A parent can be frightened, exhausted and emotional — and still be right to be concerned. Yet in too many family-court cases, particularly where coercive control or safeguarding concerns are raised, a mother’s entirely human response to prolonged pressure becomes the focus instead of the risk she is trying to explain. She is called “anxious”, “fixated” or “unable to move on”, while the crucial questions are left unanswered: what has happened, what is happening now, what is the pattern, and what does it mean for the child?
Family Court Reality | Domestic Abuse | Safeguarding
Why a frightened, exhausted parent should not be mistaken for an unreliable one — and why children’s words must be understood in context.
Content note: This article discusses domestic abuse, coercive control, post-separation abuse and the experience of family-court proceedings.
There is a pattern that many parents, particularly mothers raising safeguarding concerns, will recognise immediately.
They are frightened, so they are described as “anxious”. They keep trying to explain a concern that has not been properly addressed, so they are said to be “fixated”. They raise the same issue again because the risk remains unresolved, so they are told that they are “unable to move on”. They react emotionally after prolonged coercion, pressure, litigation and fear, and suddenly their reaction is treated as the issue.
Meanwhile, the original question can quietly disappear: what happened, what is happening now, and what does the evidence show?
This article was prompted by a thoughtful post from Lisa Arterton, a coercive-control and post-separation-abuse specialist. Her central observation deserves much wider attention: a person’s nervous system is not separate from their legal case.
In this article
Why distress is not the same as unreliability
Why patterns matter more than isolated exchanges
How coercive control can continue or change after separation
Why a child’s wishes and feelings must be listened to carefully, not mechanically
What parents can do to present concerns clearly and safely
A normal response to an abnormal situation
Family proceedings can demand a remarkable amount from a parent who is already overwhelmed. They may be managing handovers, repeated hostile messages, hearings, applications, legal bills, work, parenting, poor sleep and the fear that one badly worded email will be used against them.
That does not mean every allegation is correct. It does not mean every difficult co-parenting situation is coercive control. It does mean that professionals and courts should be careful not to treat a parent’s understandable distress as a shortcut answer to the safeguarding question.
A person can be anxious and right to be concerned. They can be emotional and trying to protect a child. They can revisit an issue because it has not been investigated, because new evidence has emerged, or because its impact has not stopped.
“Why does Mum keep raising this?” is not a substitute for asking: “What is she raising, what evidence exists, and what does it mean for this child?”
The law requires a safeguarding lens — not a personality test
In England and Wales, where domestic abuse is alleged, admitted or there is another reason to believe that it may have occurred, Practice Direction 12J applies. It requires the court to identify and consider domestic abuse and the risk of harm to the child and the parent with whom the child is living.
It recognises that domestic abuse can cause children direct psychological and emotional harm, and can also affect them indirectly by impairing the parenting capacity of either parent. The court must not make arrangements that expose a child or a parent to an unmanageable risk of harm.
The Domestic Abuse Act statutory guidance also recognises children as victims in their own right where they see, hear or experience the effects of abuse. Coercive or controlling behaviour is not defined by one dramatic incident; it is often an intentional pattern of behaviour over time.
That matters. A case should not be reduced to whether one parent appears calmer in a Cafcass call, more polished in a statement, or more “reasonable” in a single email. The relevant question is whether the evidence, the history and the current arrangements reveal a pattern of harm, pressure, control or risk.
Context changes the meaning of an email, an agreement or a “reasonable” offer
An individual email may look calm. A proposal may look reasonable. A sudden willingness to compromise may look reassuring. But no document should be assessed in a vacuum where there is a concern about coercive control or litigation abuse.
Useful questions include:
What happened immediately before this message or proposal?
What happened when the other parent said no, asked for time, or sought advice?
What happened when they stopped responding?
Did the behaviour settle when agreement was reached, or did the demands simply change?
Was an apparent concession followed by fresh pressure?
Is there a repeated pattern across messages, handovers, finances, applications or contact arrangements?
This is not about constructing a story to fit a conclusion. It is about resisting the opposite mistake: treating each incident as separate when the evidence may show a connected pattern.
Important: “I just want this to stop” is not always informed, free agreement. In high-pressure situations, a person may agree because they are exhausted, frightened or financially and emotionally depleted. That is why significant decisions should be made with time, clear information and appropriate support.
