On 11 November 1918, when the guns of the Western Front finally fell silent, Winston Churchill (the then Minister of Munitions) reflected retrospectively on the war that had just ended (Gilbert, 2005). He concluded that if America had joined forces with the Allies much earlier in the conflict, Germany could have been defeated much sooner, and importantly, the fatalities that occurred during the First World War could have been prevented (Gilbert, 2005). With the advent of the Second World War, Churchill drew on his experiences during the First World War to call for unity in the Second: unity among the allies, and unity among the people of Britain. In the context of war, declarations such as Churchill's may be seen as morally rhetorical, that is, pervasive devices used during an emotionally charged time of uncertainty, fear and death – who could refute Churchill's claim that ‘working together’ to defeat the enemy was not a good idea given the threat posed to the stability and security of the nation at that time?

In a child welfare context, political messages from highprofile public inquiries following the deaths of children resonate with Churchill's call for unity, and more specifically with the retrospective notion that tragic child abuse fatalities could have been prevented if professionals had worked together, communicated and shared relevant information more effectively. Similar to lives that have been regrettably lost in war, the deaths of children provide a powerful emotive context for the delivery and acceptance of key messages and mantras. For example, the appellation ‘every child matters’ in 2003 was fostered following the widely media publicised death of an eight-year-old West African child, Victoria Climbié, who – on 25 February 2000 – was killed by her great-aunt Marie-Thérèse Kouao, and Kouao's partner Carl John Manning, through severe cruelty and neglect. The tragic circumstances that surrounded Victoria's death created a public and professional climate keen to receive recommendations regarding prevention. Reiterating the sentiment posed by Churchill, who could possibly reject the idea that professionals should work together effectively to prevent children from harm?