Safeguarding girls and protecting women post Jimmy Saville & #metoo

WOW.

Thanks for this, Red. Will be helpful for the consultation.

I had the same thoughts as you Red

I've been listening to R4 this morning.

Discussion about privacy online in SM posts and then Katie Price discussing media intrusion/ preventing photographs on Woman's Hour.

This desperately needs nuance not knee-jerk political responses.

I've put it on the Mordaunt thread.

I will also add to the other one.

Re implications of Cliff Richard.

The BBC were wrong. But the implications of the ruling are a cluster fuck on an epic scale to transparency.

Today there is a telegraph report that MPs who fiddle expenses should be given anonymity as it is.

The major issues which have lead to austerity are related to lack of transparency over what businesses do with local and national government. Safe guarding issues are more difficult to deal with because of lack of transparency.

Cliff Richard's ruling is a double whammy for women in that respect.

Its not just about journalism. Its revived Anna Soubry's insane private members bill too.

There ARE issues over privacy, but on the whole who gets fucked hardest here? Rich celebs and politicians or women and children?

All Cliff has done has help promote a need for secrecy at a time when we are desparate for quite the reverse. Politically its a gift to anyone who might seek to abuse power. The media are weak enough atm when it comes to investigative journalism. Both Labour and the Conservatives wish to worsen the situation.

@RedToothbrush have you added this to both the threads which have collated many of the concerns raised by MN posters?

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3297184-Your-comments-for-Penny-Mordaunt

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/site_stuff/3297067-Mumsnet-moderation-response-to-yesterdays-feedback

Thanks so much for this Red its absolutely vital.

Adam Wagner @AdamWagner1
Legal aid ‘deserts’ make human rights unenforceable - News from Parliament - excellent new report from @HumanRightsCtte out today

www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/joint-select/human-rights-committee/news-parliament-2017/enforcing-human-rights-report-published-17-19/
Legal aid ‘deserts’ make human rights unenforceable

Take a look at the "The need for a culture of human rights" section of the report from page 39. Makes important recommendations such as focus on public legal education and teaching human rights in schools

This is a great conclusion from @HumanRightsCtte's report- will anyone listen? Please retweet and like to get this report out there!

THIS MUST BE QUOTED IN RESPONSE TO THE FARCE THAT IS THE GRA CONSULTATION.

Why is the Minister for Women and Equalities ignoring this? This is HUGE. It makes the point very succinctly that the desire to be politically correct is stiffling debate and may prevent human rights from being exercised despite the law existing. If the law is unenforcable then those rights are meaningless in practice.

On the home page for the report Harriet Harman is quoted saying the following:

Harriet Harman MP, Chair of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, said:

“For rights to be effective they have to be capable of being enforced.

To do this, we must have adequate and equality of access to legal information and advice; a robustly independent judiciary and legal profession; strong National Human Rights Institutions, including the Equality and Human Rights Commission and a culture which understands the concept of the rule of law, respects human rights and which is supported by the Government.

At the moment we are seeing the erosion of all of those enforcement mechanisms because of a lack of access to justice and lack of understanding of the fundamental importance of human rights and the rule of law.

The Government must act urgently to address this.

Government, Parliament, the media and the legal profession all have a responsibility to consider the importance of the rule of law, and the role that rights which can be enforced through an independent court system, plays in that.

Government must exercise self-restraint and refrain from criticising the judiciary and legal profession.”

So why is Harriet Harman not holding HER OWN PARTY to these standards with regard to women's rights????

You might be interested in the names of the MPs and Lords who are on this committee. They are:

Harriet Harman LAB
Fiona Bruce CON
Karen Buck LAB
Alex Burghart CON
Joanna Cherry SNP
Baroness Hamwee LD
Baroness Lawrence of Clarendon LAB
Jeremy Lefroy CON
Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne CON
Baroness Prosser LAB
Lord Trimble CON
Lord Woolf Crossbench

This is the report summary in full:
Summary

Human rights have been central to the UK constitution and its legal system throughout its history. The following section of Magna Carta remains in force today, and can be found on the Government’s legislation website.

“We will sell to no man, we will not deny or defer to any man either Justice or Right.”

For rights to be effective they have to be capable of being enforced. For that enforcement, it is essential to have:
- adequate access to legal information, advice and assistance for everyone at all income levels and in all areas of the country;
- a robustly independent judiciary;
- a robustly independent legal profession;
- a strong Equality and Human Rights Commission, held accountable for its work, and strong National Human Rights Institutions in the devolved administrations, similarly held accountable; and
- a culture which understands the concept of the rule of law, respects human rights and accepts that they will be enforced and which is supported by the Government.

