[Update 6 April 2017: The BBC report that Samantha Baldwin and the children have been found safely. There is no further information available at present and we now expect things to go quiet in terms of information coming from the police / Family Court, at least for a short while – although Nottingham Police website says “an update will follow later today”. We will report further as and when we are able to do so.]
We’ve had a couple of suggestions that we write about the case of Samantha Baldwin and her two sons, because this hit the headlines in the last couple of days, following their disappearance shortly after a Family Court hearing. It has been suggested to us that there is misinformation circulating, and of course that is the sort of thing that we like to try and clarify – where we can.
There are various reports regarding the case, most containing broadly similar information :
Daily Mail (Weds 29)
The Sun (Thurs 30)
Daily Mail (Fri 31)
Nottingham Post (Sat 1 Apr)
The Telegraph (Sat 1 Apr)
[Update 1.40pm 3/4/17 : These reports seem to be largely drawn from Press Releases appearing on the Nottingham Police’s website here, here and here]
[Update 4 Apr : Police have issued renewed appeal to Samantha to contact them urgently and see here]
In this case we are hampered by two things : a lack of information and a reporting restrictions order, which prevents us from reporting some (unverified) material we have read online. But this is what we can say.
Last Monday (27 Mar) the Family Court held a hearing about these two boys. It decided to declare the boys wards of court. Shortly after the hearing Ms Baldwin and the boys disappeared, port alerts were issued, and the following day the court lifted a pre-existing reporting restrictions order to the extent that the police were authorised to make a public statement for the purposes of seeking the help of the public to find them (We’ve not seen the reporting restrictions order but we have had confirmation one exists and that it predated 28 March and the issue of the police statement, although the message doesn’t seem to have reached all journalists until somewhat later as at least one was subsequently served and had to delete tweets.)
We don’t know why the children were declared wards of court, or why Samantha ran. It seems likely that from her perspective she is acting in order to protect them from something. But it is also clear that the Family Court must have taken a very different view. [Update 1.40pm 3/4/17 : A statement issued by the Family Court, which appears as far as we can tell only on the Police website, says :
At a hearing on Monday, 27 March 2017 the Family Court indicated that the children, Louis David Madge (AKA Taylor) (b.05.08.2017) and Dylan Joe Madge (AKA Taylor) (b. 12.02.2011) should be removed from the care of their mother, Samantha Lianne Baldwin (AKA Taylor).
“Miss Baldwin is now missing. It is assumed that she has abducted Louis and Dylan. The children have now been made wards of Court. Miss Baldwin is considered to pose a risk of harm to the children.]
Wardship? Very Charles Dickens…
What can we infer from the warding of the children? Well, wardship is a rarely used power and it crops up usually in the context of actual or threatened abduction from the UK, occasionally in cases where it is necessary to “hold the line” between two parents where for some reason a care order is not appropriate, and more generally in any case where there is a gap in the statutory powers of the court, when wardship is a judge’s flexible friend. What we don’t know is whether the wardship was made as a result of an existing fear of abduction (for example we don’t know if the children were already missing at the time of the hearing when they were warded), or whether it was made for some other reason. [Update 1.40pm 3/4/17 : The wording of the Family Court statement suggests the wardship was a response to the disappearance after the hearing but other reports, relying on the police statement issued on 1 April, suggest it was made at the hearing before she disappeared. It’s unclear at present which is correct.]
Wardship would certainly fit with the assumption that seems to be widely made online that this is a mother who has made some sort of allegation against the children’s father that has not been accepted and that there is a gap between the court’s view of what is beneficial / harmful to them and the mother’s view.
But it is very dangerous to speculate. Firstly, it is unfair on all those concerned – the children, their mother and their father, as such speculation may be wrong and something else altogether may be going on. Secondly, even if the scenario is correct, we have no way of knowing where the truth lies. We don’t know if any allegations have been properly tested yet, or whether they have been found proved or not proved; genuine but deluded or malicious; whether the court has upheld allegations but concluded the risk is low. The permutations are endless.
Custody?
