John 🇬🇧 #Freedom

#FreeSpeech&Currency #FreeTrade #ReformUK; voted Brexit; #WatfordFC; IT Consultant

[The Maggie Oliver Foundation @TMOFCharity]

Today is the day. David vs Goliath. Today we go to the High Court for our landmark judicial review against the Government. We have been shocked at the arguments being advanced by the Home Secretary in defence of its failure to implement key recommendations made by the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (IICSA). These arguments include, that The Maggie Oliver Foundation does not have standing to bring this challenge on behalf of children, that the Government is under no obligation to implement child protection measures, and that the public at large cannot rely upon promises made by the Prime Minister and Ministers that are made in Parliament.

The Government's legal defence raises fundamental questions about public trust, accountability and whether promises made to survivors following public inquiries mean anything at all.

At the centre of the judicial review are 20 key recommendations issued by the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (IICSA) proposed to better protect children across the UK from sexual abuse. These include properly collecting data relating to child abusers and victims of abuse and exploitation, ending the use of pain-inducing restraint techniques on children in custody and regulation of staff in children’s homes.

We are concerned that more effort and public money appears to be going into defending a challenge designed to ensure these critical improvements in child protection are made than into implementing them.

The simplest example of this is this – if the Government had implemented the first recommendation of the IICSA, there would have been no need for a further three-year, £65 million public Inquiry (The Statutory Independent Inquiry into Grooming Gangs).

WHO IS ALLOWED TO ASK THE QUESTION?

The Secretary of State is a challenging whether The Maggie Oliver Foundation and our founder and Chair, @MaggieOliverUK , have standing to bring the case at all.

This raises a deeply troubling question.
If organisations representing survivors and working every day with the consequences of child sexual abuse are not entitled to ask why promised child protection measures have not been implemented, who is?

The Government is trying to exclude from the debate the very people closest to the consequences of these failures.

For years survivors have been told to come forward. Speak up. Tell the truth. Many have done so at enormous personal cost, but now the Government says they, and those who represent them, cannot object to failures to protect children. Their voices must be silenced.

This challenge was never about politics. Governments of all stripes have let down children. It is astonishing that the Government's first argument in this judicial review is that victims can have no voice.

If organisations representing survivors, and survivors themselves, cannot ask why promised child protection measures have not been implemented, who can?

IF GOVERNMENT DOESN'T HAVE TO ACT, WHAT IS THE POINT?

A central plank to the Government's defence is that ministers are under no legal obligation to implement recommendations made by public inquiries.

If that is right, why spend hundreds of millions of pounds on public inquiries if Government is just going to ignore what they find? We genuinely struggle to understand how anyone can think that is acceptable.

Millions are spent, years of hearings are had, victims pour out their hearts, findings and recommendations are made, promises are made by Government and then broke – but when someone has the temerity to ask why those promises haven't been kept, the Government's response is we never had to keep our promises.

If that is right, the Government must be open about it, and explain to the public why they hold expensive public inquiries at all.

IICSA took seven years, heard from more than 7,000 survivors, cost more than £200 million and made twenty recommendations intended to protect children. But the Government now says, we have no obligation to fulfil its promises to implement recommendations to protect children.

CAN POLITICIANS DENY THEIR PROMISES MATTER?

We are also challenging the Government's position regarding promises made by the Prime Minister and ministers following publication of IICSA's recommendations.

Repeated assurances that action would be taken have been made by senior politicians across successive governments.

The Government's defence includes arguments relating to parliamentary privilege. In effect the Government say that The Foundation cannot rely upon ministerial promises made in Parliament, and that such promises cannot give rise to expectations about future action.

If the public cannot rely on promises made in Parliament, what can they rely on?

Survivors and the public hear ministers make promises.

They hear repeated assurances that lessons have been learned and change will follow.

They build their expectations around those promises.

Many survivors have spent years believing ministers when they said action was coming.

To now be told that those promises cannot be relied upon is not just a legal argument, it is a fundamental betrayal of the trust survivors (and children across the UK) were asked to place in the process.
Trust works both ways.

Survivors are asked to trust public inquiries with the most painful experiences of their lives.