Access to justice is fundamental to the rule of law. We are concerned that the reforms to legal aid introduced by the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (LASPO) have made access to justice more difficult for many, for whom it is simply unaffordable. Moreover, there are large areas of the country which are “legal aid deserts”, as practitioners withdraw from providing legal aid services since they can no longer afford to do this work following reductions in legal aid funding by successive governments over the past three decades. The Government is currently reviewing LASPO and we make recommendations for that review. There also needs to be a broader review into access to justice and the provision of advice and assistance, going beyond matters which might be seen as purely legal, to ensure that people can get the help needed to enforce their rights before matters escalate into expensive adversarial court proceedings. The remit of the Equality and Human Rights Commission should be extended so that it can take human rights cases on the same basis as it supports equality cases. It should use those powers assertively and be given adequate resources to allow it to do so. Its work should be more closely scrutinised by Parliament accordingly.

There is a need for better general understanding of the role of the courts in enforcing human rights, and in balancing the rights of one group against another. Ill-informed media criticism can undermine support for the legal system which protects everybody’s rights–even those of groups who are unpopular. There is also a need for better education about the legal system in general, and the way in which it protects people’s human rights, and the Government should do more to support and encourage this.

In its strategy for countering terrorism, the Government sets out its definition of British values:

“We believe it is essential to protect the values of our society–the rule of law, individual liberty, democracy, mutual respect, tolerance and understanding of different faiths and beliefs [ … ]"

Respect for the rule of law and the independence of the judiciary are values that the Government itself must demonstrate. The UK is fortunate in having a robustly independent judiciary. There have been occasions when Ministerial reactions to individual judgments have been inappropriate. We note that the requirement to uphold judicial independence is binding on all Ministers, in addition to the Lord Chancellor’s duty to defend such judicial independence. The Government should consider whether those requirements should also be written into the Ministerial Code.

A legal profession which fears adverse consequences from taking up unpopular causes will not be effective in defending rights: the Government must be careful not to use its voice and influence improperly.

The Government needs to make sure it appropriately prioritises due respect for rights, so that administrative decisions are taken with proper consideration of people’s rights.

Individuals should be protected from abuse by the State, and public bodies should respect the law. The UK’s legal framework allows individuals to protect their rights and gives the courts the task of deciding that balance in individual cases, within the parameters set by Parliament, which includes the Human Rights Act. There is legitimate debate over how best to protect rights and where the balance should be struck if rights compete. But no-one should lose sight of the fact that human rights, and the ability to enforce them, are amongst the hallmarks of a civilised country. Government, Parliament, the media and the legal profession all have a responsibility to consider the importance of the rule of law, and the role that rights which can be enforced through an independent court system plays in that.

My Bold.

WE MUST QUOTE THIS TO FUCKING DEATH AT PEOPLE WAILING ABOUT RIGHTS.

How can women make sure their rights are being considered if they are not even allowed at the table??!

Women and children are particularly vulnerable to legal aid cuts.

I've not had time to go through the report with a fine tooth comb but my first glance at the topic headlines came across this gem:

A hierarchy of rights?
149.The Committee received submissions indicating that some rights are not given sufficient weight compared to others, which could undermine confidence in the human rights framework as some individuals feel their rights are not protected.145 ADF International commented that: “Freedom of conscience appears in all of the major human rights treaties” and submitted that “while freedom of conscience is a fundamental human right … the lack of a clear legal test to assess whether it has been violated in practice means that it is difficult to enforce.” and “recommends that the Government advances a legal test to evaluate claims of conscience to ensure the robust protection and enforceability of freedom of conscience in practice."

150.The Barnabas Fund raised specific concerns that the culture within some public bodies, including the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) and the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland (ECNI), “appears to conflate the promotion of human rights and ‘equality’ with promoting the ideological agenda of particular minority groups [ … ]” When asked in oral evidence about how the EHRC prioritised cases, David Isaac, Chair of the EHRC told us that:

“Where we think there are areas, particularly in relation to legal intervention, which are unclear or need to be resolved, we will support those, irrespective of which group it most impacts on, or whether it disadvantages a particular group. From our perspective, there is no hierarchy.”

