Astonishing Political Times

We all know we're living through astonishing political times when Jon Snow live on Ch4 news tells a government minister to his face that 'his government had made us the laughing stock of the world'. But I don't want to talk about that, but rather something arguably much more serious and astonishing such as child sexual abuse and the attitude to it by our political class.

In response to the recent shocking news regarding the extent of violent and sexual abuse of young prisoners at Medomsley Detention Centre and with new victims coming forward, during a live radio interview on LBC, Boris Johnson felt it appropriate to question the use of police resources in this way:-

Boris Johnson has said that spending police budgets on historical child abuse is "spaffing money up the wall".

The former Foreign Secretary was responding to a question live on LBC on which he was asked whether cuts to the police service are linked to the rise in violent crime in London.

Mr Johnson insisted that a more sensible use of police budgets was more important - and it was his choice of words which proved most controversial.

He said: "I think an awful lot of money, an awful lot of police time, now goes into these historic offences and all this malarkey and you know £60million I saw has been spaffed up the wall on some investigation into historic child abuse?

As if this wasn't bad enough, we then had the astonishing admission by David Steel giving evidence to the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse that years ago Cyril Smith had admitted abusing boys when he was asked if the Private Eye reports at the time were true, but incredibly decided to do nothing about it. At least Steel's suspension from the Liberal Democratic Party has been swift, unlike the Conservative Party who have yet to respond to calls for action regarding Boris Johnson:-

I have today written to the government chief whip @JulianSmithUK regarding the disgraceful comments made by @BorisJohnson on @LBC today. I write for @garycliffe1 @steven_walters4 and all of the other victims of child abuse in my constituency and those up and down the country. (Tweet by Laura Smith MP)

Not surprisingly there has been much anger amongst victims and my attention was drawn to an open letter to Boris Johnson and published on the BuzzFeed website, but subsequently taken down for apparently being "too political"....

Dear Mr Johnson,

Let me tell you how the comments you made on LBC felt to the millions of child abuse survivors in the UK.  A punch in the gut. A hark back to the dark ages. To a time where victims were blamed and shamed. And offenders got away with it. Oh wait, they still do, don't they. You and your government have done nothing about this.

You said investigating child abuse cases is ejaculating (“Spaffing”) money up a wall - let's address the fact you’ve used a word that means “ejaculate” and child sex abuse survivors in the same sentence. Firstly how hugely offensive and derogatory to use this word to compare money being spent helping CSA survivors to get justice. 

Secondly, you’re a highly educated man so I very much doubt this is a mistake. You have been media trained by someone like me when I worked in Government press offices. In the current political climate and - drawing on my work in Whitehall for many years - I suspect you’re using child abuse as a way of raising your profile now that Theresa May is certainly on her way out. All publicity is not good publicity - you’ve insulted 1 in 4 of the electorate who have directly experienced CSA and their families and friends. We’ll never elect you or any party you work for now. Perhaps you’re also trying to deflect attention from the mess that the government is in at this moment -Brexit. Either way how dare you victimise me and millions of other CSA survivors for your political/media game.

You keep using the word historical, as if somehow child abuse lives in the past. Almost every case of child abuse is “historical” because on average people take 40 years to report, so severe is the pain (and the shame). But it’s never historical for a survivor - we live with the pain and the way it shaped our brain and frazzled our nervous systems for the rest of our lives. We “manage” it, it’s not historical. Neither is our offender historical, they are still out there now, they don’t just suddenly stop offending Mr Johnson.

As for your assertion that bringing child abuse perpetrators to justice is a 'malarkey' not only is this a smack in the face to victims who’ve suffered for decades, it promotes a message to leave paedophiles on the streets to reoffend. However, what is a ”malarkey” is this government’s unwillingness to tackle this country’s biggest issue - intergenerational trauma. This has been left unchecked for generations and we are now paying the price for it. If we continue to ignore it, even more offenders will be “produced”.

How about the £Trillions in cost savings the government would benefit from if it stopped trauma in its tracks by funding proper treatment for survivors? The phenomenal savings you would enjoy in the areas of criminal justice system, homelessness, addiction and healthcare services, fostering and adoption, benefits system, domestic violence services, the list goes on... the savings would be so much more than you are currently spending in all these areas. Do the maths and if you really want to save money for the government; there’s your answer.

