Saturday, 25 March 2017

St Aidan's, St Vincent's, Nugent Care

In amongst the information sent to myself from iiCSA,

St Aidan’s and St Vincent’s 

33.St Aidan’s and St Vincent’s were two of five homes at the centre of the litigation that became known as the ​“North West Child Abuse Cases”. The defendant was the same in both: the Nugent Care Society.

34.In respect of St Aidan’s, we currently only have one core participant directly associated with this case study: RSA. Although the Chief Constable of Cheshire Constabulary has not applied for core participant status, he has made it clear that Cheshire Police will co-operate fully with the investigation and seek to provide any relevant material. However, as noted above, at present we have no  core participant victims and survivors from St Aidan’s. We would encourage any victims and survivors from St Aidan’s who wish to be core participants or witnesses to come forward. If no one approaches the Inquiry within a reasonable time then we will need to consider whether it is appropriate for St Aidan’s to remain a case study in this investigation.  

Nugent Care still operate today as care providers. They also run fostering services.
One of their homes is an unlisted secure unit

I believe the investigation should look at Nugent Care as a group of homes. Their staff would have been interchangable just as they were with Bryn Alyn Community.
 

iiCSA Forum, 23rd March, Manchester

Thursday, 23rd March,
I arrived at the hotel early and was directed to the fourth floor, where I saw a few familiar faces, and met a few people I have been in contact with but never met face to face.

Some of these people were from Bryn Alyn Community, same as myself.Now, when the court cases were ongoing against BA staff, the defense team constantly threw at the survivors, the idea of collusion simply because they had been talking to others from the home.
This was a concern raised at the start.Whilst I was there yesterday, I came to the conclusion that Now, with the iiCSA hosting so many events at which survivors will meet with people that could fall under the collusion bracket, that one now has to be out the window as a plausible defense.

Several tables were set out in the room, with a facilitator posted to each table, 10 seats to each.
Estimate 25 people attended.
The day started slightly late, with Robbie making quick introductions and an apology for the email blunder.
Dru outlined the code of conduct and the agenda for the day.

It was mentioned by Dru that the Seminars are actually open to the Public. This met with the response that this was not known and perhaps that needed to change.
This led to a lengthier than anticipated discussion about the actual setup and function of the Seminars.

There was then a short video from the Migration investigation.

This was followed by a table discussion, with Dru and Robbie dropping onto each table during the discussions on the inquiry so far and how better to engage people.
Discussions were then put to the room for further input.

After lunch there was a short introduction by Stephen from the Research department.
He went through the schedule for the next year and then opened up a table discussion on the direction we saw the inquiry going, and the way forward. The changes we wished to see and the ways the inquiry can engage with us on a more equal footing.
Also discussion on possible future seminar topics.
Discussion was then presented to the room for further open thought.

Majority of the room were open to the idea of an online forum where iiCSA could moderate threads, keep us informed of upcoming events or deadlines, and we could leave our thoughts as to the progress and direction.
A lot wanted a regular newsletter (although that could be handled via the online forum).
It was agreed the Tech dept. would look at the ease and viability of both.

An extension of the Health Care investigation was called for, to incorporate Lunatic Asylums.
An extension on Residential Schools was called for to include the Lack of education actually provided.
Local Authority info sharing and disclosure was raised.
FGM was raised, as was the need to extend the inquiry into the different ethnic communities.
The TV and media normalisation of paedophilia was mentioned.
There was also comment of a need to look deeper into the activities of paedophile information exchange within SS and Gov.

It was agreed that all comments would be considered.

Thursday, 9 February 2017

Life Changes. They want To Lock Me Up.

Have stopped drinking.
They threatened to send me to an institution.
The last two institutions I was sent to, I was raped by staff in both of them.
Kirklees Community Mental Health Team think it appropriate to threaten my mental state and my perceived safety for 8-12 months so i would lose the house and contents while i was gone. and probably my mum and dog. Come out with fk all and end up dead.

I haven't asked for intensive therapy, all I have requested is somebody to sit with me in talking therapy.