Children’s wishes and feelings: listen carefully, not mechanically
A child’s wishes and feelings matter. They are part of the welfare checklist and must be treated seriously. But listening to a child is not the same as lifting a sentence out of its environment and treating it as a complete answer.
A child’s words may be influenced by many things: loyalty pressure, fear of upsetting a parent, exposure to adult narratives, a desire to reduce conflict, a wish to feel safe in the home they must return to, or a genuine and independently held preference. The task is not to assume coercion. The task is to assess properly.
Questions worth asking include:
How long has the child expressed this view, and has it changed over time?
What language is the child using, and does it sound age-appropriate and authentically their own?
What has the child experienced, heard or been told?
What happens if the child disagrees with either parent?
Are there observable changes in mood, school attendance, behaviour, sleep or presentation around contact?
Are there safe, independent sources of information, such as school, GP records, police logs or other professionals?
This is not an argument for dismissing children’s voices. It is an argument for taking them seriously enough to understand the conditions in which those voices have developed. As Cafcass itself puts it, its role is to ensure the child’s voice is heard by the court and decisions are made in the child’s best interests — those are related, but not identical, questions.
When the focus shifts from risk to the person raising it
One of the most damaging features of some cases is the shift in focus from the safeguarding concern to the conduct of the parent raising it.
There may be an allegation. Then a report. Then evidence. Then a request for somebody to investigate it. If the issue remains unresolved, the parent raises it again. At that point, they may begin to fear that persistence itself will be used against them.
That is a dangerous position for any parent. It can make a person doubt their own judgment, go silent when they should be seeking help, or flood professionals with every detail because they are terrified that the one important point will otherwise be missed.
The answer is neither silence nor sending 4,000 pages without explanation. It is structured, evidence-led communication.
A practical approach for parents dealing with Cafcass or the court
If you are worried about a child or about post-separation abuse, try to move from “everything that has happened” to a clear and manageable evidence window.
Identify the current issue. What is happening now that affects the child’s welfare or safety?
Set out the pattern briefly. Use dates and a short chronology. Explain what happened before and after key incidents.
Separate fact from interpretation. State what was said, done, seen, reported or recorded. Then explain why it causes concern.
Link the issue to impact. How has it affected the child’s behaviour, emotional wellbeing, school life, contact, health or sense of safety?
Identify evidence. Messages, school records, police incident numbers, GP evidence, photographs, orders, reports and neutral witnesses can all be relevant.
Be clear about what you do not know. A credible safeguarding account does not need to pretend certainty where further investigation is required.
Make a proportionate request. For example: a risk assessment, enquiries from school, a section 7 report, safe arrangements for communication, or consideration of whether a fact-finding hearing is necessary.
In other words: do not manufacture a narrative. Make the existing evidence visible, relevant and usable.
The family court must see the whole picture
Family justice cannot become a process in which a parent is expected to be endlessly calm while navigating circumstances that are genuinely frightening, destabilising or unsafe. Nor should “child-focused” become shorthand for ignoring the environment in which a child is trying to survive.
A parent’s distress may need support. Their communication may need structure. Their evidence may need organising. But none of that answers the safeguarding question.
Context matters. Pattern matters. Impact matters. And a child’s welfare depends on professionals being willing to look beyond the presentation of the adults in the room.
Need help making your evidence clear?
JSH Law provides practical, trauma-informed support for litigants in person dealing with child-arrangements cases, Cafcass, safeguarding concerns, evidence organisation, chronologies, statements and hearing preparation.
The aim is not to make your experience sound dramatic. It is to help you present the important facts, the pattern and the impact in a way the court can properly assess.
Disclaimer: This article provides general information about family law and safeguarding in England and Wales. It is not legal advice and is not a substitute for advice on the facts of an individual case. If you or a child are in immediate danger, call 999. For non-emergency domestic abuse support, contact the National Domestic Abuse Helpline on 0808 2000 247.