Governments should not then be able to argue that survivors cannot rely on the promises they receive in return.

WHILE GOVERNMENT ARGUES, CHILDREN ARE STILL BEING ABUSED

Government figures show that approximately 2 million children have been sexually abused since IICSA published its recommendations in October 2022.

That astonishing number must not be lost amidst legal arguments and the Government’s technical defences. This case is about the protection of all British children.

What shocks us most is how much ingenuity and effort has gone into finding reasons not to act.

Imagine if half of the same energy had been invested in implementing child protection measures.

Imagine if the resources currently being spent defending this case had instead been spent protecting children.

How many children might already be safer?

While well paid Government lawyers argue, children are still being sexually abused.

That is the reality we cannot lose sight of.

This case was never about clever legal arguments.

It is about whether promises made to children and survivors mean anything at all.

The Maggie Oliver Foundation will not be silent on that question.

[Marcus Agrippa @AgrippaSPQR]

Imagine if we'd flung off the EU straightjacket and diverged so far from it that Burnham couldn't just simply put us back 'on the hook'.

Imagine if there had been a bonfire of the thousands of EU laws retained on UK statute books that have kept us firmly constrained by that straightjacket.

But I guess that would have taken a majority government firmly committed to delivering on Brexit and embracing the opportunities of Brexit.

And we certainly haven't had one of them.

#Reform

[John 🇬🇧 #Freedom @FollowerHpc]

@Miatsf @BBCJustinR @BBCPanorama Here is my publication on the justification and criticality of Net Zero:-
https://t.co/THrtIOsuI3

[Sara Ghorbani @d_white_rabbit]

They forced me into hijab at age 6 and forced me to wear it for the next 25 years till I left. They told me my whole life I’d go to hell and burn for an eternity if a man sees my hair and lusts after me even though I was a little girl. They told me I was worth half a man my whole life; I’d inherit half, my witness in court is half, my blood money is half, I’m half-brained. They told me if I dishonour my family, my father or grandfather or uncle or any man in my family would kill me to restore the family honour with no consequences to them whatsoever. They told me my father is my male guardian and gets to decide if I get an education or a job or even a lifesaving surgery. When I got married to a Muslim man, they told me now he was my male guardian and would get to make those decisions for me. They told me if I ever give birth to my own children, he would own them forever like my dad owned me. They told me I couldn’t divorce him even if he beat me to death or married 3 other women simultaneously. They’d chase me around and arrest me if my hijab wasn’t proper enough for decades. They imprisoned my uncle in solitary confinement for having unIslamic ideas. They told me they’d imprison me if I’d had unIslamic ideas. They murdered thousands upon thousands upon thousands people like me who had unIslamic ideas. They still tell me I was never a real Muslim and am not a real exMuslim now. They still call me a whore/ slut/ jendeh/ fahisha/ majoosi/ prostitute for speaking about my own experiences. They send me death threats quite frequently. They stalk me, harass me, threaten me, insult me (and my parents) to silence me.

Do you get the picture or do you want me to go on. Because I can go on.

[Benonwine @benonwine]

Reform's deputy leader in Scotland, Thomas Kerr, says burkas are a "security risk" and "extremely intimidating". 🇬🇧

He says niqabs and burkas shouldn't be allowed in public in what he calls a "Christian nation".

France, Denmark, Belgium and Austria have already banned full face coverings in public. So why is it so controversial to even talk about it here?

In a free, open society we should be able to see each other's faces.

Is he right? Should Britain ban them? 👇

[John 🇬🇧 #Freedom @FollowerHpc]

Worthy of @metpolice investigation... of corruption or theft?
@feli_campbell

[Felicity Campbell @feli_campbell]

When I posted yesterday about Andy Burnham’s political machine secretly intercepting public emails to protect his Abu Dhabi property deals, my inbox was flooded by people thanking me for finally calling out what goes on in Manchester.

Well, I woke up this morning and looked at the latest financial disclosures coming out of the Greater Manchester Combined Authority, and the rabbit hole just got so much darker.