You think it’s a waste of money to prosecute CSA cases. What a horrific thing to say! But if we are talking about wasting money. Your Mayoralty cost London taxpayers over £700 million - wasted money because of poor decisions and schemes that stroked your ego. These include:

- £50 million on Garden Bridge project that never went ahead
- £321 million on Routemaster bus
- £24 million on Cable Car
- £323k on unused water cannon
- £305 million on the Olympic Stadium Conversion

And let's not forget how much this government is wasting by treating the symptoms and not the cause of the trauma cycle? The answer = £Trillions!

The way forward... your dangerous and insulting comments have caused untold harm to people who have been through hell on earth. You need to apologise to us.

Then how about you actually look at figures relating to CSA and how this government can prevent it being carried into future generations. Saving the country £Trillions is surely a better legacy than going down in history as a victim-basher and paedophile protector.

Yours,

A Warrior

Reality of 'The Short Sharp Shock'

One of the most upsetting aspects of my career as a Probation Officer has been the constant stories of sexual and physical abuse recounted to me by youngsters who supposedly had been in Local Authority 'care'. It's now becoming clear that similar patterns of abuse were prevalent within youth custody centres and the shocking story unfolding at Medomsley involves staggering numbers of victims. This from the BBC website:- 

Medomsley detention centre saw hundreds sexually abused

An officer at a former youth detention centre sexually assaulted hundreds of inmates, it has emerged. Neville Husband was jailed in 2003 for abusing five teenagers at the unit in Medomsley, County Durham. Other victims then came forward, and in 2005 Husband admitted four more attacks. He died in 2010. But the BBC's Inside Out programme has found the Ministry of Justice has spent £3.6m settling 237 compensation claims for sexual abuse committed by him.

Medomsley, which closed in 1988, held offenders aged between 17 and 21 who had committed relatively minor crimes. But the regime - the "short, sharp, shock" designed to steer them away from a life of crime - was described as brutal, with one former inmate likening it to a "concentration camp, run on violence".

Five other former officers have now been convicted in connection with the physical abuse. However, for some victims the abuse was sexual. Husband was in charge of the kitchen and raped and abused young men on an "almost daily basis" over a period of years, police said, while other officers allegedly turned a blind eye. One of his victims - who has waived his right to anonymity - was Ray Poar, sent to Medomsley at the age of 17 for stealing biscuits.

He said: "He shoved me against the wall and he had his hand around my throat, squeezing and squeezing tighter and tighter, and all the time telling me that I was going to do what he wanted. I just let him do it. I didn't want to go through that again, I didn't want to die. It was the same every time from then on. It became part of the day. I'm ashamed of myself... it's ruined my life, it's completely ruined it."

Another victim, Dave Stoker, who has since died, was also aged 17 when sent to Medomsley for minor theft. He told the BBC in 2015: "[Husband] told me if it got out he would make my life hell. I was frightened to tell anyone. I was so disgusted. I felt dirty and ashamed of myself. It's turned me to drink." Mr Stoker developed cirrhosis of the liver and died in 2017.

Husband was jailed for eight years in 2003, and his sentence increased by a further two in 2005 after more victims came forward. In the same year a storeman at the centre, Leslie Johnson, who has also since died, was sentenced to six years in jail for sexual offences. However, many more men came forward alleging sexual or physical abuse by a number of former officers and in 2013 Durham Police reopened its enquiries. This became one of the largest investigations of its kind in the UK and the force said the current number of potential victims was "1,668 and rising".

The force said in a statement: "It is not possible to say how many men were sexually assaulted by Husband [as] victims may have named a male called "Neville", "The Chef" or "Husband", however in the absence of a formal ID Procedure (due to the fact the suspect deceased) we cannot categorically state that the male known personally to these victims is Husband. At this stage of the investigation we have in excess of 300 allegations linked to him, however, once the investigation is concluded it is highly likely that these numbers will be considerably higher."

Det Supt Paul Goundry, who initially led the investigation, said: "They were sent there for riding in a stolen car, pinching a pedal cycle, minor shoplifting - you'd never dream of that nowadays. When they got there they were faced with what is effectively a brutal regime, and if you ended up in the kitchen you would almost certainly be raped or sexually abused."

A Freedom of Information request submitted by the BBC to the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) revealed the MoJ has spent "£3.6m on damages settling 237 private law claims for compensation relating to sexual abuse committed by Neville Husband." The MoJ said in a statement: 

"We continue to compensate the victims of historic abuse at Medomsley Detention Centre, and are doing all we can to progress claims as quickly as possible. However, many allegations remain subject to an ongoing police investigation... and we continue to work with Durham Police to help identify victims and bring offenders to justice."

