Cover Up

[NickP]

So after Stuart Hall, Max Clifford and Rolf Harris, the  prison population is going up and up, and quite rightly so. Now at long last Cyril Smith and his mates are finally to be investigated, or are they? Or will the establishment as hinted at this morning by Norman Tebbit do the cover up job again. Would they dare? Funny how the sex offenders list and the honours list are starting to look very similar.

[YCCMB]

I think I'm suffering from paedo fatigue.

[NickP]

[quote user="You can call me Betty"]I think I'm suffering from paedo fatigue.

[/quote]

 So are the kids who were abused, so the sooner the guilty are locked away the better.

[Tancrède]

[quote user="You can call me Betty"]I think I'm suffering from paedo fatigue.[/quote]

Hear, hear !

[PaulT]

It is so good to see so much compassion for the victims

[idun]

I'm not suffering paedo fatigue where children are concerned or anyone who was in an institution where those in charge committed sexual crimes against the young and vunerable. 

And I object to the time to be served for those found guilty, I'd throw the key away, or worse.......... probably get longer sentences if they hadn't paid their council tax.

[Rabbie]

[quote user="NickP"][quote user="You can call me Betty"]I think I'm suffering from paedo fatigue.
[/quote]
 So are the kids who were abused, so the sooner the guilty are locked away the better.
[/quote]Hear hear. I bet all the child molestors who are still free are hoping we all get bored and stop looking for them.

[YCCMB]

My, how things change. Why, I seem to remember not all that long ago on here, someone posting that they felt Stuart Hall had been badly treated, considering he was in his 80's. To which I also seem to remember I responded that I didn't care how old he was, he was still, by his own admission guilty of hideous offences against children.

My point - ill made, perhaps, but interpreted with the almost inevitable knee-jerk reaction I would have expected, was that it's becoming a media obsession. And, by extension, an obsession of the public at large.

Let's not overlook the fact that there have been at least three further cases of the DPP bringing charges against people subsequently found innocent: people who, whether you like them or sympathise with them or not, have had their lives and reputations irrevocably damaged.

I am as anxious as the next person to see the guilty charged, tried and brought to justice, but maybe a respite from all the speculation and innuendo would allow investigations to take place and charges to be brought in such a way that those children and young people who were victims can have justice without the random trial by media that is fast becoming the norm. Not forgetting the fact that this is still essentially the same media who have steadfastly stood against any form of regulation and control and whose management and leadership have been found guilty of authorising, abetting and condoning phone hacking and the invasion of privacy of many whose only "crime" has been that of being newsworthy.

The stigma of being wrongly accused or associated with crimes such as these is probably as great as any of the problems that a victim may have to deal with.

[Tancrède]

[quote user="You can call me Betty"]My point - ill made, perhaps…[/quote]

Hear, hear, to all your post.  And not at all ill-made.

[quote user="You can call me Betty"]

interpreted with the almost inevitable knee-jerk reaction I would have

expected…[/quote]

You are very restrained.  'Sanctimonious' was the word which sprang to my mind.

The case of genuine victims is now being clouded by the attention-seeking manœuvres of D-list 'celebrities' such as [and I have never heard of the creature] 'Diana Feltz' who  -  anxious to get on the band-wagon  -  is accusing  Rolf Harris of putting his hand up her drawers. 

She is built like a buffalo.  Why on earth didn't she just slap him ?  However, she has decided that this is the moment that she should tell the police about this ancient and trivial outrage.

[YCCMB]

That would be Vanessa Feltz. A car-crash of a woman, whose main claim to fame was that she used to host a Jeremy Kyle-style TV show that was axed after revelations that the "real people" who appeared as guests were, in fact, actors recruited for the purpose. Since which time she has been the host of various local radio shows with the odd foray onto Radio 2. The main "highlight" of her recent career was a (mercifully) brief stint on "Strictly Come Dancing" where she was voted out on about week 2, after neither the popularity vote nor the sympathy vote could save her.

As it would appear that part of her persona is to portray herself as a feisty, unshockable, capable woman who takes no prisoners and can look after herself in the face of any adversity that life may throw at her, it doesn't really fit her character at all to imagine that she has spent these many years dealing with the emotional trauma of being groped by Rolf Harris. I can only assume that her work is drying up or her ratings have been slipping.

[nectarine]

I'm having trouble with the fact that so many of these crimes were so long ago ... how can you prove someone is guilty unless there's something in writing or a witness. It becomes the victim's word versus the defendant's ... only they know the truth but how can we judge? Some of it has been like they're jumping on the bandwagon and I wonder if the defendants were not well known, and were old men without any kind of financial assets whether so many 'victims' would come forward. I'm waiting for the compensation claims ...

[Mrs Trellis]

How can any of us know whether some of these accusations are false? I suspect most aren't and the cases the CPS pursues have enough credibility to be pursued.

What is apparent is that so many people were so cruel arrogant to think they could abuse children for their pleasure - and it didn't really matter. How must that make victims feel?

[NickP]

 Gengulphus wrote:  "You are very restrained.  'Sanctimonious' was the word which sprang to my mind."

Accused of being sanctimonious for flagging up child abuse? In that case I'm guilty.

[YCCMB]

I think it was more about assuming that anyone who didn't want to agree with you was condoning it.

[NickP]

[quote user="You can call me Betty"]I think it was more about assuming that anyone who didn't want to agree with you was condoning it.