Credit: This article was inspired by a public post by Lisa Arterton. It is an original JSH Law analysis and does not reproduce her post.
https://jshlaw.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/ChatGPT-Image-Feb-3-2026-03_26_42-AM.png10241536jessica susan hillhttps://jshlaw.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/jsh-law-logo-new-black-300x67.pngjessica susan hill2026-09-03 13:10:482026-09-03 13:24:04Your Nervous System Is Not Separate From Your Family Court Case
Katharine Birbalsingh’s speech is uncomfortable because it forces us to ask a question many adults would rather avoid: what are we actually teaching children about responsibility, duty, truth, resilience and moral character? This is not just an education debate. From a family justice and safeguarding perspective, it goes much deeper. Children are growing up in a world where adult conflict is often normalised, social media shapes identity before maturity has formed, boundaries are confused with harm, and “listening to the child” is sometimes misused as an excuse for adults to step back from their own responsibility. Children need rights, protection and compassion. But they also need adults who are brave enough to lead, set boundaries, tell the truth, model self-control and keep adult problems away from childhood.
Children • Safeguarding • Family Justice • Education
“This Is a Civilisational Failure”: What Katharine Birbalsingh’s Speech Gets Right About Children, Character and Adult Responsibility
Children do not become resilient, responsible and emotionally safe by accident. They need adults, families, schools, courts and communities who are willing to provide boundaries, truth, stability, moral clarity and protection.
Summary
Katharine Birbalsingh’s ARC26 speech, titled “This is a civilisational failure!”, argues that the West’s moral crisis is connected to the values adults have taught children. Her focus is education, culture, duty, responsibility and moral character. This article looks at that argument from a JSH Law perspective: family justice, safeguarding, children’s welfare, social media, parental responsibility, coercive control, litigation abuse and the reality of what happens when adults fail to provide children with safe, stable and morally coherent leadership.
Katharine Birbalsingh is not a neutral figure in public debate. She is known for strong views on discipline, education, culture and responsibility. Her school, Michaela Community School in London, has attracted both admiration and criticism for its strict ethos and high expectations. Ofsted’s 2023 report recorded that the school continued to be outstanding, noting exceptionally high expectations for behaviour, academic work and personal development.
That does not mean every person will agree with every word she says. They will not. That is not the point.
The point is that she is asking a question many adults would rather avoid:
What are we actually teaching children about life, duty, truth, responsibility, resilience and moral agency?
That question matters deeply in family justice.
Because by the time families arrive in the family court, the issue is rarely just one isolated argument, one missed contact, one unpleasant message, one school dispute, one failed handover or one parenting disagreement. What the court often sees is the end result of patterns: adult conflict, poor boundaries, coercive behaviour, emotional dysregulation, unsafe communication, entrenched grievance, parental alienating behaviours, domestic abuse, social media escalation, financial pressure and adults using children as witnesses, messengers, weapons or emotional support.
That is where the phrase “civilisational failure” lands differently.
It is not just about schools.
It is about what happens when adults abandon their responsibility to form, protect and guide children.
Children Need More Than Rights Language
Children have rights. That matters. Children must be listened to. Their wishes and feelings matter. Their safety matters. Their identity matters. Their emotional wellbeing matters. Their autonomy develops as they mature.
But children also need adults to understand something that modern systems sometimes avoid saying clearly:
Children are still children.
They are not miniature adults. They should not be expected to carry adult conflict, adult ideology, adult loneliness, adult emotional need or adult decision-making. They should not be placed in the middle of parental warfare and then told it is “their choice”. They should not be handed a smartphone, exposed to adult content, pressured by algorithms and then blamed for becoming anxious, reactive, sexualised, aggressive, withdrawn or confused.
A child’s voice matters. But a child’s voice is not the same thing as adult abdication.
The safeguarding point
Listening to children does not mean abandoning adult responsibility. A child can be heard, respected and taken seriously without being made responsible for adult decisions, parental conflict or unsafe family dynamics.
In family court language, this distinction is crucial. The court may consider a child’s wishes and feelings, having regard to age and understanding, but the child’s welfare remains the court’s paramount consideration when deciding questions about upbringing under section 1 of the Children Act 1989.
That is not accidental. It reflects a hard truth: children may have strong wishes, but adults and courts still have a duty to assess safety, context, pressure, manipulation, welfare and long-term impact.
The Problem With Outsourcing Character Formation
One of the strongest themes in Birbalsingh’s speech is the idea that children are being taught to see the world through narrow and destructive frames: oppressor and oppressed, grievance and blame, identity and victimhood.
That point needs careful handling.