Most of these reports say that the mother “does not have legal custody of the children”. The term “custody” has not been the correct legal term for where a child lives for approaching 30 years now, but its use in the context of a public appeal is perhaps understandable, as the public generally know what is meant by it in layman’s terms. And in fact it is still the technically correct term in cases of child abduction because the statute that relates to that does still use the old fashioned term “custody”. At first blush the use of this phrase could be taken to mean that the children have been ordered to live elsewhere, possibly with their father – but in fact it doesn’t mean that at all. This phrase in fact doesn’t tell us much because whenever a child is made a ward of court the person exercising “parental control” is the court and the court alone. So neither parent has “custody” of these children, and nor does any local authority (although it might have been the court’s intention to delegate its parental powers by placing them either with a parent or family member or a local authority in foster care – and that may still happen when they are found).
Abduction?
Some people have asked whether or not it is correct for the police / press to describe this as a case of child abduction, because the child is with his parent. In fact The Child Abduction Act 1984 has a whole section devoted to circumstances in which a parent can abduct their own child. If Ms Baldwin manages to take the children out of the UK she could be committing the offence of abduction, because it would be in breach of the wardship order. Even if she doesn’t make it out of the UK (and the focus of the police calls suggest they think they were quick enough to prevent that) she is still most likely in breach of an order of the family court, and probably in contempt of it – but this may depend on what the precise terms of the order were. So, it’s a case of possible attempted or actual abduction and the police operation is clearly aimed at preventing such abduction.
Release of information into the public domain
The Family Court judge has taken a deliberate decision not to permit publication of the background details. This is unsurprising, since the names and photos of the children and their mother are plastered all over the internet and there is obvious potential for them to be harmed if their names are publicly and permanently linked with all the gory details of whatever this dispute is about. That detail may yet come out, but the court’s priority at the moment is finding the children and safely recovering them.
Much of the speculation out there appears to be based upon a widespread belief that Family Courts are routinely and institutionally failing to protect women and children from abusive fathers, and much of the comment we have seen online is encouraging the mother to continue running to protect her children. For these commentators, it is obvious that a grave injustice has been done to the mother and children and that she is acting righteously in the face of “evil family court” intervention, and misleading police officers all waiting to return children to the clutches of an abusive dangerous father. In due course it may be that further information will come to light about the facts, and it may be that those facts will at some stage need to be tried. But at the moment there is no verifiable information to support any claim that the childrens father is dangerous or abusive, although as we’ve indicated above, the wardship might have been used as a tool to assist in a case of intractable mutual parental conflict.
The case of Rebecca Minnock may hold some parallels – another mother who ran away with her son Ethan. We wrote about that case in a number of posts (see here). In that case the judge, HHJ Wildblood QC elected to publish his judgments as he went, and invited the press to attend hearings. In that case the judge had deliberately put information in the public domain making clear that the allegations made by the mother against the father had been fully heard but rejected by the court as fabricated, leading to orders for increasing overnight contact. This was not a case of a court not listening to the mother, but of a judge listening and concluding she could not be believed. Rebecca Minnock did not appeal, instead she obstructed contact – and then she ran. We don’t know how close a parallel the facts of the Minnock case bear to this, but it serves as a reminder that things may not be as they at first seem – in spite of the Judge placing the facts about Rebecca Minnock’s fabrication of allegations in the public domain, some members of the press chose not to report the matter in a balanced way, leading to similar narratives about a misunderstood mother fleeing to protect her children from the dangerous father, who was implicitly monstered.
The difference in this case is that the judge has not (yet) issued any background information to enable the public or press to understand what is going on and what the risks actually are, with the result at present being (from our unscientific searches on social media) that most of those who are motivated to comment are unwaveringly supportive of the mother and doubt that she poses any risk at all. From a safeguarding point of view, the court is not getting its message across very effectively, although as the Minnock case illustrates, harnessing the assistance of the media in a way that actually drives public understanding and encourages the public to assist is a complicated business. Whether the publication of further information would turn the tide of public opinion is unclear, but at the moment this case seems to be a magnet for the expression of public disquiet at the practices of the family court, and those who would say that mothers are not listened to and that risks are not properly understood by judges. One question the public are asking is : what risk does this mother pose? Perhaps the answer is that she poses a risk of emotional harm, perhaps she has made threats or is unwell – we simply don’t know. But at present, with the information blackout many are answering the question themselves with “none”. So why would they report a sighting of her?