[/quote]

Sorry Betty, nice try but I know what he/she meant.

[NormanH]

These cases raise an interesting possibility. If we are going to judge retrospectively by today's ideas  can I get compensation from all those people who harmed my health by smoking next to me in public places?

And what about people who were condemned for things that were against the law then, but are now considered acceptable. Are they all going to be pardoned in the Daily Mail? [6]

[YCCMB]

[quote user="Mrs Trellis"]How can any of us know whether some of these accusations are false? I suspect most aren't and the cases the CPS pursues have enough credibility to be pursued.

What is apparent is that so many people were so cruel arrogant to think they could abuse children for their pleasure - and it didn't really matter. How must that make victims feel?[/quote]

That's kind of the point, though, isn't it? The old "No smoke without fire" argument. There have, as I said, been three very high profile cases brought against celebrities, one in particular where it was shown to the satisfaction of a jury that the alleged complainant(s) had brought a malicious and fictitious case against the defendant. How must that make the defendant feel? His name will be forever linked to the case, and to speculation and innuendo about the possibility that he "got off". Of course, as has been shown by the results of the cases against Hall, Clifford and Harris, and of course the Savile case, there are many genuine victims, all of whom have had, and will continue to have complete anonymity. Those accused, tried and found innocent have been publicly named from the moment charges were laid, but if cleared they will probably live with the consequences of having been implicated for the rest of their lives. The CPS did end up with egg all over their faces after the three of the first four cases to be brought collapsed, so they're certainly not infallible. As has been pointed out, the truth about the majority of these accusations can be known only to the alleged victim and the alleged perpetrator. As such, how can any of us know whether some or any of them are true? Of course, if victims unknown to one another come forward over a period and tell very similar stories, then there's a strong chance the accusations are true, but that seems not to have been the case across the board.

I reiterate that I abhor any form of crime of this nature against the young or the vulnerable. It's just a pity that there are so many members of the Catholic clergy who seem to have got off very lightly (if not totally unscathed) in this regard, but I guess they aren't quite as "box office". Meantime, we seem to be entering into a form of McCarthyism, and there's a credible danger to another group of victims, who could end up suffering just as much, yet never having the benefit of any sort of outpouring of public sympathy if they are found innocent.

[Thibault]

What concerns me is that while there is intense media interest in cases involving high profile people, underneath the radar there are probably hundreds of cases involving 'ordinary' people and 'ordinary' families which escape notice.

[Rabbie]

Searching my ageing memory an apposite quote came to mind. Apologies if I have not quoted correctly.

" for evil to flourish it is only necessary for good men to do nothing"

That, IMO, is the danger of " paedo-fatigue". I do find the present concentration on high(ish) profile names a bit disturbing. There must be many ordinary low profile offenders out there

[Hoddy]

It is wrong to assume because these cases are underneath the radar that they are not being dealt with. I'm not suggesting for a moment that there aren't people out there getting away with it, but it used to be a fairly routine, if sickening, part of my job in a secondary school to deal with it. It was always dealt with on a 'need to know' basis and often within school only two members of staff would know about it.

This semi-secrecy is done to protect the victim; if you name the perpetrator then it is obvious who the victim is.

[YCCMB]

Which begs the question: Is it really easier for a high profile person to commit offences of child abuse than it is for an ordinary member of the public? And are there more child abusers among entertainment personalities than among the rank-and-file?

It certainly appears that there was, to some extent, either a tacit acceptance of the behaviour of high profile people, or a conspiracy to cover up their actions. And that aspect is extremely disturbing.

However, as has been said, if the percentage of high profile child abusers is so high, what must if be like in the rest of the population? And is it easier or harder to avoid detection if you're just another anonymous person than if you are an instantly-recognisable celebrity?

[Patf]

I believe by far the greatest number of cases of child abuse occur in families.

Then childrens "Homes" and boarding schools (?Eton).

[woolybanana]

Let us not pick on Eton specifically, but any old fashioned boarding school, of the type which was used as a dumping ground for unwated and unloved kids and which have, I hope, mercifully disappeared these days.

And those awful local authority homes where damage to kids seems to have been a compulsory part of their internment programme.

And foster families which took advantage of vulnerable kids in their care .........

One could go on.

[Hoddy]

I think Betty has it right

"It certainly appears that there was, to some extent, either a tacit acceptance of the behaviour of high profile people, or a conspiracy to cover up their actions. And that aspect is extremely disturbing."

The tacit acceptance and cover-up by people who know about it isn't just confined to the high profile cases though. It often happens that the family's reputation is put above the child's (more usually girl's) needs. I was involved with several cases where an uncle or grandfather was not pursued as I would have liked him to have been because the family pressured the girl to withdraw her allegations.

The other horrible fall out of this is that men generally are distrusted. I have asked several men who I know and trust if they can explain to me what these abusers are thinking of and they say that they are as mystified as I am.

[PaulT]

I think with 'famous' people they are put on pedestals and think they can do what they want.

In addition, they can hire expensive legal people - look at Rolf Harris lawyers sending threatening letters to the media.

In local papers there are reports of child abuse, normally on an inside page and probably with a legal aid solicitor.

The National media is only interested in large disasters of 'celebrities'.

Have just read a biography of John le Mesurier and when he was at boarding school the matron got him in to bed. I wonder if there is more embarrassment for saying they have been sexually assault by a female.