There are real victims. Domestic abuse is real. Coercive control is real. Racism is real. misogyny is real. poverty is real. disability discrimination is real. institutional failure is real. Children who are harmed should not be told to “toughen up” while adults protect the systems or people who failed them.
But there is also a serious danger when children are taught that identity alone explains everything, that personal responsibility is oppressive, that boundaries are harm, that discipline is abuse, that all discomfort is trauma, and that the correct response to difficulty is always blame.
That is not empowerment.
It leaves children fragile, reactive and dependent on external validation.
Real safeguarding is not about wrapping children in cotton wool. It is about helping them become safe, capable, truthful, resilient and morally responsible people.
A better balance
Children need both compassion and accountability.
They need both protection and resilience.
They need both rights and responsibilities.
They need adults who can say: “What happened to you matters, and what you do next also matters.”
Boundaries Are Not Abuse
This is where the conversation becomes difficult, particularly for those of us working around domestic abuse, coercive control and safeguarding.
We need to be precise.
Boundaries are not the same as control.
Discipline is not the same as domination.
Authority is not the same as coercion.
But abusive adults often misuse the language of discipline, respect, culture, religion, family values and parental authority to justify harmful behaviour. That is why we must distinguish healthy structure from coercive control.
Healthy boundary
Coercive control
Clear, age-appropriate rules explained calmly.
Rules used to frighten, isolate, humiliate or dominate.
Consistent consequences linked to behaviour.
Punishment that is unpredictable, disproportionate or designed to break the person down.
Encouraging responsibility and repair.
Demanding submission, silence or compliance.
Protecting a child from harm.
Using “protection” as an excuse to monitor, isolate or control.
Adult authority exercised for the child’s welfare.
Adult power exercised for the adult’s ego, image or control.
Family courts, schools, social workers, Cafcass and professionals must be able to hold both truths at once.
Children need boundaries.
Children also need protection from adults who weaponise boundaries.
Family Justice Shows Us What Happens When Adults Fail
In family proceedings, the court often has to pick through the wreckage of adult failure.
A parent refuses to communicate safely.
A child is told too much.
A parent presents adult grievances as the child’s wishes.
Contact becomes a battleground.
Allegations are minimised, exaggerated, ignored or weaponised.
Domestic abuse is reframed as “conflict”.
Coercive control is missed because professionals look for single incidents rather than patterns.
A child learns that love means loyalty tests, emotional pressure, secrecy or fear.
This is why character formation cannot be treated as a soft issue. It has legal, emotional and safeguarding consequences.
The family court reality
When adults do not regulate themselves, children are often forced to adapt around adult dysfunction. That adaptation may look like “choice”, “maturity” or “strong wishes”, but sometimes it is survival, pressure, loyalty conflict or emotional exhaustion.
That is why evidence-led family justice matters.
Courts need more than accusation and counter-accusation. They need clear chronology, patterns of behaviour, examples, impact on the child, safeguarding analysis and practical proposals. Professionals need to ask not only, “What does the child say?” but also:
What has the child been exposed to?
Who has had influence over the child’s narrative?
Is the child being placed in a loyalty conflict?
Has one parent used litigation, money, communication or contact arrangements as pressure?
Are there patterns of intimidation, monitoring, isolation or emotional manipulation?
What would make this child safer, calmer and more secure?
Social Media Has Changed Childhood
Birbalsingh’s speech also points toward a wider cultural problem: children are being shaped by social media, algorithms and online culture at a scale adults have not properly controlled.
We should be honest about this.
Many children now receive moral instruction from platforms designed to capture attention, provoke reaction, reward outrage and keep users scrolling. That is not a neutral environment. It changes language. It changes expectations. It changes how children understand identity, relationships, sex, conflict, popularity, shame, humiliation, violence and status.
The Online Safety Act 2023 reflects Parliament’s recognition that online platforms have duties in relation to illegal content and children’s exposure to harmful material. Government materials on the Act describe duties on platforms to protect child users and enforce age limits more consistently.
But legislation alone will not raise children.
Parents, schools and communities cannot simply say, “The platform should sort it.” Of course platforms should be held to account. But adults also need to know what children are watching, who they are speaking to, what messages are shaping them and whether online life is becoming a substitute parent.
Practical safeguarding questions
Does the child have unrestricted access to adult content?
