Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => Politics & Current Affairs => Topic started by: Nearly Sane on January 02, 2025, 04:30:53 PM
-
While I might support her call, it's a spectacular piece of bandwagon jumping from the Tories.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cn4xnv02nr0o
-
Good reply from Streeting to Musk
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/czxdzng92lno
-
Though Musk is doubling (quadrupling? Whattheactualfucking?) down
https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/news/starmer-urged-to-take-action-as-out-of-control-musk-targets-jess-phillips-387895/
-
Incitement. Pure and simple. She now needs protection from all the loons who will take this as a signal.
-
Nigel or Tommy, Elon?
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/tommy-robinson-not-what-we-need-says-reform-uk-leader-nigel-farage/ar-AA1wVtxq
-
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2025/jan/03/trolling-the-uk-the-issues-enraging-elon-musk-worlds-richest-pub-bore
-
I read this article and wondered why they chose a title that deliberately undercuts the danger they so clearly identify in the article.
-
I read this article and wondered why they chose a title that deliberately undercuts the danger they so clearly identify in the article.
It is also complacent to see this purely in terms of Musk's involvement in this.
-
Apartheid Clyde clearly got a new task from his FSB handler.
-
Nigel or Tommy, Elon?
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/tommy-robinson-not-what-we-need-says-reform-uk-leader-nigel-farage/ar-AA1wVtxq
Not Nigel
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/elon-musk-says-nigel-farage-doesn-t-have-what-it-takes-to-be-reform-uk-leader/ar-AA1wZCFQ
-
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/jan/05/farage-refuses-to-condemn-free-speech-hero-musks-remarks-on-jess-phillips
The cry baby X abuser did let NF take $100mn off him but its still not enough.
-
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/jan/05/farage-refuses-to-condemn-free-speech-hero-musks-remarks-on-jess-phillips
The cry baby X abuser did let NF take $100mn off him but its still not enough.
There was discussion of a donation but it didn't happen. Perhaps it only gets given if Tommy Robinson gets the leadership...
-
Jenrick having his bandwagon jumping pointed out to him.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/tory-robert-jenrick-left-squirming-34436230
-
That the Tories have proposed an amendment that, it would appear to mean the bill being stopped, is even for the bunch of pricks, utterly disgraceful
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/clyvy4q82l9o
-
Badenoch's shamelessly opportunistic and completely unnecessary call for another inquiry fails.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/clyvy4q82l9o
We've had an inquiry - it took 7 years and the Tories then failed to implement any of its 20 recommendations. A further inquiry would simply kick the can down the road as it would make it impossible to implement any changes while the inquiry was ongoing. Good that the current government have resisted this shameless politicking and hope they will simply get on with implementing recommendations. That is certain what the person who lead the original inquiry wants and from what I've heard what victims want too. Badenoch and Musk ... hmmm ... not so much!!
-
Badenoch's shamelessly opportunistic and completely unnecessary call for another inquiry fails.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/clyvy4q82l9o
We've had an inquiry - it took 7 years and the Tories then failed to implement any of its 20 recommendations. A further inquiry would simply kick the can down the road as it would make it impossible to implement any changes while the inquiry was ongoing. Good that the current government have resisted this shameless politicking and hope they will simply get on with implementing recommendations. That is certain what the person who lead the original inquiry wants and from what I've heard what victims want too. Badenoch and Musk ... hmmm ... not so much!!
The amendment would have delayed the bill, and I agree, as I posted yesterday, that the tactics of the Tories are disgraceful. That said, I don't think taking action on the report which wasn't focused on the 'grooming gangs' precludes a more specific inquiry, and I've seen lots of calls for that from victims, as Starmer covered yesterday.
-
The amendment would have delayed the bill, and I agree, as I posted yesterday, that the tactics of the Tories are disgraceful. That said, I don't think taking action on the report which wasn't focused on the 'grooming gangs' precludes a more specific inquiry, and I've seen lots of calls for that from victims, as Starmer covered yesterday.
There were also a series of more specific local inquiries alongside the Jay inquiry, so both have been covered off.