For many of those following and commenting on the case on social media the “gagging” of the press through the reporting restrictions order is confirmation that something is amiss. Whilst it is not uncommon for there to be restrictions on the reporting of the details of cases concerning children, particularly where their names and photos are in the public domain, the publication of some sort of [fuller]* summary or an appropriately edited version of any previous judgment which might illuminate things would be distinctly useful to those trying to understand that case, and to those trying to explain it to the public (that’s us). Of course, without knowing the details of the case it is difficult to know whether that is practical and in the best interests of the children, but we think it likely that some sort of summary information might form a better platform for a) engaging the public in the search and b) encouraging confidence in the Family Court more generally. *[Updated 1.40 3/4/17]
In the meantime, regardless of the reporting restrictions order, there is a swirl of online activity around this case and speculation and unverified accounts from those who appear to be somehow connected to the mother are fast becoming “fact”. We are not linking to that information here, not only because it would potentially breach any reporting restrictions order to do so, but because that information may well be inaccurate and unfairly critical of those who have done no wrong.
The judge in the Minnock case issued this judgment, directed at the mother and intended to encourage her to hand herself in (as she subsequently did). It is probably applicable in this case too :
Family law proceedings are exceptionally stressful for all concerned. Under the stress that arises people may, wrongly, behave in ways that are impulsive and damaging to the welfare of children. Where a parent does behave in way that is wrong it is very important that matters are put right by that parent as soon as possible. The more time that goes by the more emotionally harmful it is for a child to be in the circumstances in which Ethan now finds himself. This mother must not see herself as being backed into a corner because there is a very simple solution for her – come forward with Ethan. […]
No one can simply ignore that orders have been made which the mother has disobeyed; if I said otherwise it would send out a signal that the court will ignore breaches of its own orders, a signal that would be absurd and utterly wrong. Rather than act through the legal system the mother has chosen to take matters into her own hands. No parent, be it a mother or a father, should ever behave in that way. […]
The remedy for dissatisfaction with a court order relating to a child does not lie in making off with the child into hiding. […]
I think that it is important for the public and the mother to understand that, in relation to the functioning of the family court when making orders concerning Ethan, there are clear legal provisions. Everything possible will be done to ensure that Ethan has an effective relationship with both of his parents.
We will try and update this case as further information becomes available.
[Updates 1.40 3/4/17 Thanks to Mark Hanna for pointing out the statements on the police website which we’ve incorporated into the post]
NOTE : We are getting a lot of comments on this post which we cannot publish for legal reasons. We cannot publish comments that make assertions about the factual background to this case because there is a reporting restriction order in place. Please do not post them, they will be edited or simply not published.
Feature pic : courtesy of Jeremy Segrott on Flickr (Creative commons licence) – thanks!
[NB This post originally showed a picture of one of the children involved provided by the police in order to support their search for them whilst still missing. Whilst we recognise that there is a huge amount of photographic and private information out there about these children, and this cannot be eradicated, we thought that the justification for us publishing a photograph of the children was gone now that they have been found. So we’ve switched it for something else.
The police press releases on this case can be accessed here
http://nottinghamshire.police.uk/news
Thanks – I’ve updated the post to reflect the information in those docs Mark.
[edited for legal reasons]
A number of court users have had dreadful experiences, myself included and would recognise being shoehorned into a situation, with their children removed on dodgy or falsified evidence. We will be vocal as we understand what she is going through and how difficult it is to persuade the court to accept your facts when you are battling a number of professionals. I am not saying she should have run , just that I understand why she did.
From my experience also, I would not trust police evidence as they are at the moment consistently failing to investigate crimes properly , yet this is then disclosed to the family court as reliable professional evidence. It’s tosh.
I do know a number of women , where the abuser either has residence or unsupervised contact with children.
I understand that there is considerable throughput in the family court, there will of course be injustices, this may very well be one.
It seems the Mumsnetters are now arriving.
[edited]
I think your trying to salvage from the warted outgrown political agenda ,some strand of hope. you still can’t be decorous and decent enough to admit that it’s a complete and utter disgrace, why do you invest so much into this political ideology that talks of peace and non-violence, then enforces through the instrument of violence and power, with all its power and majesty, tell me one thing ? Are you happy , it’s time to stop talking, and do something
So glad to read a fair and balanced article about this matter. I have seen some outrageous statements relating to beliefs about Family Courts and hidden agendas, and claims that many agencies are complicit in such perceived ‘evil’.
