A Fortnight in the Life of the Overarching Child Sexual Abuse Inquiry. Where now?

Much has happened in the last fortnight :

1. 2014 31 Oct Fri am First Meeting of survivors with the Home Office Secretariat

2. 2014 Oct 31 Fri pm The official resignation of the Chair, Fiona Woolf

3. 2014 Nov 3 Mon. Statement by Fiona May in the House of Commons, reply by opposition and then questions.

4. Ian Mcfadyens group, who are bringing the Judicial Review, including Andi Lavery and David Burrows Solicitor of dbfamilylaw, and some others meet with Keith Vaz and Home Office Select Committee @CommonsHomeAffairs

5. 2014 Nov 7 Second meeting of survivors and representatives with Home Office Secretariat and panel members.

6. 2014 Nov 11 Home Affairs Select Committee with Alison Millar, Counsel for the victims groups; Hilary Willmer, Chair of Parents against child sexual exploitation (PACE) and Peter Saunders, Chief Executive of the National Association for People Abused in Childhood.

7. 2014 Nov 12 CSA Inquiry Panel First Meeting!

8. 2014 Nov 12 Some survivors meeting with Theresa May Home Secretary

There is a need to review all that went on – with the appointment of the CSA Inquiry Panel; the lack of timely and sufficient due diligence; the lack of transparency; lack of consultation; the appearance of Woolf  before Select Committee the same day as members appointment; Woolfs managed resignation; the composition of the secretariat;  the fact that it is a home office secretariat which is at the hub of allegations;  the saga of the seven drafts and who actually contributed to them; the Butler in the Scottish magic circle sex abuse scandal; and much more.

However hopefully others will cover that, I have concentrated on giving a selection of mainstream and social media links during this time and will concentrate on what the options are for the Inquiry and the way forward.

2014 October 31st am First Survivor and Representative Meeting with Home Office Secretariat

As far as I am aware there is no official source released yet of information about the meeting of survivors with the secretariat. However thanks to Ian Pace and Jonathan West who have both blogged about it, [11] and [14] respectively, we know roughly what happened. These are extremely valuable even more so as they were timely – within a day or so of the meeting and I for one am very grateful to them. The transparency is extremely important so that everyone know what is going on, in near real time.

These, though valuable, are not however to be considered as minutes or a complete record of the meeting. I think official minutes will become available but these will take time. It may be that they are following a convention that minutes are only available as approved minutes, when confirmed by the following meeting. Consideration should be given to a rapid unofficial version of the minutes, if this meeting is to become the survivors liaison group that Theresa May mentioned.

The BBC  interviewed Peter Saunders NAPAC after the meeting  [7], and Rochdale online  [8]  have a short piece obviously written between the meeting and Woolfs official resignation.

2014 October 31st pm Official Resignation of Fiona Woolf

The resignation of Fiona Woolf was dealt with by various news sources on the day. I believe it was probably announced first and arranged with the BBC [5] . Reaction in this piece from Peter Saunders and Keith Vaz.  BBC5 live carried it [10] an hour into this programme, also with reaction throughout from Pienaar, Milliband, Peter Saunders, Mansfield, Camilla – Kids Co, 2h20m Peter Riddell Director Institute for Government, Pienaar and then Lord Scott of the arms to Iraq Inquiry.

Sky News [4] had video with Keith Vaz , Peter Saunders, Simon Danczuk, Woolf at HASC, Butler Sloss. LBC were prominent with live coverage [9]  and [40] getting one of the favourites to replace her Michael Mansfield but that notwithstanding a barrister of experience and an authoritative figure seen as taking on the establishment and recognising the faults and lies from them.

The CSA Inquiry website caught up late with statement [49] and the Home Office website  has the statement of May accepting Woolfs resignation [53]. The Belfast Telegraph [12] consistently punches above its regional weight, whilst Researching Reform was quick with an article [46] . Newsnight [3] covered the news with Tim Laughton, Michael Mansfield and Ian Mcfadyen.

Saturday November 1st, obviously the coverage continued. Importantly this is when Jonathan West and then Ian Pace published their posts on what had happened in the survivors meeting, otherwise we would still be in the dark today. It also enabled this information to be taken into account with what was written subsequently for the Sunday.

Early on the BBC had a video of Michael Mansfield reaction [34] , the Times covered it [44]  and had an exclusive story [43] but both behind paywalls unfortunately. The exclusive, at least part of which is duplicated here [30] is about member of the panel, Barbara Hearn and her suitability for the role. This is related to a Freedom of Information Request this blog has been pursuing for over a year, coincidentally, about the death of Lucy Gates, in which Bexley Council were accused of being negligent [76] . Other articles are by Wales Online [42] , Left Futures [1] , Vox Political [45] and Blairzhit [32]

There are also two articles dated 1 Nov from dbfamilylaw [78][79] . One is a draft of a request/demand to Theresa May as Home Secretary on the Inquiry, [33] the other is an article on Judicial Review and how it works [27] . David Burrows of  dbfamilylaw is the solicitor advocate acting on instruction from Ian Mcfadyen, who submitted the claim for judicial review [159] .

Sunday November 2nd brought the Mail [39] on the reaction of survivors to the news that Woolf had decided she was going to resign before the survivors meeting but used it as an reason to go. The Guardian included delays to the still unpublished Wanless report which the Home Secretary had had for about 3 weeks [21] 

The BBC [35] had an interview with Hague by Marr, transcript [36] , whilst the Express continued its slant on foreigners [38] Sky [31]  suggested taking politics out of the inquiry, whilst David Hencke of Exaro wrote on the importance of where the inquiry goes next [47] . The Coleman Experience  [28] gaves its unique take on the convenient resignation of Fiona Woolf.

Monday November 3rd was the day Theresa May, the Home Secretary, gave her statement to the House of Commons. Needleblog [144] doing an excellent service by putting the video on their site of Mays statement [15] , the reply by the Labour opposition Yvette Cooper [16]  and the Theresa May Question and Answer session [17] .

At 15.30 LBC [24] have the audio of the Fiona May statement, the Guardian Politics Live blog [26] covered the afternoon and the CSA Inquiry website [50] has the May Statement. The BBC [29] carried the news  and some video.

Chris Spivey gives his point of view [23] in Justice UK Style, Barrister blogger [61]  his view that it should torn up and started again, dbfamilylaw chose this day to publish his survivor demands to the Home Secretary, and ther is a audio from an unknown source of Tom Bateman and Tom Watson [25]

Tuesday November 4th brought Andrew Gilligan, a previous subject of an arguably biased inquiry, stating his view that the inquiry will fail [22] . Jonathan West wants the inquiry to be restarted and be statutory, with dbfamilylaw blogging information about statutory inquiries.

November 5th The Guardian thought there should be uproar [110] , dbfamilylaw view was covered in the New Law Journal [60] where also more of his biography and articles can be read. Marilyn Hawes CEO of Enough Abuse UK, gave her take on Sky News [60] , and Dr Watt blogged about the lessons that could be learned from Northern Irelands acknowledgement forum [145]

November 6th Labour apparently released its nominees for the chair says Ian Pace [75] , Channel 4 News [105] ran a piece with Ian Mcfadyen and Andi Lavery after their private meeting with @CommonsHomeAffs, which I believe they attended with David Burrows. They announced that they refuse to cooperate with the inquiry as it is.  @CommonsHomeAffairs tweet says its having private meetings with survivors over next few days. Andrew Watt is trying to get to the nub of the issue by asking what the aims of the inquiry are [109] He also notices that the Judiciary are not in the TOR of the inquiry  [111] , a serious omission.

November 6th Private Meeting of Group including Ian Mcfadyen with @HomeOffice

Minutes [124] for this meeting became widely available to my knowledge only late on 8th November from Leigh Day [155] Survivors and their representatives from Leigh Day (and others?) met the Home Affairs Select Committee on Thursday 6th November. The meeting was organised in order for the committee to hear from those who have been directly affected by abuse, first hand and not through their representatives.

The Committee stated at the meeting that the information gathered at the meeting will be used, in part, to inform a letter which the Committee is sending regarding the Inquiry to the Home Secretary next week. It has also stated that it will publish its report of yesterday’s meeting on its website. I have not seen any information from a survivor viewpoint unfortunately and am unsure if they are even available, apart from this video after the meeting. [105]

However those available have partially filled in the unfortunate information void that existed for  2 or more days about the roughly hour long meeting. It was with, Keith Vaz MP, Chair of Home Affairs Select Committee (HASC) and members, Tim Loughton MP and Nicola Blackwood MP and it is believed that Ian Mcfadyen, Andi Lavery and their solicitor David Berrows and unknown number of others were at the meeting. HASC wished to speak about  what the characteristics of the chair should be, and any ideas on how could the survivors become part of the process, and the power and scope of the inquiry.

Many said that it should be a statutory inquiry, reasons given being that people could be held in contempt, and because previous non statutory inquiries had been lied to. It was certainly a lot less clear who should chair it, and some wanted a judge but some expressed doubt that they could be trusted.  One attendee called for studying the Australian inquiry.

Andi Lavery and Ian Mcfadyen gave an angry interview afterwards [105]  saying that they refused to work with the panel with current terms of reference, current panel members, and non statutory inquiry. There should be a “reboot” and the whole process to start again. This is the group that instigated the Judicial Review and are presumably are continuing with it, although the process, timescale, nor any detail about the Judicial Review or who is in control of it is forthcoming.

There were many angry exchanges on social media after this, I suspect due to the lack of time people had had to catch up with the twists and turns of the previous few days, the lack of information about the meeting, the stark lack of choice that the interview appeared to leave people with, the lack of clarity about the process of judicial review, and the abrupt falling apart over a few days from a relatively broad consensus that Woolf had to go, to a set of difficult choices with no way forward that many found satisfactory.

The Mcfadyen team made a mass of tweets to say that everyone could have their say,  by filling in form, and sending it to representatives of their solicitor, to demand consultation on the process.[121]

November 7th Second Meeting with Home Office Secretariat

The next meeting was with panel members Ben Emerson QC, Professor Alexis Jay, Simon Regis and David Jervis and the Home Office Secretariat, and about 20 attendees including a range different survivors and representative groups, including inspire4survivors.