And actually rather than 'chasing the past' we should be focusing on what can be done to prevent future issues and therefore looking at the common elements which allow organised abuse to develop and flourish, whether that be assisted with grooming gangs of Pakistani origin, or within children's care homes, top private schools or the CofE and other religious organisations. There are clearly common elements, that authorities felt fearful of acting (either because of fears of appearing racist of through deference to authority/establishment), that victims weren't believed due to their low status and that institutions priorities institutional reputation (and in the case of CofE etc 'forgiveness') over justice and organisational structures that provide easy access to potential victims and therefore become a 'honey-pot' for abusers.
-
There were also a series of more specific local inquiries alongside the Jay inquiry, so both have been covered off.
And actually rather than 'chasing the past' we should be focusing on what can be done to prevent future issues and therefore looking at the common elements which allow organised abuse to develop and flourish, whether that be assisted with grooming gangs of Pakistani origin, or within children's care homes, top private schools or the CofE and other religious organisations. There are clearly common elements, that authorities felt fearful of acting (either because of fears of appearing racist of through deference to authority/establishment), that victims weren't believed due to their low status and that institutions priorities institutional reputation (and in the case of CofE etc 'forgiveness') over justice and organisational structures that provide easy access to potential victims and therefore become a 'honey-pot' for abusers.
Yes there were more specific inquiries but they focus sex specifically on individual areas, again that doesn't preclude an inquiry into the subject of 'grooming gangs' across the country, and many areas where there were such gangs were not subject of any inquiries. As to 'chasing the past' which if you looked at it that way, would mean there was no point in any of the inquiries, since they all did that, it's not clear that it is all in the past.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c2050kkpzypo
-
Yes there were more specific inquiries but they focus sex specifically on individual areas, again that doesn't preclude an inquiry into the subject of 'grooming gangs' across the country, and many areas where there were such gangs were not subject of any inquiries. As to 'chasing the past' which if you looked at it that way, would mean there was no point in any of the inquiries, since they all did that, it's not clear that it is all in the past.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c2050kkpzypo
The key point about inquiries is that they produce recommendations which are acted upon to reduce the likelihood of the type of thing happening again. There is often a clarion call for 'an inquiry', but if all it will be is a costly and delaying talking shop that doesn't actually make any difference, then what exactly is the point.
In this case what I want to see is actual action, not tens of millions more spent on talking that produces thousands of pages which in 7 years time are placed on a shelf and quietly ignored. And I think that is what the victims want - certainly the ones I've heard interviewed on the radio. Actual victims, not people purporting to 'speak' for the victims.
-
The key point about inquiries is that they produce recommendations which are acted upon to reduce the likelihood of the type of thing happening again. There is often a clarion call for 'an inquiry', but if all it will be is a costly and delaying talking shop that doesn't actually make any difference, then what exactly is the point.
In this case what I want to see is actual action, not tens of millions more spent on talking that produces thousands of pages which in 7 years time are placed on a shelf and quietly ignored. And I think that is what the victims want - certainly the ones I've heard interviewed on the radio. Actual victims, not people purporting to 'speak' for the victims.
Again having an inquiry doesn't preclude action being taken. And I've heard victims ask for such an inquiry as has Starmer, as he made clear yesterday.
-
Again having an inquiry doesn't preclude action being taken.
It really does - or at least it does if the action being taken is within the remit of the inquiry.
And it works both ways around. To take action while an inquiry if considering the recommendations it may make for action pre-empts the outcome of the inquiry. And if action is taken (which is within the remit of the inquiry) it undermines the authority and independence of that inquiry.
You really cannot be taking actions when there is an ongoing inquiry whose remit is to determine what action should be taken.
-
The details in the article are clear but the headline "How Elon Musk seized on baseless memo claim to fuel wave of misinformation" seems to me to imply that Musk was aware that the memo claim was incorrect, and yet there is nothing in the article to back that up, indeed it seems to imply it's a perfectly reasonable error to make.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4g2g7qgl1eo
-
It really does - or at least it does if the action being taken is within the remit of the inquiry.
And it works both ways around. To take action while an inquiry if considering the recommendations it may make for action pre-empts the outcome of the inquiry. And if action is taken (which is within the remit of the inquiry) it undermines the authority and independence of that inquiry.