There is a real need for these perceptions to be challenged as, when presented as facts, they erode confidence in safeguarding processes.
The courts are evil. They are the biggest human rights atrocity in the West. Look at the Women’s aid report 2016: 44% of women who had been through the family courts said that cafcass granted contact with a former partner knowing that the child had been directly abused by them!
The family courts believe that false allegations are true. They believe in junk science called parental alienation. A theory made up by a pro-pedophile. A theory made up so paedophiles could gain access to their own children to rape them. A theory that the American Psychiatric association said was junk science.
He stabbed himself to death in the end. But his theory found its way into the family courts.#
And the family courts are nothing short of a witch hunt.
Only 2% of allegations of child abuse are false Saunders study.
But 94% of allegation of child abuse are covered up by the family courts and Mothers are routinely falsely accused of parental alienation.
Children are actually dying due to the family courts: Child first act 2017 Womens Aid.
80% of children who are abused (including emotional abuse) have a psychological disorder as an adult.
Look up the ACE research.
Abused children have a shorter life expectancy of 20 years.
Triple the likelihood of heart disease.
Lung cancer. Alcohol addiction. 85% of prison inmates are adults of child abuse.
The family courts should be burned to the ground.
Being a Mother in those courts is like having a water pistol against the British army.
The courts are built on corruption at the worst level.
And yes I have been through it.
One day I will stand on trial and ask for my cafcass officer to do the time for enabling child abuse. Rubber stamped by a corrupt system that is built to enable child abuse on a grand scale.
That is the biggest load of manipulated feminist tripe I have ever read.
I am an alienated parent.
My ex has consistently breached court orders for 9 years without punishment because she wanted to build a fake family with her ex, who she now pretends is is his dad despite splitting up with him 6 and a half years ago but they have another child together but out of of convenience she wants to put both kids in the same place at the weekend.
That’s not alienation? I have 2 kids with my wife, there has never been a concern about my parenting at all and yet she keeps my son from me for her convenience.
Are you going to call me a paedophile or abuser?
Please do not spread your hateful, lying, misandrist views anywhere, it is nothing but third wave feminist lies.
Get some perspective and some real facts, not the absolute lies spread women’s aid are liars who put false allegations into their statistics, most of which are prove false, please get yourself enlightened to the truth before spewing this hateful rhetoric.
Wheelie, Whilst I’ve permitted your comment I’d ask all those commenting further to try and be respectful of different views.
Hear, Hear!!
Further to the remarks on Rebecca Minnock’s case; The judge said that she should not feel as though she was backed into a corner. This, and comments made by the police to the media at the time, gave quiet hope and assurances that she would be properly heard and that fair systems would be put in place enabling her to continue, what cannot be disputed, her exceptionally close and loving relationship with her son. However, [edited for legal reasons] The family courts, the secrecy, the gagging orders are appalling.
[edited for legal reasons] My heart bleeds for Samantha Baldwin.
Reporting restrictions in place with my case still, please leave my son and I out of your guessing work and assumptions, you all need to open your eyes, no doubt this will be edited! ” for legal reasons” my heart goes out to this woman and her sons.
Don’t trust police who work with social services, my experience. (s/services police liaisons officer) put my kids on airport alert for over 2 years, there isn’t a law that stated a child should be on this alert for over 28 days, we did not fall in any of the reasons for such law. We suffer airport harassment on 5 trips during the 2 years.
The police know that the request that s/services requested was unlawful but he went ahead and did it.
This started because of a false allegation made by a school head teacher, they abuse my sons & turnround pointed finger at me, collusion started with school & local authorities, they all uses act of power on parents especially if the parents not afraid to challenge the professionals..
No one on the outside would ever know the real reason why this woman take her sons away, professionals uses act of power all the times..
I’m not entirely sure how practical it is to regulate and legally define human feelings. Nobody argues that the welfare of all children should be paramount, but is the faith that society may or may not hold in those responsible for determining it – Social Workers and Judges – reliable? How are we supposed to have confidence in a system as flawed as ours?
Speculating on this case, any case, would be wrong, but perhaps more attention needs to be paid to the bigger picture?