Information about the meeting was available promptly the next day [122] from a survivor attendee angle. This appeared to be a constructive meeting. It was stated emphatically that the object of the inquiry was to get to the truth, learn lessons and accountability. It was agreed survivors must feel they have a genuine stake in the process and this must be reflected in the work of the inquiry for survivors and victims. It was stated that the panel are currently working as if the inquiry is a Statutory Inquiry in readiness for the incoming chair to request same.

The secretariat are already working on, and looking at a variety of ways to obtain evidence. They are currently looking at, and interviewing, other serious inquiries and looking at how best current technology can be used to gather evidence. Witness statements/evidence will be used from past decades.

The Terms of Reference (TOR) are set by the Secretary of State; the methodology is set by the Panel. It was explained that currently other devolved areas of the UK have not come forward to be part of the inquiry that is why it is currently only covering England and Wales.

Inspire4survivors said “We should all get behind this enquiry in a professional manner and ensure the Panel hear from everyone that wishes to have a voice, they want to hear from you, so speak up and out to the email  john.obrien@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk or inspire4survivors@gmail.com”

This was in stark contrast to the message given the public from the attendees at the meeting just two days before.

November 11th HASC public meeting with Peter Saunders, Alison Millar and Hilary Willmer [130]

This is formally under the heading confirmation hearing for the chair of the csa inquiry.

Subjects discussed were whether it should be statutory, whether the people were consulted, how the chair should be selected, the terms of reference, and whether the panel should start again, and whether there should be a pause in the process.

Any very brief summary will not be totally accurate so please watch the video [130] [146]

Consultation – lack of! until very recently.

Chair – should have respect of survivors, compassion , but also investigative skills. (A cross between respect of Nelson Mandela, compassion of Mother Theresa and rotweiller investigative skills of lawyer such as Michael Mansfield) Perhaps a non London chair

Inquiry statutory wanted because power needed to seize documents, compel witnesses to give evidence, take evidence under oath, and criminal sanctions if evidence suppressed.

Terms of Reference (TOR) need change to support victims, need revisiting also on other issues.

Panel – A bias to start afresh but with some reservations with as to getting on with it and adding to it, but also with issues with friends of MPs, political allegiances and commercial interests. I felt the MPs badgered Peter Saunders for names, when what they should have done, is listened to what he said about the categories of people that should not be on the panel and find out who those were themselves- hardly rocket science. Definitely a need an independent secretariat not from Home Office.

House of Commons Question and Answer session with May on Wanless Report

November 12th CSA Inquiry First Panel Meeting

A very pleasant surprise was that a brief statement was issued on the csa inquiry website on the day of the meeting [153] .

“The Independent Panel Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse met for the first time today.

It was an important day as the Panel began the task of addressing the primary purpose of the Inquiry – considering the extent to which state and non-state institutions have failed in their duty of care to protect children from sexual abuse and exploitation.

Although a Chair of the Inquiry is not yet in place, the panel is committed to proceeding with this important work.

As part of wide-ranging discussions around how they will conduct their business, panel members agreed:

  • As a matter of priority to look at how victims and survivors who interact with the inquiry will be supported.
  • To liaise with the Australian Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse to learn lessons from the setting up and conduct of that inquiry.
  • To organise two listening meetings before Christmas for victims and survivors of child abuse at venues outside London following on from two meetings already held in the capital.
  • The work of the panel will be challenging and complex. A key task is to decide the methodology to be adopted for the Inquiry.”

November 12th Survivors meeting with Home Secretary

I think it was this meeting that took place at NAPAC , with Peter Saunders, NAPAC; Lucy Duckworth, Minister and Clergy Sexual Abuse Survivors, Phil Johnson and Chris Tuck who were there, and possibly others. She spent 2 hours there and the following report from BBC says survivors think she finally has “got it”.  Video of when Theresa May went to NAPAC [157]

I think Theresa May also met with other survivors on a different day.

So what happens now? Where do we go from here?


What do people want from an inquiry?

This is a combination of what I feel is an approximate consensus and my own views.

Andrew Watts wrote a useful article about what the aims of the Inquiry should be [109], from which everything else follows.

Primarily I believe that people overwhelmingly want the truth from the inquiry. They want to give their story and contribute their piece of truth to the overall truth which should become public knowledge, whilst also respecting any survivor confidentiality issues. If people disagree then please comment.

A few have suggested that the Inquiry is about justice. I believe this is a misconception or misunderstanding. Justice should follow from the truth that is released, but that is secondary and will not come directly from the inquiry, but indirectly via a complementary but separate process. Justice will be less certain, because the justice system is part of the reason justice has not been done so far, by the cover up and corruption in the past by the agencies that should bring us justice- the police, the judiciary, the legal profession, the crown prosecution service, the home office, the attorney generals office and politicians.

What is the best method to produce the truth from an inquiry into historical child sexual abuse?

In order that we do not waste time reinventing the wheel, and wanting to learn the lessons from the past, we need to look at other inquiries, their aims, their terms of reference, their composition, their successes and failures, their good points and bad.

I outlined various other inquiries in a post in June [18], when the MPs called for Hillsborough type inquiry. It was only basic research involving pulling together some links, I did not do an article about it and I have not done research on it since. There could well be other countries and other models. Please feel free to comment if you have knowledge or to correct any of my post.

There have been or are currently Historical Child Sexual Abuse Reviews and other forms of child abuse review in Ireland [63], Northern Ireland [65] , current Royal Commission into Child Abuse in Australia [73] [128] , New Zealand has a current Independent Inquiry into Child Abuse Glenn Inquiry [71] , Canada 2000 Restoring Dignity responding to Child Abuse in Canadas Institutions Exec Summary [70] and Scotland has a limited one of which the Action Plan [67] and the Historical Abuse Systemic Review Report 2007 [69] a One Year On Report [68] by Tom Shaw from Nov 2008. Victims in Scotland are calling [64] for a full public inquiry into historical institutional abuse from the 60s to the 80s.

Much more research needs to be done on this, the different models of inquiries need to be studied in depth and opinions garnered from participants as to their thoughts.

I have not seen any articles or comparisons of the different child abuse inquiries from anyone.  David Burrows, whilst writing a proposal for terms of reference (TOR) [85] [86] [87] [8 oct] merely posted links on Terms of Reference only for Leveson Inquiry [114], TOR [113], Jersey Child Abuse Inquiry [116] and TOR [115] and Waterhouse Inquiry [147] More links to relevant inquiries are here [72]

It would of course be prudent as well as looking at international models to consider other  British statutory inquiries to see if they achieved the the truth. Also to be taken into account is the 1992 Commons Child Abuse Inquiries Document download  [37]

Non Statutory Inquiries

The classic other alternative model to the statutory inquiry is the one successfully called for by Exaro, MPs, campaigners and survivors earlier this year. That is the Hillsborough Independent Panel (HIP) model webpage [55] terms of reference are short and simple [56], panel members [56] The call eventually succeed and did so against many peoples expectation.[138]

The HIP was designed to get to the truth, as the previous statutory models of the establishment had failed to get to the truth about the Hillsborough disaster. The HIP suceeded in revealing the truth, which importantly the establishment, the people in power have accepted. 25,ooo documents were digitised, archived and published.   It was chaired not by a judge but by the Bishop of Liverpool.  It did it task relatively quickly, without delays, without a mass of legal argument, without rancour.

This changed the parameters. It moved the goalposts -it widened the goal posts that truth team were shooting towards, and narrowed the ones that the cover up team tried to score in. The truth was ascertained and is enabling justice to follow. The HIP Report led to the annulment of the previous inquest and now the opening of a new Coroners Inquest. The corruption is still largely there but it was bypassed whilst obtaining the truth, and allowed a new inquest to happen  with the corruption and cover up by the authorities largely negated.  Further proceedings will follow after the inquest, during which comment is muted.

The HIP succeeded in getting to the truth about Hillsborough, and the model was chosen to find the truth of the murder of Daniel Morgan as 5 inquiries had failed due to police corruption before the Home Secretary acquiesced to the requests for a panel for the child sexual abuse inquiry.

Part of the reason for the HIP success was exactly because it did not have statutory powers. It avoided the legal argument, with its attendant delays, expense, unfairness and inequality, with its elite knowledge and language known only to a few, who charge for the information. It did not need them for the vast majority of the work they did – to find the truth.

When a process is without statutory powers but with the authority of the state and the people, then these powers are rarely needed. The truth can also be ascertained without the need for everyone to attend, nor the need to compel everyone to attend with the force of law. And you cannot compel people to talk or tell the truth.

It is also very informative, who, given the choice decide not to attend a non statutory process, and those people can be mopped up by a later justice process.

It would of course be good to canvas the views of the people concerned not only on the HIP but on how this could work for the csa inquiry.

Statutory Issues and why is it felt that a inquiry backed by statute is needed?

All the reasons I have heard are variations of being able to compel by legal means those called to attend and testify, to be able to hold people in contempt, to give the inquiry teeth, to make people give evidence, to oblige organisations to provide information,  to take evidence under oath, and impose criminal sanctions if evidence is suppressed.

Are all these reasons valid? Is there evidence that statutory inquiries work? If so which ones have worked best and why? Is it necessary? Is it desirable? How many credible statutory inquiries have there been? Why did Hillsborough only get the truth from a non statutory inquiry? Is evidence under oath needed? If so, can evidence be taken under oath in non statutory inquiry? Does a judge need to be the chair for inquiry be statutory? Can they be an ad hoc panel member? Can it be a joint chair? Why is it better sometimes to have a High court judge rather than a different judge? What advantages or disadvantages would a QC have as chair?

Are teeth necesary, if so when? You may be able to force people to bodily turn up, but you cannot make people talk or to tell the truth. The inquiry can have teeth, even exceptionally sharp, and very long teeth as Charlotte Leslie MP recommends [125],  but sharp long teeth are only suitable for killing and ripping apart flesh, and if they belong to the establishment that has helped cover up child abuse they are not going to bite their own.  Tigers teeth are no good for nibbling grass. Baring fierce looking teeth can badly put off those who need support especially from the type of person who has misstreated them before.