151.David Russell, Chief Executive of the NIHRC echoed these sentiments and told us that: “[r]ights are for everyone. There is no hierarchy; they are universal. If non-discrimination and freedom of religious belief are in the balance, the commissions have an important role to play” and spoke of the:

“[ … ] commission’s important role of ensuring that the public space for human rights is opened up to everyone. [ … ] Often, the commissions have more in common with faith-based communities than we have differences, particularly around [ … ] social and economic rights, and social justice matters, such as housing and health. There is lots of room for partnership where the perception of there being a dichotomy does not stack up in practice. That has to be voiced.”

152.However, when asked to address concerns as to whether the EHRC had not got the balance right in recent years when considering freedom of belief alongside other rights, David Isaac said:

“I know that there are anxieties. The commission has various stakeholder groups and one is on faith and belief. There are all sorts of discussions, and we have frank but respectful debate on areas where people disagree. We listen, wherever we can, to those differing views, but I am sure we can do more.’’

153.Government, NHRIs and human rights advocates should seek ways of engaging more effectively with the public about how different human rights are balanced, in order to address the perspectives that human rights are “for others and not for us” and that “political correctness” stifles debate. The Government should consider the introduction of a legal test to ensure that claims of conscience and faith are reasonably accommodated within the human rights framework. The rights of minority groups will always be vulnerable, and the acid test of an effective human rights system is that it must protect these groups, while ensuring the rights of the majority are also respected.

Their bold.

Please will others make a point of trying to make sure that this gets shared widely with others in the Women's Rights Community.

IT MAKES OUR POINT EXPLICITLY.

(extract from article above)
"As news organisations, it is our job to tell people what is going on. That is why journalists from the BBC to the Sun have mounted such an unusual display of unity in their horrified reaction to this ruling. The idea that the activities of the police could be placed off limits to reporters is anathema. It means placing them off limits to the public. Reports of arrests can lead to further complainants coming forward. If we aren’t allowed to report on work in progress, it is difficult to see how anybody would find out when the police get things wrong.

Privacy matters, and the Guardian believes in it. From our investigation into phone hacking to our reports on the use of personal data in political advertising, we have sought to champion individuals’ rights over their personal information. We were supportive of Lord Justice Leveson’s public inquiry into the press because we recognised that laws had been broken. But we reject the proposal, made by Leveson and now taken up by Ms Soubry and litigants including Sir Cliff, that the names of suspects in criminal cases should be kept secret. Open justice – a system in which the public can see what happens – matters too."

What of the implications following the Clif Richard case yesterday?

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jul/18/the-guardian-view-on-cliff-richards-court-victory-a-threat-to-journalism

Womanformallyknownaswoman I think THIS is the question. LAs are eroded, services have been fractured out, marketisation has hollowed out instityutions which join around child protection and this has been decades while this knowledge has grown in us. THIS knowledge doesnt exist anywhere near power any more. Not that it ever did. We have to rectify that.

Sorry wrong thread.

It's like everything is out of balance.

Exactly with more and more crowding down one end and no sign of anyone/thing coming to restore that balance - just more nutcases acting on their own selfish behalf

I think it's all summed up with one word: balance.

The balance between home and work life.
The balance between internet and informing yourself through traditional methods.
The balance between left and right.
The balance between academia and practical experience.

I could go on.

It's like everything is out of balance.

I do wish I understood politics and economics a bit better and could think of a way out of this trap of short-term-ism that we're stuck in, though

Subject of a longer conversation and one I want to engage women and normal men in. There are ways to limit the behaviour of those who use and abuse. The public education system had been hijacked by academics so much so I recall my daughter taking domestic science or whatever it's called now, and not being allowed to actually cook but only to design recipes!!

The doing and experimentation, where one learns critical thinking, has been removed because of harm reduction I think. Like helicopter parenting, not allowing our children to have normal childhoods and to learn to navigate challenges and appropriately risky situations has been our undoing. Forcing both parents to work in order to achieve secure housing and pensions is also regressive for adults & children, without well designed and affordable childcare and education. Parenting is necessary to teach children the ways of the world and when consumerism replaces parenting a society is in trouble.

First get the kids off social media etc and into the real world. And put in place a system of governance that is focused on producing the best pupils/citizens possible, allows equity of access, caters for all learning styles not just a minority as at present, embodys continuous learning and one that strives to make the whole society better. One that realises unlimited power and excess is not conducive to a healthy society - if only one branch of a tree gets fed the whole organism will fail.