Thursday, 19 January 2017

Feb 21st iiCSA Seminar

Well, iiCSA certainly know how to push survivors away.
Received a letter today in regard to the February seminar.
1 day event in London, 21st Feb.
Expenses has now gone down to £26 for food for 24hrs+, from £35 for 2 days.
We have been informed 
"the Inquiry has stated that on this occasion, Core Participants will not be invited to address the Panel directly, but should submit their comments to their legal representatives, so that the legal representatives can make submissions on behalf of their Core Participant clients."

Monday, 26 December 2016

St Williams Pay Out

De La Salle Catholic Order agree minimal payout for St Williams victims, but hardly the apology Lambeth received for example.

Some of the survivors engage with D. Greenwood, Solicitor.

video

Thursday, 15 December 2016

Lambeth Survivors get multi-million payout

Every child that stayed in a Lambeth Council home, where paedophiles were discovered is to get compensation.
Thanks to the Shirley Oaks Survivors Association, compensation has been secured for every person that passed through a Lambeth children's home proven to be staffed by paedophiles.
The bill is estimated to run as high as £60million.

When questioned, Raymond Stevenson (SOSA founder) said....


‘We know that every child that was in Shirley Oaks will get compensation, but they have also said that every child that was in Lambeth, they put a caveat where there was a paedophile in the home, will get compensation.‘Well we found a paedophile in every home. So in effect there is knowledge that all the children in Lambeth will get compensation.‘It will be a small amount but then they will be able to apply for physical, neglect, psychological abuse and sexual abuse on top of that.’
Source

Monday, 5 December 2016

Open Letter to Prof Jay and iiCSA

Open Response to iiCSA:
Seminar 29th - 30th Nov 2016

Prof Jay, panel members, legal experts and all who attended, Thank you for having invited several survivors, myself included, to attend the seminar. Also a big thank you to the staff of the building we were in. Attentive, respectful, welcoming. (Cannot name building for security reasons)

The media has done more damage to the child abuse inquiry than any fall outs within the camp, or with survivors.
They have undermined it at every possible turn, especially since the appointment of Prof Alexis Jay to the Chair.

There was one news report, that I have seen so far, that commented on the inquiry seminar this week, despite several journalists being in attendance each day.

Having sat with her in a room for two days solid this week, and watched the some of the same legal jargon fly over the top of her head as well as my own; heard some of the panel comment that parts of legislation are unfamiliar to them; heard the lawyers pontificate over the long term suffering caused by CSA v's time limitation and legislation when it comes to investigation or reparation, I can honestly say..... This, under Prof Alexis Jay, is the best, and only chance we have.

OK, there is much that needs to be altered. The panel need to be more willing to engage with the “lowly oiks” they are there to help. I feel we made some progress in this area.

Rather than expecting us to sit quietly at the back, and if we have any comments, write them down and pass them up the chain of command for perusal, after presenting our case to be heard, we were able to swiftly and somewhat smoothly get the panel to agree to allow the survivor group to add their comments to each section of the seminar.
Some segments of the seminar, we felt needed no input from us and we remained respectfully silent.
This setup however, could be improved upon, I feel.
Despite the panel's accommodation of our wish to interact, it still felt like we were outsiders to the precedings. I personally would like to see a microphoned space usable by the survivor group, to air their contributions to each session. I would like the layout to be altered slightly, so none at the table had their backs to the “audience”, so each on the floor can see the facial expression of every person at the table; i.e. An arc with the Chair at the head, panel either side and the invited “Experts” lower down the table, with CP and Press invites along with Support workers and interested parties able to view all proceedings. The Mic area for survivor feedback would ideally be central point of the panoramic view provided for the onlookers.

Huge progress was made when the insurance companies all agreed they do not believe people falsely claim to have been abused. (see pages 125 – 134transcript day 1).

Given my own personal experience with the charlatan posing as legal council, I was dismayed to see David Greenwood at the seminar. Considering I last received an updated statement of the costs so far incurred in the pursuance of my case some time earlier this year from him, he had no idea who I was.... although I did sack him 3 years ago.