There are been various calls for various statutory inquiries- fully statutory, inquiry under the 2005 Inquiries Act, a Royal Commission, a Special Commission, a Hart type Inquiry, Tribunal of Inquiry, a statutory inquiry with Chair that is a lawyer, a QC, a Judge, with a High Court Judge and a non establishment chair or a dual chair.

What are they? What are the different types of statutory inquiry available? What are the advantages and disadvantages of each? How do they work? What  types has worled best and why for child sexual abuse, for other issues?

Other statutory issues are the Official Secrets Act which although Theresa May has said she does not want anyone prosecuted under this act or similar words [] the people concerned will want this in writing, not a verbal promise.

Similarly what constitutes a gagging clause? Some people had to sign these in whistleblower sacking/resignation packages and how exactly, in writing are these to be overcome.

It should be made clear how evidence can be heard from MI5 And MI6, who is allowed to hear it, what clearances they need and how these bodies, who many suspect at the very least of collusion with paedophile, and to have had paedophiles in the organisations to be brought to justice. Many feel the current Investigatory Powers Tribunal is not capable of or does not do the job.

In order to best understand whether the Inquiry should include Scotland, Northern Ireland, Crown dependencies etc  we need to know the relevant statutory position for each as to the mechanisms of control by the crown, government and information on devolved activities, and other relevant information. This should all be made public.

A disadvantage of statutory inquiry I believe is that, the more lawyers are involved the more time consuming, the more expensive, more discriminatory against those who do not know the arcane rules, the procedures or the language, more discriminatory against are poor, the less well formally educated, the people who have been given a bad start in life – the victims and the survivors.

Lawyers they know the rules, they know the process, they know the language.  They sell their information to those who do not for high fees. Is it wise to let them dominate the process and get involved in hours of legal argument that few understand? Especially as there are suspicions of child abuse networks amongst lawyers and the judiciary,[] as well as strong secret society ties to freemasons and others as well as to their archaic Inns.

Furthermore a statutory inquiry takes it into territory of the establishment where it can be manipulated.

Judicial Review

This appears to have been started by Ian McFadyen [13]. It calls [13] for Woolf removal, change in terms of reference, consultation on the panel before they are appointed, and a statutory judge led inquiry [80] .

I can accept that this was initiated with unselfishness and best of intention. Its supporters claim it gives a platform for everyone to be heard.

With the judicial review demanding a statutory inquiry, the simple fact is that the review disenfranchises all those who wanted and still want a non statutory inquiry. Similarly it does not give a platform to those who do not want so much involvement with the establishment such as judges and lawyers.

There are also other means by which an individual has a voice, without having to fill and sign a David Burrows form [140], and agree to demand individual consultation.

What it has done is introduced massive uncertainty into the process- what is the process, the timescale, all the laws involved? This is unclear. Are the parts about Woolf still going to be heard even though she has resigned? This process appears to play into the hands of the establishment and the corrupt influences.

We are now at the mercy of lawyer and judge controlled Judicial Review, an establishment process that many distrust. This process is easily delayed with no accountability, and with the possibility that the corrupt paedophilic powers which we know stretch through Parliament, Police, corrupt Media, Judiciary, Home Office, CPS and Lawyers which could affect the process. The more so because in a Statutory Inquiry more power centralised in the Chair rather than spread though the panel.

David Burrows is the Solicitor behind the Judicial Review. In many ways his work is to be  admired. His legal analysis of various situations, his frequent reliance on Common Law as the very basis of statute law, his campaigning and passionate blogs about the need for change in family law.

He is up front about what he wants from an inquiry. He writes  “So what would I want to see from a child sex abuse inquiry? For me such an inquiry is an opportunity to review the working of child law and of institutions – local authorities, police, health departments, courts and parole boards – operating in the area of child safe-guarding and protection. Children Act 1989 came into operation in October 1991, over twenty-three years ago.” [83]

This seems to be putting the cart before the horse. The truth about what happened is th eimportan thing, then lessons can be learned, but to have as an aim to review the working of child law seems premature, and colours the insistence on a statutory inquiry.

I am not a lawyer, nor would ever want to be one. Theresa May was asked for a non statutory inquiry. To suggest then that she did not carry out her function correctly for doing what was requested, appears strange to this layman.

Should the remaining points – the terms of reference and panel, be settled by legal argument or by public pressure and persuasion and compromise?  This is not to deny that the fact that the judicial review, has been a factor in the thinking of the Home Office leading up to the Woolf resignation. It may be that the stick of a judicial review complements the carrot of consultation and discussion. It may be that it hindered it, and the uncertainty about process and conflict it engenders has to be sorted by the very establishment who covered up the abuse.  It needs to be transparent.

Finally on 14th November dbfamilylaw blog has provided some information about the procedures -The Home Secretary must file her summary defence in three weeks’ time, and the papers then go before a judge for preliminary consideration (all being well, before Christmas). Procedure is defined by CPR 1998 Part 54. As to when is any final hearing: I hope we can push the case up the list, but nothing is guaranteed. I’d be surprised – if we get to a final hearing – if it is much before March (unless a secret trick I have up my sleeve, works: I can only say that, for now).

Whilst this is better than the total lack of information we had before on the issue of process, it appears inconsistent for those demanding transparency not to offer it themselves. The judicial review has the potential to affect the process for everyone, so it essential that when the people involved are in meetings they should make clear what happened, and what their hopes are for the panel aims.

To say that the present panel needs to be got rid of before saying what the team behind judicial review want from the panel, is flying in the face of the facts that at present the two processes are running in parallel, and will do for some considerable time. Saying that the Inquiry is not for the individuals behind the review, but for others, is abrogating the responsibility of those behind the Review to say what they think . That information is needed by others so it can be judged how the Review instigators might respond to different circumstances, what course they are taking, and what need be done to unite alongside others now, at the end of the process, or even end some or all of the Review earlier. At the minute, it appears as though the judicial review is a loose cannon.

Survivors Representation

Many arguments have been made along the lines of the voices of the people that have been hurt need to be heard, survivors need a voice, the inquiry needs the confidence of survivors, survivors need to be involved in the process throughout, the authentic voice of victims should be heard, a survivors inquiry, that survivors should be on the panel, survivors should have a say, survivors should be put first.

What kind of representation do survivors want and should they have? The present situation is that survivors are on the panel. If a statutory inquiry is chosen, it is not certain that survivors will or should have representation on the inquiry. Rather a team of independent assessors may be chosen with no bias, although it is also legally arguable that survivors on an inquiry might give balance. The point is legally arguable either way.

Theresa May has talked about a survivors liaison group, which appears to be acceptable to most, now there is talk about how this will link to the panel perhaps with the help of an interlocutor. Then there is the issue of how survivors are to give evidence, an acknowledgement forum appears a good idea from the N Ireland inquiry. [108]

Survivors I imagine will want to give their stories in a relaxed, friendly supportive, safe and healing environment, not an aggressive accusatorial, cross examining, rottweiler atmosphere.

In a panel the power is more spread out, in the case of a statutory inquiry, there is a dominant chair, the power rests substantially in the chair, and in certain circumstances the committee makes a separate report.

The contacts page for the Overarching Child Sexual Abuse inquiry is [141]

It would also appear desireable if a survivors forum was set up, entirely independent of the inquiry.

In order to best make a case for Northern Ireland, Scotland, Jersey and crown dependencies, as well as the statutory information needed as mentioned earlier,  survivors and campaigners, whistleblowers and everyone needs to make an effort to reach across the borders and understand the legal and political situation so that any such case can be made effectively if appropriate.

Evidence from non victims

It is totally correct that there is a concentration on victims and survivors at the moment, especially in view of the lack of consultation so far.

However this inquiry is also very much about whistleblowers, current and past child protection specialists, council workers, journalists, police, customs, religeous people,  officials, politicians the list is almost endless who could usefully give evidence.

Some like Bulic Forsythe [127] have lost their lives, some still live in fear, some were silenced through fear, some were legally gagged through redundancy agreements, some silenced through the official secrets act.

These people have as yet had virtually no voice in proceedings as far as I know. The best methods need to be found how best to accept evidence from the whole range of people who will come forward. Some of these people are at least 20 and 30 years older than survivors and there may be a pressing need for some of these to give evidence sooner rather than later.

This evidence is likely to be wideranging, and give an idea of behind the scenes of how perpetrators can cary out and get away with organised child abuse. The type and quality of  information available is indicated by this article from Wally Harbert [135] and this one from Colin Smart [156] both past Social Services Department Directors, but whether or when they will get involved with the inquiry is for them to say.

The vast majority of people will give evidence voluntarily and will  probably want the inquiry in cooperative,  consensus supportive rather than Rottweiler statutory mode.

Uncooperative Witnesses

The number of uncooperative witnesses for whom a statutory type committee is needed will be relatively small, I guess perhaps 1 or 2%.

If it is decided that a statutory committee is sometimes needed, then first it needs to be researched and published answers to questions such as – What laws or statutes are required to compel witnesses to attend? What sanctions are to be taken if they do not turn up, are silent or lie, and under what laws or statutes? What are the punishments? What will be the format of inquiry/committee/questioning? How often will this type of questioning be needed? What should be the composition of the committee?


What also has to be taken into account is politics. Politics is often a dirty game of manoeuvering, deceit, lies, blackmail, deals and compromises.

Tom Watson and Tim Loughton have said Theresa May wants an inquiry and that she stuck her neck out to have one, whereas Number 10 did not stick their neck out. Their attitudes were different after the Wanless Report, Theresa May saying allegations were not proven, not untrue, whilst Cameron stating falsely that that there was no conspiracy.[139] [137]

Taking various factors into account, it is clear I believe that the Home Office is fractured between those who want all the facts to come out, those who seek to mitigate the damage for the sake of the reputation of the Home Office and those who wish to defend paedophilia.  The situation is not homogenous and clear cut. Those of us not close to the political situation cannot understand the machinations, backbiting and intricacies. And that is one department of Government.

Add to this the other departments, and then layer in the different political parties and personality clashes, then the cross party deals locally and nationally about paedophilia such as the outrageous political Lib Lab omerta deal in Rochdale [148]. Then add in the egos, then the other variables such as police, judiciary, lawyers, honours, the royal family, MI5, MI6, Special Branch, armed services, press, corporations, Privy Council, Freemasonry, other secret societies and all the other pieces that go to make up the establishment.

