The prime minister apologised in the Commons on Tuesday 2nd July 2026 to women forced to give up their babies and to those separated from their mothers at birth by a system of forced adoptions that targeted unmarried women between 1949 and 1976. Starmer said the state bore responsibility for ‘funding and legitimising’ the practice
An apology and a review are two different things.
“I am concerned that, without robust evidential safeguards and accountability, these reforms may increase the risk that inaccurate or exaggerated social work reports will have significant consequences for families.”
The Starmer Government / MoJ says the repeal is being done because of domestic-abuse, unsafe-contact and child-death outrage, especially the campaign by Claire Throssell and Women’s Aid. The March 2026 MoJ press release explicitly says the repeal is “in honour of Claire Throssell” and says courts may now restrict involvement to supervised contact, written contact, or “no involvement at all.” https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-moves-to-protect-children-from-abusive-parents-through-new-courts-and-tribunals-bill
but not understanding your position in this is even more unfathomable especially when you consider under Kier Starmer rather than dealing with complaints of children in care and acting upon them in respect to a situation where the DfE social care reforms — DfE is responsible for child protection policy and statutory guidance, and 2026 changes strengthen multi-agency safeguarding, information sharing, family help, and child protection teams. — that those mechanisms create the conditions for “sexed-up” social workers reports Ted Jeory’s reproduced Sunday Express report says an experienced social worker alleged that “council managers” pressured him and colleagues to rewrite reports considered too positive and demand “more dirt” to improve chances of court orders. The key quote is that he had been told: “You are too positive with this family, we’ll never get it to court unless you make it more negative.”
The Sunday Express reproduced allegations from an experienced social worker that council managers pressured staff to rewrite reports to make families appear more negative, including the reported instruction: ‘You are too positive with this family, we’ll never get it to court unless you make it more negative.’”
So, what can be more offensive when Sir Kier Starmer in October 2025, the Government announced its intention to repeal the statutory presumption of parental involvement. The stated justification was child safety and domestic abuse. My concern is that, without strong evidential safeguards, the same change may also be used to justify preventing children from speaking to a parent on the basis of contested or exaggerated social care material.” This came in under serval acts in his period of Prime Minister. furthermore, as an alleged Human Rights lawyer he should have known better that this breaches human rights.
SO, if you think we believe him in regard to these parents we don’t.
- An apology is an acknowledgement of wrongdoing or harm and an expression of regret.
- A review or inquiry is a process to investigate facts, identify responsibility, or recommend further action.
A government can issue an apology without launching a new nationwide review. Whether that is sufficient is a matter of opinion.
It sounds like your view is:
“An apology without a comprehensive review and follow-up action is incomplete.”
That’s a legitimate policy position to argue. Others might say that the apology itself has value even if no new inquiry is announced.
So I wouldn’t say it is “without apology.” Rather, I’d say:
- There was an apology.
- There was no new UK-wide statutory review announced alongside it.
- Whether the Government should now conduct a broader review is a separate question and one on which reasonable people can disagree.
Cite
- https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-action-to-protect-children-from-abusive-parents and
- https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-statements/detail/2025-10-22/hlws976
- Urgent Intervention – Adverse Inferences & Unexplained 19‑Year Delay
- Podcast Episode: Letter to East Sussex Safeguarding — Adverse Inferences & Unexplained 19‑Years
- Letter to East Sussex Safeguarding — Adverse Inferences & Unexplained 19‑Year Delay
- Podcast Episode: Submission Regarding Outstanding Matters, Adverse inferences, and Compliance wit
- Submission Regarding Outstanding Matters, Adverse inferences, and Compliance with Section 71 of The IBAC Act
Leave a Reply