The current redress system was examined on the second day.
Based on an expansion of the proposal I put before the PCC for West Yorkshire, and following the success in Nottingham, I quickly drafted an outline for a redress system involving survivors capable of the level of engagement required with victims coming forward. Help and fund them at local authority level to gain qualifications to then be able to act as a much needed buffer in the “us and them” reaction.
It is my intention to complete the proposal on that redress setup and have it with iiCSA by resumption of parliament in January, following Christmas recess.

One question that was raised was.... How do you quantify the value of the abuse on a child that is already in a disadvantaged position? Those of whom expectation was lower.

Whilst initially outraged by the inference that children in care should have any lower potential than the next person, that the removal of parent(s) in favour of legislative procedure should manifest itself as a lowering of intellectual interaction capabilities.... I managed to compose myself and presented the comparison of 'One girl in a home at same time as me, in grammar school, abused before care but not during her time there, went to University, became an accountant v's myself, a grammar school student, placed in care, abused in care by my carers, and sat there, in the seminar, never allowed to even sit my GCSE's by the CHE I ended up in.'

I will once again state my request for my name to be used instead of Core Participant or Member of the Public, in the transcript of the sessions. I would also repeat my request for lines 7 & 8 page 193, Day 2 transcript, to be struck from the record. Thank you.

Over the course of the two days, I felt we were treated with increasing levels of respect by the panel. I would like to think our opinions and comments were taken on board by everyone in attendance, and those watching the live stream on both days.

Any and all feedback is welcomed and appreciated.
I would like to extend my interest in attending the planned part 2 of the seminar in early 2017, as a continuation of this session.

Regards,

Karen Gray
Bryn Alyn Survivors
Skircoat Lodge Survivors

Core Participant F25

Monday, 28 November 2016

T-27hrs



27 hrs to go before I set off to the iiCSA seminar in London.
THIS is what they are putting survivors of child sexual abuse through.

Friday, 25 November 2016

Open Letter To Prof Jay.

Professor Alexis Jay OBE –
Chair Independent Inquiry into Child sexual Abuse
Milbank Tower London

Our ref: DE/IICSA

25 November 2016

Dear Professor Jay

Open letter 

We, (the Forde Park Survivor Group, the Stanhope Castle Survivor Group and the Comboni Survivor Group, Survivors of Organised and Institutional Abuse, F13, F25 (Karen Gray) and F35) wish to raise with you our shared concerns regarding this Inquiry, its apparent lack of direction, lack of discernible progress and its failure to allow and support Survivors in participating in this Inquiry.
Together we represent over 20% of Survivor core participants in the IICSA. Our voices matter and we will be heard.
We start by saying clearly that we want the IICSA to continue, to work effectively and to succeed. But that support is not offered blindly or unconditionally. Thus far, we feel that the IICSA has seriously and repeatedly failed to live up to its promise to put Survivors at the heart of this Inquiry.

This Inquiry was set up by the former Home Secretary Theresa May, now Prime Minister, who described the Inquiry as a "once in a generation opportunity" to expose what went wrong in institutions and public bodies and to prevent it from happening again. In opening the Inquiry it was said that Survivors of child sexual abuse should be “at the centre of this Inquiry” and that "their views would inform the Inquiry throughout”. Survivors need to be allowed to take their place at the "centre of the Inquiry."

Our wish, which we believe is shared by all Survivors, is that this statutory Inquiry achieves its aims of discovering the true extent of child sexual abuse that was permitted to take place in the past and ensuring that children are properly protected in the future. To do this, the Inquiry has to thoroughly investigate what happened in the past, as it is only by recognising and acknowledging the past that we as a society can move forward and implement the lessons learned from the past so that children can be protected from organised and institutional abuse in the future.

However, despite the Inquiry having been established over two years ago, we have not seen or felt
any progress. The Inquiry seems to be under constant threat and constant criticism. Rarely does a
day go by without resignations of lawyers and comments in the press stating that the Inquiry is not
fit for purpose or suggesting that it is falling apart at the seams.