You really cannot be taking actions when there is an ongoing inquiry whose remit is to determine what action should be taken.
No, you can take actions in this case based on the already carried out inquiry, and the inquiry can take into account the actions taken.
-
No, you can take actions in this case based on the already carried out inquiry,
Then there is no need for a further inquiry - the one you have already commissioned and has reported is sufficient.
... and the inquiry can take into account the actions taken.
Theoretically at some point in the distant future, but it wouldn't really require a statutory inquiry, merely an impact assessment of the actions taken. But it is ludicrous to set up an inquiry to consider the impact of the action, brought forward in legislation, based on the recommendations of an earlier inquiry until ... err ... those actions had been implemented and had been in place for sufficient time to determine their impact.
Setting up a new statutory inquiry to cover the same ground as a previous statutory inquiry whose actions remained to be implemented would critically undermine the whole inquiry process.
-
Then there is no need for a further inquiry - the one you have already commissioned and has reported is sufficient.
Theoretically at some point in the distant future, but it wouldn't really require a statutory inquiry, merely an impact assessment of the actions taken. But it is ludicrous to set up an inquiry to consider the impact of the action, brought forward in legislation, based on the recommendations of an earlier inquiry until ... err ... those actions had been implemented and had been in place for sufficient time to determine their impact.
Setting up a new statutory inquiry to cover the same ground as a previous statutory inquiry whose actions remained to be implemented would critically undermine the whole inquiry process.
Random bloke on Internet asserts no need for further inquiry - so that's settled.
Same random bloke creates straw man of remit of any possible enquiry to back up his assertion.
-
Random bloke on Internet asserts no need for further inquiry - so that's settled.
Same random bloke creates straw man of remit of any possible enquiry to back up his assertion.
Random bloke thinks implementing the recommendation of a statutory inquiry that has already been reported is more important than another statutory inquiry to cover the same ground as the previous inquiry.
In terms of his view, random bloke seems to be aligned with the PM, the government, parliament, the chair of the inquiry and (from what I have heard) the victims themselves.
In the other corner, calling for a new inquiry (thereby effectively precluding implementing the recommendations of the old inquiry and kicking any actual action into the very, very long grass) are the leader of the opposition, Robert Jenrick, Nigel Farage and Elon Musk. If you are in that latter camp, what amazing company you keep.
But I don't actually think there should be another inquiry (based on your posts on this thread), so welcome back from the dark side. I think you are only arguing with me for the sake of arguing and that you actually agree with me that a new statutory inquiry would be complete non-sense and that calls for one are shameless politicking.
-
Random bloke thinks implementing the recommendation of a statutory inquiry that has already been reported is more important than another statutory inquiry to cover the same ground as the previous inquiry.
In terms of his view, random bloke seems to be aligned with the PM, the government, parliament, the chair of the inquiry and (from what I have heard) the victims themselves.
In the other corner, calling for a new inquiry (thereby effectively precluding implementing the recommendations of the old inquiry and kicking any actual action into the very, very long grass) are the leader of the opposition, Robert Jenrick, Nigel Farage and Elon Musk. If you are in that latter camp, what amazing company you keep.
But I don't actually think there should be another inquiry (based on your posts on this thread), so welcome back from the dark side. I think you are only arguing with me for the sake of arguing and that you actually agree with me that a new statutory inquiry would be complete non-sense and that calls for one are shameless politicking.
Random bloke on Internet delves into mind reading, and guilt by association to back up his assertions.
-
Random bloke on Internet delves into mind reading ...
So let's check shall we, whether my mind reading was correct.
NS - do you think that there should be a new statutory national-level inquiry into child sex abuse?
Simply yes/no is all that is required. Noting that a new inquiry would:
1. Take years to establish, sit and then report.
2. Would cost tens of millions
3. Would likely preclude implementation of the recommendations from the Jay statutory national-level inquiry into child sex abuse which reported a few years back and whose recommendations have not been implemented.
Cue more mind reading (well actually prediction) - NS will disappear into his natural territory by failing to answer a direct question. Would be delighted to have my prediction proved wrong.
-
So let's check shall we, whether my mind reading was correct.