Are they being drawn into misogynistic, violent, extremist or self-harm content?
Are they being groomed, pressured, bullied or humiliated online?
Are parents using phones to monitor, control or interrogate the child?
Is one parent using messages, screenshots or social media to influence the child against the other?
Is online activity affecting sleep, school, anxiety, aggression or family relationships?
The Legal Framework: Welfare, Safeguarding and Adult Responsibility
From a family law perspective, this debate must come back to welfare.
Under section 1 of the Children Act 1989, when a court determines any question about a child’s upbringing, the child’s welfare is the court’s paramount consideration. That principle is not sentimental. It is practical. It requires the court to look beyond adult entitlement and focus on what is best for the child.
Safeguarding guidance also places responsibility on adults and agencies. Keeping Children Safe in Education 2025 sets out the legal duties schools and colleges must follow to safeguard and promote the welfare of children. Working Together to Safeguard Children 2026 emphasises multi-agency responsibility, clarity of roles and effective support for children who need help and protection.
So when we talk about moral character, discipline, responsibility and culture, we should not treat those as abstract political ideas. They sit alongside very real legal and safeguarding duties.
The legal and safeguarding reality
Children need adults to protect them from harm.
Children need adults to promote their welfare.
Children need adults to model safe behaviour.
Children need adults to tell the truth.
Children need adults to stop making adult conflict their burden.
That applies whether the adult is a parent, teacher, social worker, Cafcass officer, solicitor, McKenzie Friend, religious leader, politician, platform owner or judge.
A Trauma-Informed Response Does Not Mean No Standards
One of the mistakes in public debate is the false choice between compassion and standards.
Some people talk about discipline as if children simply need to be controlled.
Others talk about trauma as if expectations are inherently harmful.
Both positions are too crude.
A trauma-informed approach does not mean children should have no boundaries, no consequences, no responsibility and no expectations. It means adults understand that behaviour may be communication, that fear changes the nervous system, that shame can escalate harm, and that children who have experienced instability may need calm, predictable, relationally safe structure.
In other words: trauma-informed practice should make adults better at boundaries, not afraid of them.
Children who have been harmed do not need chaos dressed up as kindness. They need safety, predictability, attunement, truth and adults who can stay regulated.
This is particularly important in domestic abuse cases.
A child who has lived with coercive control may be hypervigilant. A child who has witnessed violence may become aggressive, withdrawn, compliant or controlling. A child caught in post-separation abuse may say what they think the powerful adult wants to hear. A child who has been emotionally parentified may appear mature while carrying entirely inappropriate burdens.
The answer is not permissiveness.
The answer is safe, skilled, evidence-led adult leadership.
What This Means for Parents
Parents do not need to be perfect. No parent is.
But children do need parents who are willing to take responsibility.
That means:
Do not involve children in adult disputes.
Do not show children court documents, hostile messages or adult allegations unless there is a clear safeguarding reason and professional advice.
Do not use “the child’s wishes” as a shield for adult manipulation.
Do not undermine the other safe parent to secure loyalty.
Do not outsource parenting to devices.
Do not confuse permissiveness with love.
Do not confuse control with protection.
Do not make children responsible for your loneliness, anger or emotional regulation.
Positive parenting is not weak parenting. It involves warmth, structure, honesty, repair and consistency.
Children need to know that adults can apologise. They need to see adults resolve conflict without threats. They need to hear adults say, “That was not acceptable,” without humiliation or cruelty. They need to learn that love is not the absence of boundaries.
What This Means for Schools
Schools cannot replace families. But they are often the first place where the impact of family breakdown, domestic abuse, neglect, poor sleep, online harm and emotional insecurity becomes visible.
A school culture that values behaviour, kindness, duty, learning and personal responsibility can be protective. It can give children stability. It can give them a model of adult authority that is calm and predictable. It can create a place where children are not ruled by the loudest, most aggressive or most disruptive pupil in the room.
But schools also have to be alert to safeguarding realities.
A child who is repeatedly late, exhausted, anxious, aggressive, hungry, withdrawn, unusually compliant or suddenly refusing contact with a parent may not simply be “difficult”. There may be something happening at home. There may be coercive control. There may be neglect. There may be a parent using the child as a messenger. There may be online harm. There may be fear.
The best school cultures hold standards and curiosity together.