The situation on the morning of 31 October, the situation was an inquiry that had not started, supposedly being chaired by its second chair Fiona Woolf. There was no consultation whatsoever, and most survivors, campaigners, professionals and press united in opposing the chair. The Home Office appeared in disarray with more and more revelations against Woolf, including a butler that was involved in the Scottish Magic Circle child sex scandal, that involved the judiciary and lawyers [149] [150] .

Now with 5 or 6 swift political moves by the Home Office, the situation has dramatically changed. There have been 5/6 consultations with survivors and representatives, public and private with Home Affairs Select Committee, the Home Office Secretariat and even the Home Secretary is having at least 2 meetings. Survivors also have a means of consultation,  directly via email.

The panel said Theresa May, is going to meet notwithstanding that the panel has no chair, though consultation the balance of survivor opinion may lie in the direction of a pause to reconsider the TOR and panel membership.

The mostly united front by survivors has disappeared, replaced by confusion and argument,  some disillusionment with goverment, some with each other, though there has been some recovery in morale after the low point on the evening of 6th Nov and following day of 7th Nov.  There has been some recognition that survivors may want different things and hopefully respect despite differences.

However there is also division-  some  people meet with Keith Vaz, others say he is an experienced gatekeeper and should be investigated himself [150] , never mind be the recipient for survivors views. Some want to go to meetings but are not invited, some refuse to go to meetings on a principle whilst others are happy to go, some want the panel to go ahead as is, others want additions to the panel, others want a pause, others want a judicial review and a whole new start.

The judicial review now is not the way some, perhaps a majority wish to go, yet it has potential to affect everyone. Instead of being viewed as essential or added support, the review is still not a transparent process and may hinder progress of others, if only due to the uncertainty.

The Wanless Report publication timing was designed to draw attention from the overarching inquiry, not only on the day, but with leaks beforehand.

Politicians are past masters at divide and rule, bait and switch tactics, PR, hiding bad news, some of it which may be connected with their own political survival or the actions of the department unknown to the bosses, and largely irrelevant to the overarching inquiry per se but still affecting it. Other actions I am certian will be to derrail the inquiry and to make it as impotent as possible.

Other factors to consider are that if Theresa May had had to resign would Cameron appoint a home secretary who would support an overarching inquiry or not? Could she politically take, without having to resign, a third bad choice of chair, or having to reappoint the panel members or being savaged by an internal review?

Politicians are not the only ones to indulge in politics however and there is manouvering, power struggles , jealousies, leaking, name calling, ignoring, blocking and subterfuge going on, on our own side as I write this. It must be remembered that we are all different but we should always remember that we should unite in the common aim of getting the truth known, and try hard to forgive others for perceived or actual sleights [142] .

Whilst very useful, Twitter especially is a very hard place to get any complex argumetns over. It is very easy to be destructive in a 140 character soundbite, that ignores the complexities of the situation, and no reasonable reply can be made. It should also be remembered that just as the inquiry should be transparent and consult, this also applies to survivors and others who go to meetings which may affect others.

Protection, Digitising and Publication of Information

My blog is largely concerned with getting information released about child sexual abuse that is hidden away in archives of local authorities, Police, Inspection authorities, Government and any bodies under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, so that they are available, free and digitally to anyone and everyone. They are after all paid for by public money and held by public servants.

I believe this release of this information is essential if we are to get to the truth and to learn the lessons of the failures of the past and correct them. Time and again child abuse Reports make the same recommendations, which indicates we are not learning, and that is hardly surprising if the information is only available to a few.

The resources needed to scan reports is virtually negligible for FOI, and there is a vast amount of information available to be tapped.

Immediately the Home Secretary should ask that all authorities start protecting, cataloguing, indexing and digitising their all records about child abuse in preparation for the inquiry.  This includes the Police, who have carried out over 150 “historic”  Operations with known codenames, about which very little is in the public domain. eg Operation Rose – a huge Operation , involving over 60 childrens homes by Northumbria Police who have 140 boxes of information, of which they will release no reports, saying there is too much information to even look within the 18 hour limit!

At a stroke the Home Secretary could set in motion the release of a huge source of information from local authorities, inspection bodies, police, government departmetns that would take decades to partially reveal under Freedom of Information. A central archive should be created, and protocols for disclosure of information similar to Hillsborough Panel which released 26,ooo documents, which are available to the public.

FOI requests, not only takes a huge amount of time, and whilst many times successful, it has the downside of trying to get information released from bodies that do not wish to release the information for reasons including financial cost to the authority, culpability, potential legal action, embarassment to individuals, department or corporation and a host of others.

These bodies have a range of delaying tactics and legal exemptions which are often used  rightly, many times wrongly. One exemption is Section 30 [134] FOI Act. If the overarching inquiry goes ahead it could stop all FOI requests being answered on child abuse for 10 years, with the excuse there is an investigation, exemption S30. It is therefore essential that some mechanism is put in place to enable FOI still to be released for child abuse- perhaps that the Overarching Inquiry does not count as an inquiry under FOI Act 2000.

Healing for Survivors

Lastly and most importantly, free therapy and healing for ALL victims including adult victims of child abuse. It is a false assumption seemingly made by many that all victims get help. This is often not the case.

When survivors help is needed by the police in trials or interviews or investigations, or by politicians for information, the vast majority of survivors have time and time again given their help, only to be betrayed time in and time out. This at a cost of their own health as the recall of these desperately traumatic events can trigger flashbacks and cause extreme distress. This can also be triggered in daily life, hence why the abuse may be historic but the effects are not.

Healing and therapy to suit the individual needs to be routinely made available for  survivors not only when they have to relive the past but examination needs to be made of what provision is whether every survivor is given correct healing and therapy. Consideration needs to be given to start training more therapists to cater for increased demand.

Other Issues

Terms of reference- I have not studied properly

Freemasonry is suspected in many cases of child sexual abuse. All people involved in the Secretariat, and Inquiry should sign a declaration that they are not masons or  any other secret society.

Vetting Agencies- it should be made totally transparent who the vetting agencies have been for various personnel who are perpetrators, and for departments such as the Home Office who are suspected of being part of the paedophile network.

Insurance Companies have had a big influence on the behaviours of local authorities and Inquiries. These should be investigated.


The aim of the inquiry should be to get to the truth,  justice being a separate but complementary process.

Evidence needs urgent and immediate protection, and to get it catalogued and digitised for the inquiry. How can this be done? Can the Home Secretary issue some form of proclamation that all evidence on and relevant to child sexual abuse, children homes are potentially needed for the inquiry and categorically should not be destroyed. All the relevant bodies should be asked to start digitising and cataloguing relevant reports and information.

I believe very few people, if anyone, are well informed enough to decide what format this inquiry should take. We simply do not know enough basic facts about statutory inquiries and which model would work best for this child sexual abus inquiry. We need to find the reasons why statutory element is, or is perceived to be necessary and find solutions as to how best to fulfill these needs, combining with the best elements of the Hillsborough model.

We need to know how best to finesse the balance between the vast majority of the time when the panel/committee is best in cooperative non statutory mode and the time it may need to be in rottweiler statutory mode. The answer could be a dual chair or a dual panel with the cooperative panel choosing when to engage the second statutory committee.

A paper could be prepared in approximately 8 weeks, preferably independent of the Home Office, gathering evidence from the Hillsborough Panel and personnel and other statutory and non statutory inquiries and personnel. This should be published to inform everyone.

We  need to know definitively  whether survivors can be on a statutory inquiry or not, before a decision to have a statutory inquiry is made.

During the 8 week wait for the Report,  discussions could proceed with different survivors and representatives and non survivor evidence givers and the Home Office and HASC about the qualities needed and those undesireable in panel members and terms of reference.


2001/2 Home Affairs Committee [37] Conduct of child abuse inquiries

2014 Jun 4 Mirror MPs demand Inquiry [116]

2014 Jun 6 Cathy Fox [18] Thoughts on MPs call for Hillsborough type inquiry

2014 Jun 16 Exaro News [107] Every MP asked to back inquiry into organised abuse

2014 Jun 26 [117] Tessa Munt blog Tessa Munt calls for inquiry

2014 Jul 7 May announced setting up of panel inquiry on child sexual abuse [161] [162]   [163]

2014 Jul 8 Prime Ministers Press Spokesman Briefing [165]

2014 Jul 9 Home Office Statement [164]

2014 Jul 14 Prime Ministers press briefing on Butler Sloss resignation [166] https://www.gov.uk/government/news/press-briefing-afternoon-14-july-2014

2014 Aug 15 RT [41] Child abuse scandal raises disturbing questions about UK establishment

2014 Aug 29 dbfamilylaw blog Transparency and Common Law [104]

2014 Sept 5 Fiona Woolf Appointment Announced [167]

2014 Sept 6 dbfamilylaw blog Reflections on law of bias [103] 

2014 Sept 7 Open letter to Woolf on bias [102]

2014 Sept 8 Consultation and Home Secretary [101]

2014 Sept 11 dbfamilylaw blog  Inquiry Inquiries [100]

2014 Sept 12 dbfamilylaw blog Abuse meaning [99]

2014 Sept 12 Date of Ian Mcfadyens letter of proposed claim for judicial review pre action protocol

2014 Sept 14 dbfamilylaw blog Panel expertise and bias [98]

2014 Sept 14 dbfamilylaw blog HO request for info [97]

2014 Sept 18 dbfamilylaw blog Bias and FOI [96]

2014 Sept 19 dbfamilylaw blog Child Law Reform – a Manifesto  [95]

2014 Sept 20 dbfamilylaw blog Inquiry Rights 1 [94]

2014 Sept 21 dbfamilylaw blog Inquiry Rights [93]

2014 Sept 22 dbfamilylaw blog Professional standing of Mrs Woolf [92]

2014 Sept 28 dbfamilylaw blog Complaint to SRA about Mrs Woolf [91] 

2014 Sept 30 Date of Reply, copy of which at [80] , from Melanie Farr Treasury Solicitor, in response to Ian Mcfadyens Proposed claim for judicial review

2014 Oct 8 dbfamilylaw blog TOR1 [90]

2014 Oct 9 dbfamilylaw blog Draft TOR 2 [89]

2014 Oct 10 dbfamilylaw blog Right to a fair inquiry a Human Right [88]

2014 Oct 16 dbfamilylaw blog Draft Terms of Ref 3 [87]

2014 Oct 18 dbfamilylaw blog [86] Letter for Home Office on draft terms of reference

2014 Oct 20 Early Day Motion 374  [2]

2014 Oct 21 CSA Inquiry website [52] May statement on appointment of Woolf, panel members and Terms of Reference

2014 Oct 21 2014 Oct Home Affairs Select Committee Woolf [54]

2014 Oct 21 dbfamilylaw blog article [85] on the Draft Terms of Reference

2014 Oct 23 dbfamilylaw blog [13] Judicial Review Application on grounds of panel members not declaring bias, non consultation with survivors, Woolfs lack of expertise and calling for statutory (ie under Inquiries Act 2005) and chaired by a judge of at least High Court level.