Nick Langley,
Genuine question : How should we determine those issues if not through social workers / judges? Who would be more reliable / appropriate to make such decisions (assuming for some reason parents are unable or unwilling to make them)?
I wish there was an independent appeals panel for family cases, made up of people who are outside the system. Many have no faith in the family courts because they feel the court will always take the word of a professional over the word of a parent, and that professionals will naturally trust each other. People feel they cannot get an impartial hearing. A truly independent appeals system could restore faith in the system.
Oh my goodness. You think social workers and judges are reliable?
http://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/hull-city-council-social-worker-rachael-dinsdale-accused-of-falsifying-documents/story-29765748-detail/story.html
“A council social worker is facing allegations of misconduct and dishonesty after she was accused of falsifying child protection documents.”
http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/social-worker-suspended-further-12-11302138#ICID=sharebar_twitter
“That led to him [Martin Sands] “deliberately recording false information over Children In Need plans when meetings had not taken place.”
http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/14096815.Social_services_staff_in_Hampshire_involved_in__cover_up__says_top_judge/?action=success#comment_14966417
“Social services staff asked to make decisions about the future of five children were involved in an attempted ”cover-up”, a family court judge has said.
Judge Mark Horton said there had been a ”deliberate and calculated” alteration of a social worker’s report.”
http://www.communitycare.co.uk/2015/07/29/social-workers-criticised-reprehensible-behaviour-adoption-case/
“Social workers have been heavily criticised by a High Court judge for “unprofessional” and “reprehensible” case building against a father whose child was up for adoption.
In the light of their unprofessional behaviour and their negative view of him both as a father and as an individual, as expressed in their evidence, there can be little wonder if the father finds it hard to trust the local authority and work with them from time to time,” the judge said.”
And a little Google on judicial corruption: https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=judicial+corruption&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b-ab&gfe_rd=cr&ei=LG3mWKeoI6738Ae7obXYAg#q=judicial+corruption+uk&*
Many, many parents have experienced lies and a parent-blame culture by social workers. Many, many parents have also experienced courts believing social workers
above parents.
And you believe these are the people who should be entrusted with making life-altering decisions on children’s and families’ lives?
And then of course there is the police whistleblower who uncovered paedophilia and child prostitution within the care system and covered-up by his police colleagues (including at the highest level) and with authority figures involved including social services, also including a magistrate who knew a female pimp was prostituting out children from care and enabled this. http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/550022/Scotland-yard-met-officer-john-wedger-reveals-peado-sex-ring-cover-up [edited for legal reasons]
Why would you believe the authorities are trustworthy? The transparency project should be truly transparent.
EJ,
We’ve edited one link you provided for legal reasons. We note that the last link you provide to an item about a police whistleblower is regarding allegations made by him of paedophilia but does not confirm whether those allegations were found proved.
We have already written about some of the examples of alleged or proven social work misconduct that you link to earlier in your comment, in particular the case in which HHJ Horton found social workers to have been dishonest. See here : http://www.transparencyproject.org.uk/if-the-health-and-care-professions-council-hcpc-really-have-found-the-social-workers-who-lied-on-oath-in-the-hampshire-case-not-to-have-committed-professional-misconduct-should-they-publish-th/, here http://www.transparencyproject.org.uk/open-letter-to-the-professional-standards-authority/ and here http://www.transparencyproject.org.uk/open-letter-to-the-psa-response-from-hcpc/.
So we think we’re pretty transparent. We aren’t forming any conclusions about this particular case until there is a better evidence base.
My personal thoughts on this are that the police are expecting the public to do their job, and to me this is asking too much; this may be an overly libertarian viewpoint, but why should we be on the lookout for someone who doesn’t appear to have committed a criminal offence? If this woman is a danger to the public then I think we’d know about it by now; if she has committed a serious offence then yes, we have the right to know what it is. It sounds most probable that if she has done anything wrong it doesn’t fall into the category where us ordinary folk should be calling the police when we see her. Have we really become such a nation of snitches?
Jason,
Thanks for your comment. If the mother has taken the children abroad she probably has committed a criminal offence. If she is trying to do so that would be an attempted crime, which the police are attempting to prevent, just like they try to prevent any crime. The court says she is a risk to the children rather than the public – there may be different views about whether that is accurate, but the criminal law is there to protect specific individuals as well as “the public”.