There are ways to achieve all of this that aren't communist nor regressive but also constrain those who know no limits or who are too self absorbed at the expense of others. It requires competences and systems thinking and a different model - all in short supply at present hence why we're in the mess we are, with untoward malignant forces taking centre stage disguised as progressive.

We're all just fancy monkeys, and sometimes our monkey brains need to be listened to.

Even the monkeys, as other animals, are sex segregated - with the females and children in groups to defend themselves. They understand the risks of having males in female groups and drive them off unless mating.

We already know pedophiles are clever and manipulative enough to get around the rules and find some way why it doesn't apply to them. If we're already saying the safe-guarding rules don't apply to a group it's easy the abuser just becomes part of that group. It obviously don't mean we think All TW are abusers, but if we leave that loophole someone will use it.

Well said - yet the accusations of transphobia and reporting of comments continues because some want to jog the attention and not let parents have a say about safeguarding their children.

This is not rocket science nor controversial, and neither are the people raising the concerns, but is gaslighted as such.

Agree wholeheartedly re GG - women only is the only workable safeguard for public spaces and to be wilfully blind to the inherent dangers of relaxing that standard is as stupid as it is harmful in putting women and children in harms way.

how far many/most of our students are from being 'critical thinkers'

This has been the case for a long time now unfortunately. I worked in a third level college where the brightest people were the security guard and the janitor.

The thread has now moved on a bit, but as an academic (not politics, history or economics) I frequently have conversations with colleagues about how far many/most of our students are from being 'critical thinkers' - sadly, this is still true of some of them when they graduate (you can lead a horse to water...). With so much focus on regurgitating the 'correct' answer on an exam - even in humanities subjects now - it's so difficult to snap some of them out of this 'every fact I might want to know is at my fingertips, so I don't need to actually learn how to think for myself' perspective. It really makes me worry for the future of society. (But perhaps I'm just getting old and out of touch!)

I do wish I understood politics and economics a bit better and could think of a way out of this trap of short-term-ism that we're stuck in, though.

@LangCleg

My friend and I once decided that we would write to Jim'll Fix It and my father - who never said no to anything I ever wanted to do - absolutely forbade any such endeavour. "The man is a pervert. Over my dead body will you go anywhere near him. Write to another show."

My mother said exactly the same.

This is the thing - not so much that people knew, per se, but they (men, women, and children alike) had such a strong feeling of 'wrongness'.

We're all just fancy monkeys, and sometimes our monkey brains need to be listened to.

It’s an odd idea to me – as a parent my children’s wellbeing is one of the most important things to me the idea that I’s supposed to prioritised an adult strangers feelings over that is utterly bizarre. Yet time and again I see the idea stated as reasonable.

Absolutely, hence the references to predators. To talk about sexual predators is not anti those who believe they can change sex.

It is pro-children and pro their safeguarding. There are paedophiles and sex offenders in very male population - to discount that is discounting fact.

There’s so much food for thought on this thread- thank you all.

Only slightly marred by the “I haven’t actually read the thread or attempted to think about the issues raised, but by God, I better get right in there and call them bigots right now!”

We have ideologues for politicians who eschew pragmatism and compromises. They are insulated from any fallout and don’t have solidarity with the most vulnerable in our society. Instead of recognising problems they lampoon those who point them out. They lampoon vulnerable people already.

The reality is that there will always be fraudsters and predators. The current situation is a gift to them.

But of course shoot the messenger. She’s a hysterical bigot.

We were all surprised and shocked when the revelations about JS came out

As I stated previously I wasn’t.
As for insinuating that transpeople, Transwomen in particular are a danger to girls and women, that’s speculative at best based on ignorance of the facts.

I’m not. I’m worried about predators exploiting any loop holes created. (Mainly as in my lifetime there have been so many scandals where predators have exploited loops holes that have eventually hit the media)

because the person reading sees "predators will take advantage of this" and assumes that anyone talking about predators is talking about them

^^This is a good point. Why do this?

Posters are spelling out how people use lax safeguarding to target vulnerable children and you are still more concerned about adults who may be tarred with the same brush

^^ This is a good point and it’s an idea I’ve seen expressed on many threads that have touch upon safeguarding. It’s an odd idea to me – as a parent my children’s wellbeing is one of the most important things to me the idea that I’s supposed to prioritised an adult strangers feelings over that is utterly bizarre. Yet time and again I see the idea stated as reasonable.