2014 Oct 24 Jordans [152] Re child sexual abuse inquiry

2014 Oct 25 dbfamilylaw blog [84] Please resign draft re Woolf

2014 Oct 26 dbfamilylaw blog [83]  What the Inquiry must consider. This includes what he wants an inquiry to give – an agenda for child law reform

2o14 Oct 28 Call by dbfamilylaw blog to Fiona Woolf asking her to step down with a call also for a statutory inquiry.[82]

2014 Oct 29 Spotlight [112] Letter from Sue Richardson What next for The Inquiry into Historical Abuse?

2o14 Oct 31 Jim Gamble [132] Whether Woolf should step down

2014 Oct 31 BBC  [7]  Saunders on survivors meeting

2014 Oct 31 See Nov 1 Ian Pace [11] and Jonathan West [14] for blog posts of the Survivors Meeting.

2014 Oct 31 Rochdale online [8]

2014 Oct 31 BBC [5]  Woolf, Saunders, Vaz and Timeline

2014 Oct 31 BBC 5 [10]  live Full Woolf resignation interview with Pienaar  1 hour in, comment from Pienaar, Milliband, Peter Saunders, Mansfield, Camilla – Kids Co, 2.20 Peter Riddell Director Institute for Government, Pienaar, Lord Scott Arms to Iraq Inq!!   **

2014  c.  Oct 31 Sky News [4] Video of Keith Vaz , Peter Saunders, Simon Danczuk, Woolf at HASC, Butler Sloss

2014 Oct 31 LBC [9] Michael Mansfield as Woolf quits  **

2014 Oct 31 LBC [40] Theresa May Accused Of Bungling Over Inquiry

2014 Oct 31 CSA Inquiry website [51] May statement on Woolfs resignation

2014 Oct 31 Home Office website [53] Statement May accepting Woolfs resignation

2014 Oct 31 CSA Inquiry Website [49]  statement of Woolf resignation

2014 Oct 31 Daily Mail [6]  Woolf resigns and timeline

2014 Fri Oct 31 Newsnight [3]   Tim laughton, Mansfield, Ian Mcfadyen

2014 Oct 31 Belfast Telegraph [12] Woolf Quits

2014 Oct 31 Researching Reform [46] Fiona Woolf Steps Down as Chair for Child Abuse Inquiry

2014 Oct 31 Channel 4 News [160] Woolf resignation http://www.channel4.com/news/woolf-fiona-child-abuse-inquiry-lord-brittan-butler-sloss

2014 Nov 1 Ian Pace Blog Desiring Progress [11] on survivor meeting with secretariat

2014 Nov 1  Sceptical Thoughts blog Jonathan West [14]

2014 Nov 1 BBC  [34] Child abuse inquiry: Who will succeed Fiona Woolf? BBC

2014 Nov 1 Left Futures [1]

2014 Nov 1 Wales Online [42] ‘I have little faith in this abuse inquiry’: Child abuse victim Tony Gregory despairs as inquiry head Fiona Woolf resigns

2014 Nov 1 Times [43] paywall ‘I did not think of Brittan as a friend’

2014 Nov 1 Times [30] re Barbara Hearn

2014 Nov 1 Times [44] Turmoil at the Home Office as Woolf quits child abuse inquiry

2014 Nov 1 Blairzhit [32] Leon Brittan to chair historical child abuse Inquiry

2014 Nov 1 Vox Political [45] Two down: Woolf resigns from sex abuse inquiry

2014 Nov 1 dbfamilylaw blog [33] Draft of Request/demand to May

2104 Nov 1 dbfamilylaw blog [27] Judicial review

2014 Nov 2 Daily Mail [39] Duped: What campaigners felt when they found abuse inquiry chief had secretly decided to resign – BEFORE emotional meeting

2014 Nov 2 Guardian [21] Wanless Theresa May accused of delaying abuse report publication amid inquiry furore

2014 Nov 2 BBC [35] Hague interview with Marr  Transcript [36]

2014 Nov 2 Coleman Experience [28] The convenient resignation of Fiona Woolf

2014 Nov 2 Express [38] Foreigner set to head child sex inquiry after Fiona Woolf quits

2014 Nov 2 Sky [31] ‘Take Politics Out Of Child Abuse Inquiry’

2014 Nov 2 David Hencke [47] Child Sex Abuse Inquiry Debacle: Why it is important where we go next

2014 Nov 3 CSA Inquiry website [50] May Statement to Commons

2014 Nov 3 15.30 LBC [24] Fiona Woolf – May statement

2014 Nov 3 Video of Theresa May Statement [15]

2014 Nov 3 Video of Yvette Cooper [16] reply on behalf of the opposition

2o14 Nov 3 Video of Theresa May Question and Answer session [17]

2014 Nov 3 Guardian Live [26] re csa Theresa May apologises for failure to appoint a child abuse inquiry chair: Politics Live blog

2014 Nov 3 dbfamilylaw blog [19] CSA Survivors demands

2014 Nov 3 Chris Spivey [23] Justice UK Style

2014 Nov 3 BBC [29] Theresa May ‘sorry’ for two abuse inquiry resignations

2014 Nov 3 Barrister Blogger [61] Tear it up and start again

2104 Nov 3 [25] Listen to more on #csainquiry Tom Bateman & Tom Watson & referencing David Burrows

2014 Nov 4 Telegraph Andrew Gilligan [22] Whether Fiona Woolf heads it or not, the child abuse inquiry will fail

2014 Nov 4 Guardian [59] Jonathan West The child abuse inquiry needs to start again with transparency and trust. After the Butler-Sloss and Woolf fiascos, only a statutory, judge-led inquiry can satisfy abuse survivors

2014 Nov 4 dbfamilylaw blog [48] A Statutory Inquiry some answers

2104 Nov 5 Guardian [110] There should be uproar

2014 Nov 5 New Law Journal [60] Abuse inquiry Controversy Will Home Office take opportunity to “clear the slate”?

2014 Nov ?  Sky News [58] Marilyn Hawes CEO of Enough Abuse UK

2104 Nov 5 DR Watt [108] Acknowledgement forum

2014 Nov 6 Ian Pace [75] Labours nominees for Chair of CSA Inquiry

2014 Nov 6 Group of survivors, including Ian Mcfadyen and David Burrows his solicitor met with @CommonsHomeAffs to discuss issues regarding the inquiry [81]

2014 Nov 6 @commons affairs says its having private meetings with survivors over next few days.

2014 Nov 6 Channel 4 News [105] Ian Mcfadyen and Andi Lavery after meeting, announcing that they refuse to cooperate the inquiry as it is.

2014 Nov 6 Andrew Watt blog [109] Aims of child abuse inquiry

2014 Nov 6 Andrew Watt blog [111] The judiciary should be included in the UK Child Abuse Inquiry Terms of Reference

2014 Nov 6 LBC [154] James O’Brien Tom Perry Mandate Now https://audioboom.com/boos/2628004-james-o-brien-lbc-6-11-14-pt2-the-csainquiry-hoping-for-engagement-a-statutory-inquiry

2014 Nov 8/9?  [124] Unofficial minutes of Meeting on 6 Nov with Keith Vaz and Ian Mcfadyens group

2014 Nov 9 Charlotte Leslie MP [125] Why the child abuse inquiry should be statutory.

2014 Nov 9 UKchild abuse blogspot [136] Appointment of the Child Abuse Inquiry Panel was irrational and irregular. The Panel must go.

2014 Nov 11 The Wanless Report released [143]  See needleblog for most of Wanless material

2014 Nov 12 Daily Mail [139] Theresa May admits there ‘may have been a cover-up’ over child abuse claims but Cameron tells ‘conspiracy theorists’ to look elsewhere

2014 Nov 12 Huffington Post [137] Will Black Abuse Campaigners Are Not Conspiracy Theorists, Mr Cameron

2014 Nov 12 CSA Inquiry website  [153] Independent Panel Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse met for the first time today. Statement.