NS - do you think that there should be a new statutory national-level inquiry into child sex abuse. Simply yes/no is all that is required. Noting that a new inquiry would:
1. Take years to establish, then report.
2. Would cost tens of millions
3. Would likely preclude implementation of the recommendations from the Jay statutory national-level inquiry into child sex abuse which reported a few years back and whose recommendations have not been implemented.
Cue more mind reading (well actually prediction) - NS will disappear into his natural territory by failing to answer a direct question. Would be delighted to have my prediction proved wrong.
Note I don't accept your presumptions of what it would mean. And I've argued against them in this thread. I also don't accept that it needs the wide remit of child sexual abuse and I've argued against that on this thread. Simply repeating your assertions does not validate them.
In the basis that I don't accept those conditions, I think an inquiry into the approach on 'grooming gangs' across the country would be beneficial as the piecemeal approach of the earlier inquiries on thar doesn't seem sufficient, and the overall Jay inquiry didn't bring that together due its much wider remit.
You need to be able to separate out someone pointing out that they don't accept the premises of your question and failing to answer it.
-
I was pondering over quite how disgracefully cynical the Tories attempts to wreck the children's safety bill on an amendment just to try and use the suffering of girls raped, and I realised that it is too easy to get licked into a form of habitual behaviour. Note I don't think that excuses their behaviour but it did make me reflect on mine, and hence I think I owe an apology to Prof D, and any posters reading the exchanges yesterday between us, for falling into a groove of 'knockabout stuff' that I could have got ChatGPT to do.
I think there should be a further inquiry, with a remit focused on the overall reaction to 'grooming gangs", and I don't think this stops action being taken on the 2022 report. I think there's a valid issue raised by Prof D on the cost of such inquiries but I think that should encourage us to look at how we make them more efficient, perhaps we need an inquiry on inquiries ;). I think we have to be careful though that cost shouldn't simply be used as a determinant factor else we go down the Johnson complaining about the money that was being used in the child sex abuse inquiry being staffed against the wall - something that the story party have been happy to ignore then and now.
Anger is an energy on such matters but it's also too easy to become, like love, a drug, and distract from the deep tragedies involved in the systematic abuse of girls and women that has gone on.
-
I was pondering over quite how disgracefully cynical the Tories attempts to wreck the children's safety bill on an amendment just to try and use the suffering of girls raped, and I realised that it is too easy to get licked into a form of habitual behaviour. Note I don't think that excuses their behaviour but it did make me reflect on mine, and hence I think I owe an apology to Prof D, and any posters reading the exchanges yesterday between us, for falling into a groove of 'knockabout stuff' that I could have got ChatGPT to do.
Thank you for your reflection and apology. I did feel that last night we ended up arguing for arguments sake, while my instinct was that there was very little difference in our views on the matter.
I think there should be a further inquiry, with a remit focused on the overall reaction to 'grooming gangs", and I don't think this stops action being taken on the 2022 report.
What do you mean by "overall reaction to 'grooming gangs'". I don't understand and the Jay inquiry clearly included investigation of the grooming gangs (or organised groups, as they were described in the inquiry's remit). So what would this new inquiry cover that Jay's didn't. That is important as were it to cover the same remit, then we are back into the territory where a new inquiry (covering the same ground) precludes taking action on the recommendations of the earlier inquiry.
So to my mind, for a new national inquire to have any validity it must:
1. Cover ground that was not covered by the earlier inquiry (unless you think the previous inquiry was flawed, in which case you are back to 'no action until the new inquiry is concluded')
2. Be of national scale - either by looking at national issues or where the outcomes and recommendations have national reach.
3. Be proportionate - in other words that the time (and delay to taking action) and cost are justified by the importance of the remit of the inquiry (this loops back to 1, as the remit cannot be just what Jay's was, but something distinct).
I am genuinely struggling to see what would be covered by those three requirements. I understand there is a call for an inquiry specifically into Oldham (I think), as that wasn't a focus topic for Jay, not the topic of an earlier local inquiry. So that would look at specific local issues, but the broader issues of grooming gangs was considered by Jay. So this fails on 2 above, and should therefore be a local inquiry, not a national one. And my understanding is that the government has no issue with a local Oldham inquiry, but that this cannot be a statutory national inquiry (for the reasons I've mentioned).