Burnham's authority has been caught funnelling nearly £1,000,000 of taxpayer money to completely anonymous beneficiaries in a series of secret payments.

They paid out £83,000 in rent to a hidden landlord. They handed out thousands in anonymous "consultancy fees." Worst of all, they gave a £210,000 capital grant to a property developer and completely redacted the name from the public ledger.

When journalists finally confronted them, the authority claimed hiding the £210,000 developer payout was just a "human error" and blamed the rest of the secrecy on data protection laws.

Look at the terrifying double standard at play here.

If a working citizen misfiles a tax return by fifty pounds or makes a mistake on a local form, the state will investigate their entire life, apply ruthless penalty fines, and threaten them with court.

But when Burnham's regional authority hands a fifth of a million pounds of public cash to an anonymous property developer, they simply shrug and call it a clerical typo.

This is exactly how the modern British political cartel operates. They use the language of bureaucracy and data protection as a legal shield to funnel public wealth to private, hidden corporate interests.

I am sorry, but they are not governing a city. They are running a shadow ledger with your money, and they are terrified of the public finding out who is actually cashing the checks.

[DaniKram @DaniK44721]

@Phatymarh44 IT IS NOT MUSLIMS AS INDIVIDUALS! Of course, we have nice Muslim neighbors and co-workers. It is when they have the majority--then all hell breaks loose. We will die before we Christians bow the knee to your Allah.

https://t.co/vzVJcY82sw

[Zarathustrian @JustinHaubrich]

@Phatymarh44 Muslims burned the holy texts of Zoroastrianism, my religion. They brought nothing but ruin and destruction to my country Iran.

[Brigitte Gabriel @ACTBrigitte]

They bombed my home when I was 10, buried me under the rubble screaming “Allahu Akbar,” put me in the hospital for months, then forced my family into an 8x10 bomb shelter for seven years

No power, no water, eating grass while snipers hunted us for the crime of being Christian.

That’s one. Want the rest of the list?

[John 🇬🇧 #Freedom @FollowerHpc]

@DavidVance They were two of the major lies, but not the only ones they made...

[Alison Parr @Uptotherewithit]

Lee Anderson on Kemi Badenoch.

Kemi told working-class voters to 'come back home' to the Conservatives. Come back home to what? To the folks who spent fourteen years hiking your taxes, destroying our borders and ignoring the real concerns of real people up and down this country?

[Lee Harris @LeeHarris]

This is a MUST watch. @CeeMacBee has studied Labour's leaked EU "reset" deal and it's a surrender!

"It's written in the past tense. Everything's been decided"

"Andy Burnham is a patsy who was dropped into a safe Labour seat to take the UK under EU control"

This is a BETRAYAL!

[John 🇬🇧 #Freedom @FollowerHpc]

@benonwine 1

[John 🇬🇧 #Freedom @FollowerHpc]

@_ClimateCraze https://t.co/THrtIOsuI3

[John 🇬🇧 #Freedom @FollowerHpc]

@andersleijersta NO

[John 🇬🇧 #Freedom @FollowerHpc]

@ramonagusta The WEF, himself & the EU probably?

[John 🇬🇧 #Freedom @FollowerHpc]

@Ridgmont61 @yelseldusty @TiceRichard @ZiaYusufUK @SuellaBraverman @CeeMacBee Each major British political party is rooted in a 'not for profit', "limited by guarantee" company registered in Companies House with named directors to cover any financial losses should a party fold.

The promises are verified with expert third parties & ReformUK will meet them.

[John 🇬🇧 #Freedom @FollowerHpc]

Why aren't the @metpoliceuk
investigating, that is an awlful lot of money to go "missing" - with the potential of theft?
https://t.co/1VKOPfvJIM

[John Rawlins @John_S_Rawlins]

Burnham should not be allowed to get away with this without at least a UK General Election first... please read in particular the paper drafted in direct opposition to the promises made before the Makerfield election. This is UK "surrender" to the EU for negligible advantage...
https://t.co/lCmTYrCJja

[ItsMeDear @ItsMeDear13]

@Togetherdec Of course this page from their website has now been taken down - but I took liberty of screen grabbing their goals before they hid them.