Links, Hyperlinks, Biographies and References

[1] 2014 Nov 1 Left Futures http://www.leftfutures.org/2014/11/woolfs-enforced-resignation-exposes-establishment-home-office-stitch-up/

[2] EDM http://www.parliament.uk/edm/2014-15/374

[3] 2014 Oct 31 Newsnight  http://t.co/an1OvIpLqH Tim laughton, mansfield, Ian Mcfadyen

[4] 2014  Oct 31 Sky News http://news.sky.com/story/1364085/child-abuse-inquiry-controversy-at-a-glance Video of Keith Vaz , Peter Saunders, Simon Danczuk, Woolf at HASC, Butler Sloss

[5] 2014 Oct 31 BBC http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-29855265 Woolf, Saunders,Vaz, timelime

[6] 2014 Oct 31 Daily Mail http://t.co/4LZMQSB9sG Woolf resigns and timeline

[7] 2014 Oct 31 BBC http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-29844612 Saunders on survivors meeeting

[8] 2014 Oct 31 Rochdale online http://www.rochdaleonline.co.uk/news-features/2/news-headlines/92254/simon-danczuk-says-valuable-time-lost-as-fiona-woolf-steps-down-as-the-head-of-inquiry-into-historic-child-sex-abuse

[9] 2014 Oct 31 LBC Mansfield as Woolf quits http://www.lbc.co.uk/micheal-mansfield-wants-to-lead-inquiry-as-fiona-woolf-quits-99642 **

[10] BBC 5 live Full Woolf resignation interview with Pienaar  1 hour in, comment from Pienaar, Milliband,Peter Saunders, Mansfield, Camilla – Kids Co, 2.20Peter Riddell Director Institute for Government, Pienaar, Lord Scott Arms to Iraq Inq!!  http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b04mbkhm **

[11] 2014 Nov 1 Ian Pace on survivor meeting with secretariat http://ianpace.wordpress.com/2014/11/01/the-meeting-with-the-abuse-inquiry-secretariat-at-millbank-tower-friday-october-31st-2014/

[12] 2014 Oct 31 Belfast Telegraph http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/uk/abuse-probe-in-chaos-as-woolf-quits-30706821.html

[13] 2014 Oct 23 db family law Judicial Review http://dbfamilylaw.wordpress.com/2014/10/23/csainquiry-grounds-of-judicial-review-application/

[14] 2014 Nov 1  Sceptical Thoughts blogspot http://scepticalthoughts.blogspot.co.uk/2014/11/child-abuse-inquiry-meeting-with.html

[15] 2014 Nov 3 Video of Theresa May Statement http://theneedleblog.wordpress.com/2014/11/04/theresa-may-statement-csa-inquiry-3rd-nov-14/

[16] 2014 Nov 3 Video of Yvette Cooper reply on behalf of the opposition http://theneedleblog.wordpress.com/2014/11/04/yvette-cooper-csa-inquiry-3rd-nov-14/

[17] 2104 Nov 3 Video of Theresa May Question and Answer session http://theneedleblog.wordpress.com/2014/11/04/theresa-may-q-a-csa-inquiry-statement-3rd-nov-14/

[18] 2014 Jun 6 Cathy Fox Thoughts on MPs call for Hillsborough type inquiry https://cathyfox.wordpress.com/2014/06/03/thoughts-on-mps-call-for-hillsborough-type-inquiry-into-child-sexual-abuse/

[19] dbfamilylaw blog CSA Survivors demands http://dbfamilylaw.wordpress.com/2014/11/03/csa-survivors-demands-to-theresa-may-home-secretary/

[20] 2014 Nov Keith Vaz http://ukchildabuseinquiry.blogspot.co.uk/2014/11/keith-vaz-must-make-public-statement-on.html

[21] 2014 Nov 2 Guardian Wanless plus http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/nov/02/theresa-may-child-abuse-report-inquiry-home-office

[22] 2014 Nov 4 Telegraph Andrew Gilligan Whether Fiona Woolf heads it or not, the child abuse inquiry will fail http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/11205648/Whether-Fiona-Woolf-heads-it-or-not-the-child-abuse-inquiry-will-fail.html

[23] 2014 Nov 3 Chris Spivey Justice UK Style http://chrisspivey.org/justice-uk-style/

[24] 2014 Nov 3 15.30 LBC Fiona May statement http://www.lbc.co.uk/theresa-may-tells-abuse-victims-im-sorry-99753

[25] 2104 Nov 3 Listen to more on #csainquiry Tom Bateman & Tom Watson & referencing David Burrows 3/11/14 https://audioboom.com/boos/2616696-listen-to-more-on-csainquiry-tom-bateman-tom-watson-referencing-david-burrows-3-11-14?utm_campaign=detailpage&utm_content=retweet&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter

[26] 2014 Nov 3 Guardian Live re csa Theresa May apologises for failure to appoint a child abuse inquiry chair: Politics Live blog http://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2014/nov/03/merkel-says-tory-immigration-demands-could-push-uk-to-point-of-no-return-on-eu-membership-politics-live-blog

[27] 2104 Nov 1  dbfamilylaw blog Judicial review http://dbfamilylaw.wordpress.com/2014/11/01/judicial-review-and-how-it-works/

[28] 2014 Nov 2 Coleman Experience The convenient resignation of Fiona Woolf http://thecolemanexperience.wordpress.com/2014/11/02/the-convenient-resignation-of-fiona-woolf/

[29] 2014 Nov 3 BBC Theresa May ‘sorry’ for two abuse inquiry resignations http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-29876263

[30] Nov 1 re Barbara Hearn from Times  http://www.twitlonger.com/show/n_1sdpcs6

[31] 2014 Nov 2 Sky ‘Take Politics Out Of Child Abuse Inquiry’ http://news.sky.com/story/1365320/take-politics-out-of-child-abuse-inquiry

[32] 2014 Nov 1 Leon Brittan to chair historical child abuse Inquiry http://blairzhit.wordpress.com/2014/11/01/leon-brittan-to-chair-historical-child-abuse-inquiry/

[33] 2014 Nov 1 dbfamilylaw blog http://dbfamilylaw.wordpress.com/2014/11/01/csainquiry-request-survivors-to-home-secretary/

[34] 2014 Nov 1 BBC Child abuse inquiry: Who will succeed Fiona Woolf? BBC http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-29861507

[35] 2014  Nov 2 BBC  Marr and Hague http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-29869958

[36] 2014 Nov 2 BBC Marr and Hague interview transcript http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/02111403.pdf

[37] 2001/2 Home Affairs Committee Conduct of child abuse inquiries http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200102/cmselect/cmhaff/836/836.pdf

[38] 2014 Nov 2 Express Foreigner set to head child sex inquiry after Fiona Woolf quits http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/530350/Foreigner-child-sex-inquiry-Fiona-Woolf-quits

[39] 2014 Nov 2 Daily Mail Duped: What campaigners felt when they found abuse inquiry chief had secretly decided to resign – BEFORE emotional meeting http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2817363/Duped-campaigners-felt-abuse-inquiry-chief-secretly-decided-resign-emotional-meeting.html

[40] 2014 Oct 31 LBC Theresa May Accused Of Bungling Over Inquiry http://www.lbc.co.uk/theresa-may-accused-of-bungling-over-inquiry-99656

[41] 2014 Aug 15 RT Child abuse scandal raises disturbing questions about UK establishment http://rt.com/op-edge/180616-british-home-secretary-child-abuse/

[42] 2014 Nov 1 Wales Online ‘I have little faith in this abuse inquiry’: Child abuse victim Tony Gregory despairs as inquiry head Fiona Woolf resigns http://t.co/MhFDY9sh2I

[43] 2014 Nov 1 Times paywall ‘I did not think of Brittan as a friend’ http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/uk/article4254534.ece

[44] 2014 Nov 1 Times Turmoil at the Home Office as Woolf quits child abuse inquiry http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/uk/article4254530.ece

[45] 2014 Nov 1 Vox political Two down: Woolf resigns from sex abuse inquiry http://voxpoliticalonline.com/2014/11/01/two-down-woolf-resigns-from-sex-abuse-inquiry/

[46] 2014 Oct 31 Researching Reform Fiona Woolf Steps Down as Chair for Child Abuse Inquiry http://researchingreform.net/2014/10/31/fiona-woold-steps-down-as-chair-for-child-abuse-inquiry/

[47] 2014 Nov 2 David Hencke Child Sex Abuse Inquiry Debacle: Why it is important where we go next http://davidhencke.wordpress.com/2014/11/02/child-sex-abuse-inquiry-debacle-why-it-is-important-where-we-go-next/

[48] 2014 Nov 4 dbfamilylaw blog A Statutory Inquiry some answers http://dbfamilylaw.wordpress.com/2014/11/04/csainquiry-a-statutory-inquiry-some-answers/

[49] 2014 Oct 31 CSA Inquiry Website statement of Woolf resignation https://childsexualabuseinquiry.independent.gov.uk/statements/

[50] 2014 Nov 3 CSA Inquiry website May Statement to commons https://www.gov.uk/government/news/home-secretarys-oral-statement-on-child-abuse-inquiry

[51] 2014 Oct 31 CSA Inquiry website May statement on Woolfs resignation https://www.gov.uk/government/news/home-secretary-accepts-resignation-of-fiona-woolf-from-inquiry

[52] 2014 Oct 21 CSA Inquiry website May statement on appointment of panel members https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/child-sexual-abuse-woolf-inquiry

[53] 2014 Oct 31 Home Office Statement May accepting Woolfs resignation https://www.gov.uk/government/news/home-secretary-accepts-resignation-of-fiona-woolf-from-inquiry

[54] 2014 Oct Home Affairs Select Committee Woolf http://theneedleblog.wordpress.com/2014/10/21/fiona-woolf-appearing-at-the-home-affair-select-committee/

[55] Hillsborough Independent Panel webpage http://hillsborough.independent.gov.uk/

[56] HIP webpage Independent Panel members  http://hillsborough.independent.gov.uk/the-independent-panel/

[57] HIP Role and terms of Reference http://hillsborough.independent.gov.uk/report/appendices/part-4/appendix-1/

[58]  2014 Nov ? (date uncertain) Sky News Marilyn Hawes CEO of Enough Abuse UK https://audioboom.com/boos/2622139-marilyn-hawes-speaking-to-sky-news

[59] 2014 Nov 4 Guardian The child abuse inquiry needs to start again with transparency and trust. After the Butler-Sloss and Woolf fiascos, only a statutory, judge-led inquiry can satisfy abuse survivors http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/nov/04/child-abuse-inquiry-transparency-trust

[60] 2014 Nov 5 New Law Journal Abuse inquiry Controversy Will Home Office take opportunity to “clear the slate”? http://www.newlawjournal.co.uk/nlj/content/abuse-inquiry-controversy

[61] 2014 Nov 3 Barrister Blogger tear it up and start again http://barristerblogger.com/2014/11/03/child-sex-abuse-inquiry-mess-theresa-tear-start/

[62] 2014 National Archives Public Inquiries http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/webarchive/public-inquiries-inquests.htm

[63] Irish Historical child sex abuse Review http://www.childabusecommission.ie/index.html

[64] 2014 May 27 Victims call for full historical csa inquiry http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/victims-call-public-inquiry-historical-3611399

[65] Northern Ireland Historical Abuse Inquiry http://www.hiainquiry.org/

[66] 2013 Sep 25 Guardian Article on Northern Ireland abuse Inquiry http://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/sep/25/northern-ireland-child-abuse-inquiry