I think there's a valid issue raised by Prof D on the cost of such inquiries but I think that should encourage us to look at how we make them more efficient, perhaps we need an inquiry on inquiries ;). I think we have to be careful though that cost shouldn't simply be used as a determinant factor else we go down the Johnson complaining about the money that was being used in the child sex abuse inquiry being staffed against the wall - something that the story party have been happy to ignore then and now.
Sure you could trim down inquiries and reduce cost and time. But to do that you'd need to restrict the numbers of people whose voices can be heard in that inquiry and good luck with that.
Anger is an energy on such matters but it's also too easy to become, like love, a drug, and distract from the deep tragedies involved in the systematic abuse of girls and women that has gone on.
I agree anger is a driving raw emotion, and one that often leads to 'I am angry over this issue, there must be an inquiry'. Or 'there was an inquiry, but I wasn't called to give evidence, so there must be another inquiry'.
Completely understandable, but inquiries are not there (just, perhaps not at all) to calm the anger of victims. The key remit of an inquiry is to determine what, if anything, went wrong and to make recommendations to changes in legislation, practice etc to avoid that issue happening in the future.
-
Thank you for your reflection and apology. I did feel that last night we ended up arguing for arguments sake, while my instinct was that there was very little difference in our views on the matter.
What do you mean by "overall reaction to 'grooming gangs'". I don't understand and the Jay inquiry clearly included investigation of the grooming gangs (or organised groups, as they were described in the inquiry's remit). So what would this new inquiry cover that Jay's didn't. That is important as were it to cover the same remit, then we are back into the territory where a new inquiry (covering the same ground) precludes taking action on the recommendations of the earlier inquiry.
So to my mind, for a new national inquire to have any validity it must:
1. Cover ground that was not covered by the earlier inquiry (unless you think the previous inquiry was flawed, in which case you are back to 'no action until the new inquiry is concluded')
2. Be of national scale - either by looking at national issues or where the outcomes and recommendations have national reach.
3. Be proportionate - in other words that the time (and delay to taking action) and cost are justified by the importance of the remit of the inquiry (this loops back to 1, as the remit cannot be just what Jay's was, but something distinct).
I am genuinely struggling to see what would be covered by those three requirements. I understand there is a call for an inquiry specifically into Oldham (I think), as that wasn't a focus topic for Jay, not the topic of an earlier local inquiry. So that would look at specific local issues, but the broader issues of grooming gangs was considered by Jay. So this fails on 2 above, and should therefore be a local inquiry, not a national one. And my understanding is that the government has no issue with a local Oldham inquiry, but that this cannot be a statutory national inquiry (for the reasons I've mentioned).
Sure you could trim down inquiries and reduce cost and time. But to do that you'd need to restrict the numbers of people whose voices can be heard in that inquiry and good luck with that.
I agree anger is a driving raw emotion, and one that often leads to 'I am angry over this issue, there must be an inquiry'. Or 'there was an inquiry, but I wasn't called to give evidence, so there must be another inquiry'.
Completely understandable, but inquiries are not there (just, perhaps not at all) to calm the anger of victims. The key remit of an inquiry is to determine what, if anything, went wrong and to make recommendations to changes in legislation, practice etc to avoid that issue happening in the future.
Actually, I think one of the purposes of inquiries is precisely to deal with the anger of victims. And I would suggest that in talking about the need for voices to be heard you implicitly accept that too.
As to remit, I don't think the Jay inquiry looked at the overall response to 'grooming gangs' and the impact of how they were, and to avoid just 'chasing the past' still are being dealt with. I don't see anything in the recommendations that looks at the impact of being concerned about community relations and how it might impede such investigations. I think that carrying out another inquiry solely focused on Oldham has the same issues as previous such inquiries, it deals with the local not the national level. That said I wonder about the possibility of a set of smaller inquiries that could be regionally based feeding into a national one.
Note, I don't think that in doing this there is a question of saying the Jay inquiry was flawed, rather the very wide remit meant that it's recommendations necessarily followed suit, and didn't concentrate on the issue of grooming gangs and how policy set at national level filters throw to the local level.