Thank you for your response. Yes, I appreciate what you say. I do not accept, though, that someone who is a risk to her children but not anyone else’s is what I would consider enough of a risk to get involved. In fact, it would feel morally wrong to do so. We are all a risk to our children – you, me, all of us with children.
That is such a profound comment. So true!
And she hadn’t taken then abroad. They were found in the UK. In a holiday chalet. Gee whizz, what a crime. This whole case is a farce. Appalling. If she was a danger to them she would have left them and not taken them with her. That is the sign of a mother who loves her children and is using her innate instincts to protect them from known harm. [edited for legal reasons] Too many lives are destroyed by social services and the corrupt family court system.
Why do you focus your concern solely on the mother and ignore the possibility of abuse being perpetrated on the father/child dynamic by maintenance of the status quo?
I just read that the arrest of Samantha Baldwin was down to information given to Nottinghamshire Police as “a result of information received through its nationwide appeal.” I also read somewhere about two other women being arrested for aiding her. I find this very disturbing, but also I can see how far away my principles are from what is now considered mainstream and acceptable. I think of stories like the woman taken in adultery from the Bible, where we’re told “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone” – but that’s all gone now. Now we’re expected to shop a mother for taking her own children, even though she cannot be classified as a dangerous person, and if she’s committed a crime, then no-one seems to know what it is.
Jason,
We will report more on the background reasons when we are able. For legal reasons we can’t do that at the moment, and nor can the press. It doesn’t necessarily mean there aren’t good reasons or real risks, just that they can’t all be shared at present.
Thank you. But I’ll never feel able to assist the police in arresting a member of the public just because someone in authority says so, without saying why; “it doesn’t necessarily mean there aren’t good reasons” isn’t strong enough for me, because it doesn’t necessarily mean there ARE good reasons either. I’ve noticed how arbitrary the family courts can be and I’ll continue to raise my kids to question authority and be fairly sceptical. I don’t believe that anyone who isn’t a danger to all children is much of a danger to her own children.
You are right – we don’t know there ARE, we don’t know there AREN’T good reasons. Of course it cuts both ways – if the public are confident in how family courts operate they are more likely to take it on trust that if the court says there is a good reason that’s probably good enough – for the time being. But most people who we’ve seen commenting on this case are saying, like you, “I’m not prepared to take it on trust”. The problem is there might be very good reasons why the court CAN’T explain itself just yet, but it can’t tell us about them because that would be self defeating. Sorry to be cryptic, the point is there is likely to be stuff going on behind the scenes which makes the secrecy necessary. Whether that turns out to be justified or not we will try and report it when we can.
A tragically high number of child disputes result in one parent or the other taking the lives of their children in an act of ultimate despair – this is a known fact. In such circumstances, it is unlikely that they would be considered, or represent, a danger to other children.
The Court or the Police might indeed have very good reasons why they might want to keep their reasons which might be good ones quiet . Indeed those reasons might be good ones or they might be invalid. Probably the latter if they won’t reveal them or maybe not…. the moon might be green cheese might not be….. . Are there pressing social needs for the Court not to reveal the reasons e.g. national security concerns ? Or is it just using the old one that it doesn’t want to risk upsetting the children involved?
Whether Samantha is blameless or not the shocking truth is that many many good parents are having their children removed when they shouldn’t. And many children in foster care are being treated shamefully, I have seen in several times first hand. Children’s lives are being destroyed by people who just seem to see them as names on a bit of paper. I’m not saying that all are but that there are far to many that are. A full independent investigation to how the family court and care system is administered is long overdue.
furthermore, what about the police “mother to mother” appeal that expressed empathy to her, then promptly arrest her when she is found. the police should be impartial in this matter in fully investigating the case with the court as one of the defendants.
mother was declared a risk of harm to her boys but boys were found safe. they tried to justify the claim by saying harm could be psychological but taking the boys away and putting them into care is psychologically damaging to them and the mother.
the idea of an appeals panel made up of normal human beings called up like a jury is a good idea. the legal process is clinical and heartless. Also, why was a fundraising page shut down which was entirely legal and which would help fund a legal process?
Probably because it gave an account of the case that was prohibited from publication. Further details are now available – we will publish those in a separate blog post shortly.