[67] Scotland Action Plan on Historical Abuse http://www.shrcinteraction.org/Portals/23/Action-Plan-on-Historic-Abuse-of-Children-in-Care-Nov-2013.pdf

[68] 2008 Nov Tom Shaw One Year On Report http://scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/264363/0079228.pdf

[69] 2007 Tom Shaw historical Review Systemic Report http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/203922/0054353.pdf

[70] 2000 Restoring Dignity Responding to Child Abuse in Canadian Institutions  Exec Summary http://www.attorneygeneral.jus.gov.on.ca/inquiries/cornwall/en/hearings/exhibits/Peter_Jaffe/pdf/Restoring_Dignity.pdf

[71] New Zealand Glenn Inquiry into prevention of Child Abuse https://glenninquiry.org.nz/

[72] More links to child abuse inquiries worldwide http://www.aifs.gov.au/institute/pubs/carc/4.html

[73] Australia Current Royal Commission into Child Abuse http://www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/

[74] Inquiries Act 2005 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2005/12/contents

[75] 2104 Nov 6 Ian Pace Labours nominees for Chair of CSA Inquiry http://ianpace.wordpress.com/2014/11/06/labours-nominees-for-inquiry-chair-and-a-left-establishment/

[76] Cathyfox Lucy Gates Report published or covered up https://cathyfox.wordpress.com/2014/11/04/lucy-gates-report-published-or-covered-up/

[77] Investigatory Inquiries Act 1921 http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/research/briefing-papers/SN02599/investigatory-inquiries-and-the-tribunals-of-inquiry-evidence-act-1921

[78] New Law Journal David Burrows biography and articles http://www.newlawjournal.co.uk/nlj/biographies/david-burrows

[79] Family Law Company of David Burrows http://www.thefamilylawco.co.uk/

[80] 2014 Oct 5 Cathyfox blog of Ian Mcfadyens Reply from Melanie Farr, Treasury Solicitor, in response to his Proposed claim for judicial review https://cathyfox.wordpress.com/2014/10/05/proposed-claim-for-judicial-review-of-csa-inquiry-panel-and-fiona-woolf/

[81] Ian Mcfadyen@Ian McFadyen. Today a group of survivors met with @CommonsHomeAffs to discuss issues regarding the inquiry

[82] 2104 Oct 28 Call by dbfamilylaw blog to Fiona Woolf asking her to step down with a call also for a statutory inquiry. http://dbfamilylaw.wordpress.com/2014/10/28/csainquiry-please-resign-mrs-woolf/

[83] 2014 Oct 26 dbfamilylaw blog post. What the Inquiry must consider. An agenda for child law reform http://dbfamilylaw.wordpress.com/2014/10/26/csainquiry-what-the-inquiry-must-consider/

[84] 2014 Oct 25 dbfamilylaw blog post Please resign draft re Woolf http://dbfamilylaw.wordpress.com/2014/10/25/csainquiry-fiona-woolf-please-resign-draft-letter/

[85] 2014 Oct 21 dbfamilylaw blog  on the Draft Terms of Reference http://dbfamilylaw.wordpress.com/2014/10/21/csainquiry-home-office-terms-of-reference/

[86] 2014 Oct 18 dbfamilylaw blog  Letter for Home Office on draft terms of reference http://dbfamilylaw.wordpress.com/2014/10/18/csainquiry-letter-for-home-office-on-draft-terms-of-reference/ cathy fox wrote

[87] 2014 Oct 16 dbfamilylaw blog Draft Terms of Ref 3 http://dbfamilylaw.wordpress.com/2014/10/16/csainquiry-draft-terms-of-reference-iii/

[88] 2014 Oct 10 dbfamilylaw blog Right to a fair inquiry a Human Right  http://dbfamilylaw.wordpress.com/2014/10/10/right-to-a-fair-inquiry-a-human-right/

[89] 2014 Oct 9 dbfamilylaw blog Draft TOR 2 http://dbfamilylaw.wordpress.com/2014/10/09/csainquiry-draft-terms-of-reference-2/

[90] 2014 Oct 8 dbfamilylaw blog TOR1  http://dbfamilylaw.wordpress.com/2014/10/08/csainquiry-draft-terms-of-reference/

[91] 2014 Sept 28 dbfamilylaw blog Complaint to SRA about Mrs Woolf http://dbfamilylaw.wordpress.com/2014/09/28/csainquiry-complaint-on-mrs-woolf-to-solicitors-regulation-authority/

[92] 2014 Sept 22 dbfamilylaw blog Professional standing of Mrs Woolf http://dbfamilylaw.wordpress.com/2014/09/22/csainquiry-professional-standing-of-fiona-woolf/

[93] 2014 Sept 21 dbfamilylaw blog Inquiry Rights  http://dbfamilylaw.wordpress.com/2014/09/21/csainquiry-rights-and-child-sex-abuse-part-2/

[94] 2014 Sept 20 dbfamilylaw blog Rights 1 http://dbfamilylaw.wordpress.com/2014/09/20/csainquiry-rights-and-the-child-sex-abuse-inquiry/

[95] 2014 Sept 19 dbfamilylaw blog Child Law Reform – a Manifesto  http://dbfamilylaw.wordpress.com/2014/09/19/child-law-reform-a-manifesto/

[96] 2014 Sept 18 dbfamilylaw blog Bias and FOI  http://dbfamilylaw.wordpress.com/2014/09/18/bias-and-freedom-of-information/

[97] 2014 Sept 14 dbfamilylaw blog HO request for info http://dbfamilylaw.wordpress.com/2014/09/14/csainquiry-home-office-request-for-information/

[98] 2014 Sept 14 dbfamilylaw blog Panel expertise and bias http://dbfamilylaw.wordpress.com/2014/09/14/csainquiry-panel-expertise-and-bias/

[99] 2014 Sept 12 dbfamilylaw blog meaning http://dbfamilylaw.wordpress.com/2014/09/12/abuse-a-meaning/

[100] 2014 Sept 11 dbfamilylaw blog Inquires http://dbfamilylaw.wordpress.com/2014/09/11/an-inquiry-inquires/

[101] 2014 Sept 8 dbfamilylaw blog Consultation and Home Secretary http://dbfamilylaw.wordpress.com/2014/09/08/csainquiry-consultation-and-the-home-secretary/

[102] 2014 Sept 7 dbfamilylaw blog Open letter to Woolf on bias http://dbfamilylaw.wordpress.com/2014/09/07/csainquiry-open-letter-to-fiona-woolf-on-bias/

[103] 2014 Sept 6 dbfamilylaw blog Reflections on law of bias http://dbfamilylaw.wordpress.com/2014/09/06/reflections-on-law-of-bias/

[104] 2014 Aug 29 dbfamilylaw blog Transparency and Common Law http://dbfamilylaw.wordpress.com/2014/08/29/transparency-made-simple/

[105] 2014 Nov 6 Channel 4 News Mcfadyen and Andi Lavery after meeting  http://www.channel4.com/news/government-not-listening-to-us-over-inquiry-says-survivor

[106] 2014 Nov 6 Home Affairs Ctte @CommonsHomeAffs We are currently meeting privately with survivors of childhood abuse – asking how to take independent inquiry forward.

[107] 2014 Jun 16 Exaro News Every MP asked to back inquiry into organised abuse http://www.exaronews.com/articles/5284/every-mp-asked-to-back-inquiry-into-organised-child-sex-abuse

[108] 2014 Nov 5 Andrew Watt re Acknowledgement Forum http://ukchildabuseinquiry.blogspot.co.uk/2014/11/would-acknowledgement-forum-be-useful.html

[109] 2014 Nov 6 Andrew Watt blog Nov 6 Aims of child abuse inquiry http://ukchildabuseinquiry.blogspot.co.uk/2014/11/what-should-aims-of-child-abuse-inquiry.html

[110] 2014 Nov 5 Guardian There should be uproar http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/nov/05/there-should-be-an-uproar-about-the-failure-to-investigate-historical-child-abuse?CMP=twt_gu

[111] 2014  Nov 6 Andrew Watt Judiciary not  in TOR http://ukchildabuseinquiry.blogspot.co.uk/2014/11/the-judiciary-should-be-included-in-uk.html

[112] 2014 Oct 29 Spotlight Letter from Sue Richardson What next for The Inquiry into Historical Abuse? http://spotlightonabuse.wordpress.com/2014/10/29/what-next-for-the-inquiry-into-historical-abuse/

[113] Leveson TOR  http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20140122145147/http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/about/terms-of-reference/

[114] Leveson Inquiry http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20140122145147/http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/

[115] 2013 Jersey child abuse inquiry terms of reference http://www.jerseycareinquiry.org/key-documents

[115a] 1996 -2000 Waterhouse inquiry TOR in North Wales (1996-200) Page 1 of https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/310730/macur-review-issues-paper.pdf

[116] 2014 Jersey Child Abuse Inquiry http://www.jerseycareinquiry.org/

[116a] 2014 Jun 4 Mirror MPs demand Inquiry http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/mps-demand-inquiry-historic-claims-3643868

[117] 2014 Jun 26 Tessa Munt calls for inquiry http://www.tessamunt.org.uk/2014/06/26/tessa-munt-calls-for-inquiry-into-historical-child-abuse-cover-ups-by-local-authorities/

[118] ITV several stories several dates ++ http://www.itv.com/news/story/2014-11-07/files-on-historic-child-abuse-cant-be-found/

[119] Cathy Fox comment dbfamilylaw blog re when is judicial review, what is process etc http://dbfamilylaw.wordpress.com/2014/11/04/csainquiry-a-statutory-inquiry-some-answers/comment-page-1/#comment-303

[120] 2014 Nov 4/5/6? Andi Lavery to Ch4 News? http://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid601325122001?bckey=AQ~~,AAAAAEabvr4~,Wtd2HT-p_Vh4qBcIZDrvZlvNCU8nxccG&bctid=3872988316001

[121] 2014 Nov 6 Lavery and Mcfadyen https://audioboom.com/boos/2628480-andy-lavery-and-ian-mcfayden-at-meeting-today-nov-6-csa-inquiry?utm_campaign=detailpage&utm_content=retweet&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter

[122] 2014 Nov 8 Secrets behind doors blog survivors and representatives Meeting 2 CSAInquiry blog  http://secretsbehinddoors.blogspot.co.uk/2014/11/summary-of-csa-inquiry-2nd-meeting-of.html?m=1

[123] Mandate Now Mandatory reporting mandatenow.org.uk

[124] 2014 Nov 8/9? Unofficial minutes of Meeting on 6 Nov with Keith Vaz and Ian Mcfadyens group http://t.co/u1JKQExf8c

[125] 2014 Nov 9 Charlotte Leslie MP Why the child abuse inquiry should be statutory. http://www.conservativehome.com/thecolumnists/2014/11/charlotte-leslie-mp-why-the-child-abuse-inquiry-should-be-statutory.html

[126] dbfamilylaw blog demands form http://t.co/MNWCuHwkOT

[127] 2014 May 21 Mirror Was Bulic Forsythe killed to protect paedophile ring ‘linked to future minister in Tony Blair’s government?’ Bulic Forsythe http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/bulic-forsythe-killed-protect-paedophile-3578788

[128] Australian Commission on Child Sexual abuse video Justice Peter McClellan http://youtu.be/Khq10_gDbHI

[129] Spotlight home office blog

[130] HASC with Alison Millar, Peter Saunders, Hilary Willmer http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Main/Player.aspx?meetingId=16442&wfs=true

[131] 2014 Nov 13 Reflections with Peter Hennessy – Tebbit interview (on first hearing not relevant, want i/v child abuse) http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0376x76

[132] 2014 Oct 31 Jim Gamble http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p029s6q4

[133] 2014 Nov 9 Andrew Watts Change to Statutory Inquiry http://ukchildabuseinquiry.blogspot.co.uk/2014/11/appointment-of-child-abuse-inquiry.html

[134] FOI Act 2000 S 30 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/36/section/30

[135] 2014 Nov 9 Cathy Fox Wally Harbert Child Protection in a hostile environment. https://cathyfox.wordpress.com/2014/11/09/child-protection-in-a-hostile-environment-by-wally-harbert/

[136] 2014 Nov UKchild abuse blogspot http://ukchildabuseinquiry.blogspot.co.uk/2014/11/appointment-of-child-abuse-inquiry.html

[137] 2014 Nov 12 Huffington Post Will Black Abuse Campaigners Are Not Conspiracy Theorists, Mr Cameron http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/will-black/child-abuse-wanless-review_b_6143070.html?utm_hp_ref=tw

[138] 2014 Jun 16 Exaro Every MP asked to back inquiry http://www.exaronews.com/articles/5284/every-mp-asked-to-back-inquiry-into-organised-child-sex-abuse2104

[139] 2014 Nov 12 Daily Mail http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2830030/Theresa-orders-review-MI5-s-handling-allegations-child-sex-abuse-1980s.html

[140] 2014 Nov 3 dbfamilylaw blog #CSA SURVIVORS DEMANDS TO THERESA MAY, HOME SECRETARY http://t.co/MNWCuHwkOT

[141] 2014 CSA Inquiry Contacts page https://childsexualabuseinquiry.independent.gov.uk/contact/

[142] Ho opono pono https://cathyfox.wordpress.com/2013/09/21/i-am-sorry-please-forgive-me-i-love-you-thankyou/

[143] Wanless Report released See Needleblog for most information on Wanless report http://theneedleblog.wordpress.com/2014/11/11/the-wanless-report-2/

[144] Needleblog http://theneedleblog.wordpress.com/

[145] Andrew Watt Acknowledgement Forum http://ukchildabuseinquiry.blogspot.co.uk/2014/11/would-acknowledgement-forum-be-useful.html

[146] Needleblog HASC video of Saunders, Millar and Willmer http://theneedleblog.wordpress.com/2014/11/12/hasc-csa-inquiry-millar-saunders-willmar-11th-nov-14/

[147] Waterhouse Inquiry Report http://tna.europarchive.org/20040216040105/http://www.doh.gov.uk/lostincare/20102.htm

[148] Lib lab cover up of paedos https://cathyfox.wordpress.com/2014/10/09/liberal-labour-conspiracy-to-conceal-paedophiles-and-sex-pests/

[149] Cathy Fox Woolf and Butler https://cathyfox.wordpress.com/2014/10/27/woolf-her-butler-and-the-scottish-magic-circle/

[150] Ian Pace Magic Circle http://ianpace.wordpress.com/2014/10/28/colin-tucker-steward-to-fiona-woolf-fettesgate-and-the-scottish-magic-circle-affair-and-wider-networks-part-1/

[151] Andrew Watt Inquiry Panel must go http://ukchildabuseinquiry.blogspot.co.uk/2014/11/the-inquiry-panel-and-keith-vaz-must-go.html

[152] 2014 Oct 24 Jordan child sex abuse inquiry http://www.jordanpublishing.co.uk/practice-areas/family/news_and_comment/child-sex-abuse-inquiry#.VGUrksnva-e

[153] 2014 Nov 12 CSA Inquiry website  Independent Panel Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse met for the first time today https://childsexualabuseinquiry.independent.gov.uk/statements/

[154] 2014 Nov 6 LBC https://audioboom.com/boos/2628004-james-o-brien-lbc-6-11-14-pt2-the-csainquiry-hoping-for-engagement-a-statutory-inquiry

[155] 2014 Nov 7 Legh Day Minutes of private meeting http://www.leighday.co.uk/News/2014/November-2014/Survivors-meet-with-members-of-the-Home-Affairs-Co

[156] 2014 Nov  14 Cathy Fox Colin Smart The significance of the Gates Family Inquiry and published media and other records by Colin Smart https://cathyfox.wordpress.com/2014/11/14/the-significance-of-the-gates-family-inquiry-and-published-media-and-other-records-by-colin-smart/

[157] 2014 Nov 12? BBC South East Theresa May meets Peter Saunders and other surviivors “she finally got it.” https://www.youtube.com/embed/esZAxlNPE-U

[158] uk column forum on csa inquiry http://www.ukcolumn.org/forum/childrens-issues/csa-inquiry-more-skullduggery?page=1

[159] Cathy Fox Ian Mcfadyen Judicial Review https://cathyfox.wordpress.com/2014/10/05/proposed-claim-for-judicial-review-of-csa-inquiry-panel-and-fiona-woolf/

[160] 2014 Oct 31 Channel 4 News Woolf resignation http://www.channel4.com/news/woolf-fiona-child-abuse-inquiry-lord-brittan-butler-sloss

[161] 2014 July 7 Exaro CSA Inquiry Announced http://www.exaronews.com/articles/5318/csa-inquiry-theresa-may-s-statement-to-house-of-commons

[162] Wikipedia CSA Inquiry https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_Panel_Inquiry_into_Child_Sexual_Abuse

[163] 2014 July 7  Home Office May statement setting up CSA inquiry  https://www.gov.uk/government/news/home-secretary-oral-statement-on-child-abuse

[164] 2014 9 July ( but only uploaded 21 July after she had resigned!) Home Office statement announcing Butler Sloss as Chair https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/independent-inquiry-panel-of-experts-into-child-sexual-abuse

[165] 2014 Jul 8 Prime Ministers Press Spokesman Briefing https://www.gov.uk/government/news/press-briefing-afternoon-8-july-2014

[166] 2014 Jul 14 Prime Ministers press briefing on Butler Sloss resignation https://www.gov.uk/government/news/press-briefing-afternoon-14-july-2014

[167] 2014 Sept 5 https://www.gov.uk/government/news/fiona-woolf-cbe-jp-to-chair-child-abuse-inquiry

Please note that victims of abuse may be triggered by reading this information. The Sanctuary for the Abused [A] has advice on how to prevent triggers.  National Association for People Abused in Childhood [B] has a freephone helpline and has links to local support groups. Other useful sites are One in Four [C] and Havoca [D]. Useful post on triggers [E] from SurvivorsJustice [F] blog.

[A] Sanctuary for the Abused http://abusesanctuary.blogspot.co.uk/2006/07/for-survivors-coping-with-triggers-if.html

[B] NAPAC http://www.napac.org.uk/

[C] One in Four http://www.oneinfour.org.uk/

[D] Havoca http://www.havoca.org/HAVOCA_home.htm

[E] SurvivorsJustice Triggers post http://survivorsjustice.com/2014/02/26/triggers-what-are-they-and-how-do-we-work-through-them/

[F] SurvivorsJustice Blog http://survivorsjustice.com/

This is all written in good faith but if there is anything that needs to be corrected please email cathyfox@bigfoot.com.

cathyfox the truth will out, the truth will shout, the truth will set you free

About cathy fox blog on Child Abuse

the truth will out, the truth will shout, the truth will set us free...
This entry was posted in cathyfoxblog, Child Abuse, Child sexual abuse, Home Office, IICSA Goddard / Jay child sexual abuse Inquiry and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

9 Responses to A Fortnight in the Life of the Overarching Child Sexual Abuse Inquiry. Where now?

  1. Ian Pace says:

    Reblogged this on Desiring Progress and commented:
    An extremely comprehensive account of the last two weeks – essential reading.


  2. dbfamilylaw says:

    Not wishing to be unduly pedantic; but could you make it clear (if it be the case) that David Burrows ‘David Berrow(s)’ and ‘db family law’ are the same person. Let me know when amendments done, and I’ll reblog this. I’m not sure if you regard it as helpful to say so – perhaps I’ve missed it; but I’m not sure what is yr view on teh JR application – but this fine summary will be very helpful in the JR proceedings.


    • cathyfox says:

      Do not worry David, those corrections are already scheduled. They are low priority though as it is obvious to anyone interested by clicking the link next to it, compared to other more important additions/ corrections needed to the article. It will not be until tonight or tomorrow.


  3. Jane Cain says:

    God speed working this out.


  4. Excellent summary – thank you so much. Was only asking myself this morning how I was going to find out where things are at. Thanks also for the time and effort and dedication. x

    Liked by 1 person

  5. Pingback: Child Sex Abuse Inquiry: Survivors should unite not fight | cathyfox

  6. Pingback: My Story -Esther | cathyfox blog

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 )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.