Yesterday in the UK, the Ministry of Justice invited several of the most well known campaigners for what is called the ‘repeal of the presumption of contact‘ into the department, to be told that their campaigning had achieved the victory they were seeking. As one would expect, tears flowed, beliefs were reinforced (that this is a momentous victory) and celebrations followed. In the minds of these women, children will no longer be forced into contact with rapists and murderers, all of whom have been able to use the (non existent) presumption of contact, as a weapon to continue abusing mothers.
The MOJ’s announcement, that they will repeal the presumption of involvement (there is no such thing as presumption of contact, despite what these campaigners have led everyone to believe), when Parliamentary time allows, reminds me of the day in 2014 when they announced the change in the Children Act 2014* to include a presumption that involvement by both parents in a child’s life was in their best interest.
By then, I had already walked away from working with government, because I had come to understand that announcements like these, made in response to campaigns, are nothing more than cosmetic changes, applied not to make any real shifts but to make the public believe that something had changed. In that respect, I understood that I had been part of a machine that makes no real changes at all but utilises campaigns and campaigners to convey the message that something has changed when it hasn’t. Being invited into the MOJ yesterday may have felt like a momentous occasion for the presumption of contact campaigners, in fact it is simply a wellworn way of getting the message out to ordinary people that something has been won, when in reality nothing has changed or indeed will change at all.
A great example of how parliamentary spin uses campaigns and campaigners this way, has emerged In recent days as four incredibly courageous survivors of rape gangs have walked away from the government inquiry. The women, who were young girls who were blamed and shamed for the abuse they suffered, were yesterday labelled liars by Jess Phillips MP, supposedly the Minister for Safeguarding Women and Girls. This horrible scene made me wonder whether the announcement by the MOJ about the presumption of involvement, came because it was an opportune moment to bury the bad news emerging from the rape gang inquiry. If that sounds cynical, I am afraid it is. Government is cynical and it is nothing but ruthless when it comes to spinning news and protecting those who do the work of ensuring that nothing very much changes in terms of policy and practice.
Jess Phillips behaviour in Parliament this week, in terms of trying to get people to believe that the four women who have stepped down from the government inquiry on rape gangs, are not representative of survivors as a whole, is typical government strategy. Inviting key campaigners into the MOJ to say that they have won their campaign and changes will be made when ‘Parliamentary time allows’ is too.
The pendulum of presumption swings but in reality, when there is no presumption of contact and safeguarding already exists within the Children Act 2014, ‘when Parliamentary time allows’, will likely mean that nothing will change at all.
The presumption pendulum swings, the government machinery rolls on and everyone who could be looking at the disaster which is the government inquiry into rape gangs, a prime issue which should be all consuming for anyone involved in the protection of girls and young women, is busy looking in the other direction, celebrating and drinking champagne.
It was ever thus.
*For those who are interested, this is how the government spoke of the changes to Children Act 2014…..
the draft clause has been included not to effect any change in Court orders but to tackle a perception of bias within the Courts…’
The House of Commons Justice Committee’s 4th report – pre-legislative scrutiny of the Children and Families Bill
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmselect/cmjust/739/739.pdf
‘The draft clause… is not likely to change practice...’
Hon Mr Justice Ryder. Justice Committee – Pre-legislative scrutiny of the Children and Families Bill – Minutes of Evidence HC 739 Q79http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmselect/cmjust/739/121120.htm
Karen Woodall - Psychotherapist, Writer, Researcher, Trainer 
Leave a comment