Thank you for the comments that we seem to be not that far apart. While I could generate enough energy from my anger with the Tories posturing on this to power a town the size of Oldham, another part of that anger is the kneeler attacks from some that anyone who thinks that there might be justification for another inquiry is either far right or a dupe of the far right. The tedious use of this trope on a number of issues is not helping the 'left' win.
-
Why do we need an inquiry into the approach on grooming gangs?
My recommendation is
1. take the accusations of alleged victims seriously
2. investigate the alleged gangs
3. prosecute if they are found to have done anything illegal.
Seems quite simple to me. Can I have my "tens of millions" now please.
-
Why do we need an inquiry into the approach on grooming gangs?
My recommendation is
1. take the accusations of alleged victims seriously
2. investigate the alleged gangs
3. prosecute if they are found to have done anything illegal.
Seems quite simple to me. Can I have my "tens of millions" now please.
Indeed - what you are describing is a criminal investigation, which is of course different to an inquiry. We have actually had both and I think the focus now should be on action, which would be implementing the recommendations of the inquiry that has already happened and also further criminal investigations and prosecutions where appropriate.
I don't think we need further inquiries and I think in terms of justice, being heard and 'anger' victims are looking for action, including of course people being sent to jail, not yet more inquiries that take years to report and have recommendations that are routinely ignored.
-
Interesting clip on whether the tory amendment was to add the requirement for a new inquiry or to wreck the bill and its proposed safeguards. Pretty clear that it was the latter as it aimed to decline a Second Reading to the Bill and would have therefore rendered it stone dead:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o4qdc9M0a6k
And this is the full text of the proposed amendment (I've bolded the key thing it aimed to achieve):
'That this House, while welcoming measures to improve child protection and safeguarding, declines to give a Second Reading to the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill because it undermines the long-standing combination of school freedom and accountability that has led to educational standards rising in England, effectively abolishes academy freedoms which have been integral to that success and is regressive in approach, leading to worse outcomes for pupils; because it ends freedom over teacher pay, making it harder to attract and retain good teachers; because it ends freedom over Qualified Teacher Status, making teacher recruitment harder; because it removes school freedoms over the curriculum, leading to less innovation; because repealing the requirements for failing schools to become academies and for all new schools to be academies will undermine school improvement and remove the competition which has led to rising standards; because the Bill will make it harder for good schools to expand, reducing parental choice and access to a good education; and calls upon the Government to develop new legislative proposals for children’s wellbeing at the same time as establishing a national statutory inquiry into historical child sexual exploitation, focused on grooming gangs.'
If fact most of it is kicking back at things which have nothing whatsoever to do with child abuse, rather it is about not liking the governments proposals on amendments to academy status.
And had the amendment passed it wouldn't have actually triggered a new inquiry (that bit is simply tacked on at the end), but would have killed off the Bill in its entirety, including any new statutory inquiry, plus also the legal safeguards being brought forward in the Bill, such as a legal obligation to report concerns of abuse.
-
This is just weird from Badenoch. It is barely coherent, has no political use I can see. It may be she's attempting to say something edgy and also have 'plausible deniability' but it then just becomes drivel.
https://bylinetimes.com/2025/01/16/kemi-badenochs-spokesman-ties-himself-in-knots-over-her-peasants-grooming-gang-comments/
-
Badenoch's shamelessly opportunistic and completely unnecessary call for another inquiry fails.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/clyvy4q82l9o (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/clyvy4q82l9o)
We've had an inquiry - it took 7 years and the Tories then failed to implement any of its 20 recommendations.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2025/jan/21/keir-starmer-southport-attack-labour-uk-politics-latest-news-updates?filterKeyEvents=false&page=with%3Ablock-678f7b178f08c642d1d26c1b#block-678f7b178f08c642d1d26c1bTory government's response to child abuse inquiry recommendations 'awful', says its chair, Alexis Jay
-
Now, KemiKaze calls for Truss to shut up.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/jan/23/kemi-badenoch-wants-liz-truss-to-shut-up-for-a-while
She could ask DTennant for some advice? Maybe...?