--oo00oo--

Further developments reported here:-

Medomsley detention centre: Ex-officers convicted over abuse

Five former staff members at a youth detention centre have been convicted over the physical abuse of young prisoners in the 1970s and 1980s. The men, who are now aged in their 60s and 70s, worked at the former centre in Medomsley, near Consett, County Durham. They were found guilty of a range of charges including assaults, wounding and misconduct in public office. Jurors at Teesside Crown Court were told much of the violence was "for the enjoyment of the officers". The five will be sentenced at a later date.

Their convictions follow a series of trials resulting from Operation Seabrook, which was launched by Durham Police in 2013 and became one of the largest investigations of its kind in the UK.

The guilty men are:

• Christopher Onslow, 72, convicted of inflicting grievous bodily harm, wounding and misconduct in public office. Acquitted of indecent assault
• John McGee, 74, convicted of assault occasioning actual bodily harm and misconduct in public office. Acquitted of sexual assault
• Brian Johnson Greenwell, 71, convicted of misconduct in public office. Acquitted of sexual assault and physical assault
• Kevin Blakely, 67, convicted of two counts of misconduct in public office. Acquitted of two counts of wounding and two of assault
• Alan Bramley, 70, convicted of misconduct in public office. Acquitted of wounding and two counts of assault

Two former officers were cleared of all charges:

• Neil Sowerby, 61, was acquitted of misconduct in public office, sexual assault and physical abuse
• David McClure, 63, was acquitted of misconduct in public office, wounding and four counts of assault

Onslow and McGee have submitted appeals against their convictions.

Medomsley, which closed in 1988, was built in 1960 to house offenders and at any one time held about 70 young men, aged from 17 to 21, detained for relatively minor crimes. The aim was to keep them out of prison and away from the influence of older criminals, and its "short, sharp shock" regime was designed to deter them from a life of crime. It was described as "demanding" but with a "background of discipline and control ... to develop personal relationships with the young men so they will be able to achieve a balance in their lives". However, prosecutor Jamie Hill QC said there had been "an atmosphere of fear and violence throughout the institution".

Onslow, who was in charge of physical training between 1975 and 1985, exploited his position in a sadistic and brutal fashion, the court heard. One victim suffered three crushed vertebrae when he fell 20ft (6m) from an obstacle course after Onslow threw rocks at him when he became stuck. Another was beaten up by Onslow who said he lost a £10 bet when the 17-year-old lost a 200m race during a sports day event.

McGee punched one victim in the face, before forcing him to remove his underwear and "bunny-hop" to the showers when he had soiled himself. Former inmate Eric Sampson likened it to a concentration camp, saying: "It was run on violence, every day, morning, afternoon and night."

Durham Police said 1,676 men had reported allegations of either sexual or physical assaults while detained at Medomsley and the investigation remains ongoing. Det Ch Supt Adrian Green, who led the investigation, said: "We have worked hard to ensure victims and survivors are listened to and supported throughout the investigation and subsequent court process. We appreciate that for the victims and survivors of abuse at Medomsley Detention Centre, it has taken courage to come forward and tell police what happened to them."

Bits and Pieces

We haven't mentioned the irritating and self-serving Sir Stephen Bubb for some time, CEO of the trade union for charity sector CEO's, but a reader has nudged me in the direction of their recent manifesto:-  

Apart from the nice photo that Jim may like to have as a screen saver, I find this article very interesting. Demanding from the government independence and freedom to speak out against policy, whilst at the same time bidding for government contracts for workfare and TR, appears to me that the third sector want their cake as well as eating it. It also makes it quite clear just how naive they are in trying to profit from public sector work if you actively seek involvement in something that you may also want to stand against!! Strange world.

This on the CivilSociety website:- 

Acevo calls on politicians to protect charities' independence and right to campaign

The government should bring in a series of measures designed to protect charities’ right to campaign and maintain their independence, the charity chief executives body Acevo says in its manifesto ahead of the 2015 general election. Freedom of speech of the third sector should be enshrined in law, the freedom of charities to speak out against injustice should also be protected and there should be a presumption in law that charity campaigns constitute fair and honest comment, the document, Free Society – realising the nation’s potential through the third sector, published today, says.