Let us be clear, the members of our groups, and those who look to our groups to represent their
experiences, are ready and willing to participate. Our lawyers have not resigned despite working
without funding for up to a year. Our groups are not falling apart at the seams, despite the heavy
stresses that this Inquiry has placed upon our members.

Survivors have been waiting for years, if not decades, for an inquiry such as this to take place; and
once established, for that inquiry to start tackling the issues of enduring concern; to determinedly
seek out the lessons from the past and begin to put into place the measures that will protect
children from abuse in the future.

We have been told that you, the Chair, are conducting a review of the Inquiry and have promised
that the views of Survivors will be taken into account before any changes are made to the
investigations.
We wish to confirm that, as regards any proposed changes to the Inquiry, whilst Survivors will listen
and consider any review of the Inquiry, we will not agree in advance without full and proper
consultation to any modification or reduction in scope of the Inquiry’s Terms of Reference or Scope
of investigations.

The Inquiry has been besieged by criticism and beset by resignations from many lawyers working
within the Inquiry. To all intents and purposes the Inquiry appears to have stagnated. The press and
the media coverage all point to problems with management, systems and engagement.
Neither Survivors nor their lawyers are being kept up to date as to any progress or about the
possible future shape of the Inquiry. For many of us, this repeats the way that the police and the
civil and criminal justice systems treated us after being abused. For many of us, the on-going
problems with the Inquiry bring back the memories of the way we were abused and the way that
we were treated after reporting that abuse.

All of us have been abused and then ignored or side-lined. The apparent mess being created by this
Inquiry and the constant suggestions that the Inquiry is too broad or too unwieldy, with a stream of
Chair appointments and resignations as well as lawyer appointments and resignations, is adding to
our pain and the pain of other Survivors. ‘Here we go again’ we say and with good reason.

The press appear to be fascinated with the drama from within the Inquiry and the House of
Commons seems to be treating the Inquiry as a political football.
Indeed, on 21 November 2016 in the House of Commons, Sarah Newton, a junior Home Office minster, was forced to reiterate that she was “confident, as is the prime minister, as is the home secretary, in the ability of Professor Jay to lead this inquiry,” and that “She [you] has a distinguished career in social work and a longstanding dedication to child protection” after urgent questions were raised by other MPs regarding the current state of the Inquiry. The Home Affairs Select Committee continued its criticisms of the Inquiry yesterday.

Occasionally there is a statement from the Inquiry stating that Survivors are integral to the Inquiry
process when in fact we are being left in the dark about what is happening and what will happen in
the future. So we say, with good reason, that we are being ignored and side-lined once again.
Assertions that the Inquiry is taking on board, and will take on board, the opinion of Survivors have
so far been nothing more than words. We ask you to make that sentiment and intention real and
not just a platitude.
What we require is a firm and clear statement from you, and the Inquiry team, setting out what has
gone wrong and laying down a clear path for the future progress of this Inquiry.

Conclusion

Professor Jay, we know that you have only been in the post for a short time, and that the task
before you is a very large one. We want you to succeed, we are willing you to succeed, we want
nothing more than to support you, but you must urgently give us reasons to have faith and for that
support to continue.
What is required is a full hearing where the Chair of the Inquiry can properly address the criticisms
that have been made and set out the scope and future dates of the Inquiry’s work. Such a meeting
would allow Survivors and their representatives a chance to publicly state our concerns, in the
clearest terms, and to have those concerns heard and addressed.

We are not happy, we are not satisfied, and we want to say so publicly.

However, we also want to say publicly that we want to support you. We want to give you the
chance to show us that you understand why we are unhappy and to demonstrate to us that you
have a clear road map and are determined to get to the destination of uncovering the truth and
previous failings to start the process of healing and to protect children in the future.

We ask you to urgently schedule a hearing at which all of us can attempt to lance the boil of
dissatisfaction and thereafter to recommit ourselves to the shared goals of truth, recovery and
future child protection.

Signed on behalf of

Forde Park Survivors

Stanhope Castle Survivors

Comboni Survivors

Survivors of Organised and Institutional Abuse

F13

F25 Karen Gray

F35