This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jul/09/guardian-view-judging-establishment

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
The Guardian view on judging the establishment The Guardian view on judging the establishment
(1 day later)
After more than a week of outrage, both real and rhetorical, it is not clear that those victims of child sex abuse whose voices have never been heard are any nearer to getting some kind of catharsis, either through the criminal courts or a far-reaching inquiry. The prime minister promises that no stone will be left unturned in the hunt to expose historical child sex abuse. That is not quite the same as the commitment from Theresa May, the home secretary, at the start of the week, to establish a public inquiry into the way complaints of sexual abuse were treated in public bodies over several decades. Either there is to be an investigation that will name names – as Mr Cameron appears to be saying – or an inquiry that, while it may range from the NHS to the BBC and the churches, will be into the much narrower question of how public bodies reacted to allegations of abuse and how they need to do it better.After more than a week of outrage, both real and rhetorical, it is not clear that those victims of child sex abuse whose voices have never been heard are any nearer to getting some kind of catharsis, either through the criminal courts or a far-reaching inquiry. The prime minister promises that no stone will be left unturned in the hunt to expose historical child sex abuse. That is not quite the same as the commitment from Theresa May, the home secretary, at the start of the week, to establish a public inquiry into the way complaints of sexual abuse were treated in public bodies over several decades. Either there is to be an investigation that will name names – as Mr Cameron appears to be saying – or an inquiry that, while it may range from the NHS to the BBC and the churches, will be into the much narrower question of how public bodies reacted to allegations of abuse and how they need to do it better.
But even though the purposes of this inquiry are confused, and will be until its terms of reference are published, it is now clear that Lady Butler-Sloss is not the right person to lead it. If its purpose is to restore public confidence by tearing aside the veil of denial that the establishment may well have deployed to hide the criminal activities of some of its members, she is clearly too close to the very establishment she is investigating. Not only was her brother, Lord Havers, attorney general – and briefly lord chancellor – at the time of some of the allegations of cover-up. She is also of the same generation as those around whom rumours swirl. If she were still sitting as a judge, she would never contemplate being involved in a case that might touch, however remotely, on family or friends.But even though the purposes of this inquiry are confused, and will be until its terms of reference are published, it is now clear that Lady Butler-Sloss is not the right person to lead it. If its purpose is to restore public confidence by tearing aside the veil of denial that the establishment may well have deployed to hide the criminal activities of some of its members, she is clearly too close to the very establishment she is investigating. Not only was her brother, Lord Havers, attorney general – and briefly lord chancellor – at the time of some of the allegations of cover-up. She is also of the same generation as those around whom rumours swirl. If she were still sitting as a judge, she would never contemplate being involved in a case that might touch, however remotely, on family or friends.
And if it is the more narrowly drawn question of understanding how to improve child protection by studying the failures revealed by other investigations, there are others who could bring the same talents to the job. While she chaired the Cleveland inquiry, one of the biggest investigations into child sex abuse ever held, and is unquestionably renowned for her integrity and her humanity, these are not unique qualifications. A more recent inquiry that she chaired, into abuse in Sussex by clergy, was subsequently criticised for an apparent lack of rigour. And however just her conclusions may be, there is always the risk that they seem tainted by her connections. In this sceptical world, when the whole establishment – peers and MPs, diplomats, judges and clergy and even once well-regarded workers in the field of child protection such as the convicted abuser Peter Righton – has been or may be implicated, the impact of the crisis in public trust is made very plain.And if it is the more narrowly drawn question of understanding how to improve child protection by studying the failures revealed by other investigations, there are others who could bring the same talents to the job. While she chaired the Cleveland inquiry, one of the biggest investigations into child sex abuse ever held, and is unquestionably renowned for her integrity and her humanity, these are not unique qualifications. A more recent inquiry that she chaired, into abuse in Sussex by clergy, was subsequently criticised for an apparent lack of rigour. And however just her conclusions may be, there is always the risk that they seem tainted by her connections. In this sceptical world, when the whole establishment – peers and MPs, diplomats, judges and clergy and even once well-regarded workers in the field of child protection such as the convicted abuser Peter Righton – has been or may be implicated, the impact of the crisis in public trust is made very plain.
Meanwhile Peter Wanless, the chief executive of the NSPCC, who is to run the review of the review into the disappearance of Home Office files relating to abuse allegations, may also have proposed the principle recommendation of the first. Making the "wilful" cover up of suspicions of abuse a crime may be the most effective weapon against institutions that are in denial about allegations, or knowingly trying to hide them in order to limit reputational harm. If the Wanless inquiry rigorously pursues the loose ends that MPs found on Tuesday when they were questioning the Home Office permanent secretary, Mark Sedwill, about the lost files, and if they really do reveal a deliberate cover up, then Mr Wanless could play the cathartic role that victims need. But there is still a real danger that there will be no evidence; and while absence of evidence is never evidence of absence, it still amounts to a dead end. Meanwhile Peter Wanless, the chief executive of the NSPCC, who is to run the review of the review into the disappearance of Home Office files relating to abuse allegations, may also have proposed the principal recommendation of the first. Making the "wilful" cover up of suspicions of abuse a crime may be the most effective weapon against institutions that are in denial about allegations, or knowingly trying to hide them in order to limit reputational harm. If the Wanless inquiry rigorously pursues the loose ends that MPs found on Tuesday when they were questioning the Home Office permanent secretary, Mark Sedwill, about the lost files, and if they really do reveal a deliberate cover up, then Mr Wanless could play the cathartic role that victims need. But there is still a real danger that there will be no evidence; and while absence of evidence is never evidence of absence, it still amounts to a dead end.
There is, however, a bigger risk even than an unsatisfactory conclusion. That would be to suppose that the inquiries and their recommendations will end the threat of abuse. They will not. They have an important part to play in the public ritual of admitting guilt. So does catching and punishing the perpetrators. But the most important purpose of these inquiries is to make sure children are better protected in future. That is not a matter of new laws but a much greater challenge: a different culture.There is, however, a bigger risk even than an unsatisfactory conclusion. That would be to suppose that the inquiries and their recommendations will end the threat of abuse. They will not. They have an important part to play in the public ritual of admitting guilt. So does catching and punishing the perpetrators. But the most important purpose of these inquiries is to make sure children are better protected in future. That is not a matter of new laws but a much greater challenge: a different culture.