that they are also an entrenched part of the establishment? Even the outspoken Labour MP Tom Watson, who has devoted so much time to bringing the matter of government-level protection of child abusers within and beyond its ranks, has gone silent. |
| Woolf at least was not elected by the people but selected by the establishment. Our MPs were elected by the people. Who rules Britain and who are the representatives of whom? In the name of child abuse survivors, is there yet a party leader with the cojones to cast the first stone? | Woolf at least was not elected by the people but selected by the establishment. Our MPs were elected by the people. Who rules Britain and who are the representatives of whom? In the name of child abuse survivors, is there yet a party leader with the cojones to cast the first stone? |