A safeguarding-aware school asks
What has changed?
What pattern are we seeing?
What is the child communicating through behaviour?
Are there safe adults around this child?
Is the child being placed under pressure by an adult?
What information needs to be shared, and with whom, to safeguard this child?
What This Means for Family Court Cases
For litigants in person, this discussion is not theoretical. It affects how cases should be prepared.
If you are involved in children proceedings, do not simply say:
“The other parent is damaging the child.”
That may be true. But the court needs evidence, examples, dates, patterns, impact and practical proposals.
Better questions are:
What exactly has happened?
When did it happen?
How do I know?
What was the child’s presentation before and after?
Is there a pattern?
What evidence supports it?
What order am I asking the court to make?
How does that order promote the child’s welfare?
How does it reduce conflict or safeguarding risk?
A welfare-focused case is not built on outrage. It is built on clarity.
If your concern is emotional harm, coercive control, alienating behaviour, unsafe communication, online exposure, neglect, educational instability or the child being burdened with adult issues, organise the evidence properly.
Courts are more likely to understand patterns when those patterns are set out calmly and chronologically.
Practical evidence examples
A short chronology of key incidents.
A schedule showing dates, behaviour, evidence and impact on the child.
School attendance, lateness, behaviour or wellbeing records where relevant.
Messages showing unsafe communication or adult conflict being pushed through the child.
Examples of the child being asked to choose sides.
Evidence of online harm, monitoring, pressure or inappropriate exposure.
Clear proposals for safer handovers, communication, boundaries and contact arrangements.
The Bigger Point: Children Need Adults to Be Adults
The reason Birbalsingh’s speech has resonated is because many people can feel that something has gone wrong.
Children are anxious.
Parents are overwhelmed.
Teachers are exhausted.
Family courts are overloaded.
Social media is shaping children faster than adults can respond.
Professionals are often afraid to speak plainly.
And too many children are left to navigate adult confusion without enough guidance, protection or moral structure.
We do not fix that by shouting slogans at one another.
We fix it by taking adult responsibility seriously again.
That means:
Parents setting loving, consistent boundaries.
Schools creating safe, purposeful cultures.
Courts focusing on welfare, evidence and long-term impact.
Professionals naming coercive control and emotional harm where it exists.
Adults refusing to use children as weapons in adult disputes.
Platforms being held to account for the environments they create.
Communities rebuilding expectations around duty, service, truth and care.
This is not nostalgia. It is safeguarding.
Children need freedom, but freedom without formation is abandonment.
Children need compassion, but compassion without truth is sentimentality.
Children need rights, but rights without responsible adults are not enough.
For Litigants in Person: Make the Court’s Job Easier
If you are a litigant in person dealing with child arrangements, safeguarding concerns, coercive control, alienating behaviours or post-separation abuse, the court needs help to see the pattern clearly.
Do not bury the issue in long emotional statements. Do not send pages of screenshots with no explanation. Do not assume the court will automatically understand the significance of behaviour that has taken months or years to unfold.
Your job is to make the court’s job easier.
That means presenting:
the issue;
the evidence;
the pattern;
the impact on the child;
the safeguarding risk;
the practical order sought;
why that order is in the child’s welfare interests.
The strongest family court documents are calm, specific and child-focused. They do not need to be dramatic. They need to be clear.
How JSH Law Can Help
JSH Law supports people navigating the family court, particularly where there are concerns about domestic abuse, coercive control, safeguarding, child arrangements, emotional harm, post-separation abuse, litigation abuse or overwhelming evidence.
Support can include:
organising evidence into clear schedules;
preparing chronologies;
drafting or improving witness statements;
helping prepare position statements;
reviewing Cafcass or section 7 report concerns;
preparing for hearings;
identifying safeguarding patterns and welfare impact;
helping litigants in person present their case clearly and calmly.
The aim is simple: to help you present the reality of what is happening in a way the court can understand and act on.
https://jshlaw.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/ChatGPT-Image-Feb-3-2026-03_26_42-AM.png10241536jessica susan hillhttps://jshlaw.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/jsh-law-logo-new-black-300x67.pngjessica susan hill2026-06-29 23:24:552026-06-29 23:24:58Children, Character and Adult Responsibility: A JSH Law Response to Katharine Birbalsingh
