So now we turn to yesterdays preliminary hearing(Oh no, I'm beginning to sound like them). The hearing held in the afternoon on 1/2/2018, focused on child-abuse victims who were in the care of the Nottinghamshire Authorities.
The purpose of this preliminary was to establish a direction for which the inquiry would focus on. As we have come to realise, this subject is epic. For the timescale that has been given for this whole investigation, only certain days can be allocated to hear the testimonies of the victims from particular scenarios. In last weeks public hearings, we heard the heartbreaking story about Breck, re-told at the hearing by his mother. Breck's case was used to highlight the failing within the safeguarding systems, when they were faced with, internet-based, child-abuse. Through the week we heard damning evidence on that particular subject and now we proceed to the next dark corridor, in-side this house of horrors.
What I will complain about, before I begin, is the typically twisted way in which the MSM have reported what I am about to unravel. Whether it was a BBC report or ITV, I'm not sure now. But what they deliberately chose to leave out has not only gave narrative to my article, but also left me in total disgust and disbelief. Disbelief at the fact that anyone can continue to hide information and try to manipulate public opinion, in the way that this report obviously intended to do.
You will now read exerts from yesterdays transcript. Within this article you will read, firstly, how the prosecutors wish to conduct this inquiry. As I said before this subject is huge and it appears there are a few option the prosecution wish the panel to consider. The chosen narrative will then be the way forward for the focus of the public hearings(The one's that have to be live streamed for all to see).
Those who have only the MSM to go by, now believe a half truths to be the whole truth. But tonight's MSM report, on yesterdays inquiry, is nothing butlike the truth. Even though it has been clearly documented to be quite the opposite and these so called reporters are classed as professionals, they(MSM) have decided to ignore the wishes of the victims(much like the inquiry-team have, it seems) and press forward to make you believe the following statements, when they know it not to be true;
Wollaton Care-home is a case-study the inquiry team considers more important than others and should be focused on in the public inquiry
Andris Logins, who has a shocking history of abuse, should also be a main focal point in the public hearings.
Neither of these statements are a true representation of what happened yesterday. These have been suggested as proposals but it is a blatant lie to suggest that these are the preferred choices of the victims(Who to the average Joe, the word victims, is the same as ' the inquiry'. When actually, the victims have their own representatives. And you will see that they certainly were NOT happy about the proposals put forward to the panel, by the INQUIRY PROSECUTION TEAM, in their name).
The Inquiry prosecutions argument and proposals to the panel.
Mr Sadd - Speaker for the inquiry on behalf of the victims.
Yep, that's 31 Care-homes, just within the boarders of Nottinghamshire. You would think that after all they have been through, we owe it to each victim to investigate as much as possible and remove any obvious wastes of time from this inquiry. As will become clear, Mr Sadd, does not hold the same opinion...
"Sorry, how rude of me to interrupt. Please carry on with describing your long, long list, Mr Sadd"
I'm beginning to get the impression that they would like to off-load their responsibilities to the victims, by narrowing the scope of this investigation. Lets carry on and see if you see things the same way.
CASE STUDY 1 - Beechwood Care-home
I will interrupt here to add that it was at this change of ownership, that has been used as the excuse for the loss of vital documents that would have incriminated the Authorities, if they would have been available to the inquiry that shortly followed the hand-over. (My guess is they knew what was coming and called a fire-sale).
We continue....
This is were things begin to go south.
Beechwood Plan A -
No. YOU suggest, not "WE suggest".
I suggest you get on with the task in hand and stop whining about how much evidence you have to get through.
Poor you, it must be such a burden. Go on then, continue representing whoever it is you think you are helping here (I don't mind watching someone like you, digging his own grave. Crack on my-son)
Yes, let's leave the Social workers out of this shall we?!! Can you believe this?
Erm, I don't think so, Mr Sadd, you little bitch. You can drag every crooked social worker up on the stand where they belong.
So what he is saying here, if you missed it 1st time around, is that not only does the Inquiry prosecution want to narrow the investigation of Beechwood to a minimum, but it wants to further stress the point of how this will be done under immense strain. It appears even Mr Sadd's own short-cut, is not short enough. Maybe it is time he got a different job?
Beechwood Plan B
I must admit, even after I had read the admissions stated below, I thought Plan B sounded like a worthy cause to represent. This guy no doubt has a terrible history and from my amateur perspective, this seems a good choice.
If you like you can fast forward to the section detailing the VICTIMS PROSECUTION. You might just be surprised at the opinions expressed on Plan B, by one of Logins Victims. I know I was. Maybe the next passage will give you a clue as to what I mean.
Case study #2 - Foster care
Case study #3 - Peer-to-Peer Abuse.
CASE STUDY 3 - Wollaton house (The one that MSM would have you believe is the favoured option.)
Sounds like a pretty convincing case, right? It has all the markers of an extreme case and from what Mr Sadd has just said, I can't find an argument against supporting CASE 3 either!
Ahhhh I'm so confused!! How can we ever make sense of this? Who can we trust to give an informed opinion?
Oh yeah..... The survivors.......
Submissions from the Victim's Prosecution team, about the case that has just been presented to the panel.
Apparently, this has all been presented to the inquiry panel, ON THE VICTIMS BEHALF?? (But they ain't happy, that's for sure).
Out of respect for the victims, and to have their opinions clearly stated and held on the Blockchain forever, I have copied the entire response given by the Victim's prosecution team Lawyer, Ms Gallagher).
(Samantha Morton report - https://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/sep/12/samantha-morton-reveals-sexual-abuse-child-residential-care)
This bit is very important, so pay attention.
The issue of foster care.
The problem with Andris Logins
Peer to peer abuse.
Pretty damning stuff, isn't it? Well for those who have managed to digest this entire article, well done and thank you.
I will end this by referencing some very good points made by 2 more members of the victim's Prosecution team.
I think the final comment made here is one we all should bare in mind, whilst considering the conduct of this inquiry in the future.
Peace to you and yours.
I will be back with more reports on this IICSA inquiry, once it restarts in October with the LIVE STREAMED public hearing about the issue you have just read.
Put the dates in your diary and remember you will be able to get the real report, exclusively on steemit, 
Links
Entire transcript - https://www.iicsa.org.uk/key-documents/3779/view/%2031%20January%202018%20Nottinghamshire%20Preliminary%20Hearing%20Transcript%20.pdf
Sam Morton story - https://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/sep/12/samantha-morton-reveals-sexual-abuse-child-residential-care
Nottingham Evening post report about hearing being held in Nottingham - http://www.nottinghampost.com/news/local-news/part-child-sexual-abuse-inquiry-1145285
IICSA website - https://www.iicsa.org.uk/