The manifesto also calls on politicians to protect charities’ access to judicial review and extend legal aid to charities that represent an at-risk or underrepresented group, commit to a single Third Sector Act that brings together all the regulation around charity campaigning, and to work with organisations with a mission to maintain the independence of the sector’s voice and set up an All Party Parliamentary Group for Third Sector Independence and Campaigning. It calls for all parties to repeal the Lobbying Act in the first year of the next parliament. The manifesto urges politicians to restore the minister for civil society to minister of state level and allow whoever holds the position to attend Cabinet meetings.

Sir Stephen Bubb, chief executive of Acevo, called on politicians to commit to the five-point “pledge card of policies to safeguard charities’ and campaigners’ ability to speak out". The manifesto is in response to concerns about a ‘chilling effect’ on charities’ ability to criticise government policy that has descended over the last 18 months after government legislation restricting access to judicial review, legal aid, and charities ability to campaign before general elections, Acevo said.

Bubb said: “Charities and campaigners depend on a free and independent voice. At exactly the time when their views are needed most, the voices of many of our most important campaigners are being chilled by laws like the Lobbying Act. “It’s time for politicians to recognise this and stand up for our country’s civil society. Rather than promises of a big society tomorrow, we need a free society today. “Acevo’s manifesto suggests policies to make it impossible for charities to be gagged in future. It is a blueprint for a free society and it’s time for the political parties to listen.”

In response to the manifesto, Rob Wilson, the minister for civil society, said the document “merits consideration” by the government and all parties. “It’s interesting to see such a detailed package of policy asks from the charity sector. I look forward to scrutinising and debating the manifesto in the weeks to come,” he said. “Over the next 6 months positive dialogue between charity leaders and politicians is vital.”

Blanche Jones, campaign director at 38 Degrees, said in response to the manifesto: “After a series of big money lobbying scandals and broken promises, the public’s trust in Westminster politics is crumbling away. More people are looking to charities to speak truth to power, and pinning their hopes on campaigners to fix the problems our country faces. “But the third sector is facing the most hostile environment in decades. The Lobbying Act leaves corporate lobbyists untouched but effectively gags many non-profit campaigners, while a series of concerted political attacks on charities seems intended to silence them. “If politicians want to win back trust from the public, they have to protect the right of campaigners to speak freely. Repealing the disastrous Lobbying Act would be a good place to start.”

Yes, we will all be watching closely over the coming months as the charity sector gets screwed by the probation primes! You have been warned though, and you still have time to pull out.

The Rochester and Strood by-election result continues to confirm that the Westminster political class is in serious trouble and that a massive protest vote in favour of UKIP at the May general election will be as much a desire for 'a plague on all your houses' than it will be support for any set of policies. A worrying time for the democratic process, but probably inevitable and overdue given the history of bad behaviour and general contempt politicians have long-held for the electorate. The feeling is mutual of course.

Emily Thornberry's sacking and the now infamous tweet of white van and England flags rather nicely sums the issue up, together with her reported observation that she broke a cardinal rule of politics viz 'voters can be rude about politicians; but politicians can never be rude about voters'. 



I mention political bad behaviour deliberately and not just in the context of fiddling expenses and nest-feathering, but much more serious matters that ever-so-slowly are at long last beginning to emerge and that have the potential to really rock the cosy Westminster political boat. It's a matter I've touched on before in connection with allegations of child sexual abuse involving the former Elm Guest House in West London and prominent Establishment figures. 

In view of recent delopments, I'd like to return to the matter, not least because historical sexual offending is still very much in the news. Celebrities continue to be convicted as a result of victims coming forward in the wake of the Jimmy Savile revelations. The most recent is former DJ Chris Denning, as reported here in the Guardian:-

Former Radio 1 DJ Chris Denning admits 41 sex offence charges

Chris Denning, a former DJ, has admitted a total of 41 sex offence charges against young boys in a series of crimes spanning 20 years. A former colleague of Jimmy Savile and one of the first Radio 1 DJs, Denning, 73, pleaded guilty to 10 charges of indecent assault on a male, a charge of gross indecency and another of indecency with a child when he appeared in custody on Friday at Southwark crown court in London.

Denning, of Basildon in Essex, previously admitted 29 charges – including 26 counts of indecent assault on a male and three of indecency with a child – at a hearing at Southwark crown court in August. One of his victims was aged nine. He is set to be sentenced on the 41 charges when he next appears in custody at Southwark on 9 December.

Scotland Yard said the offences involve 26 male victims who were assaulted between 1967 and 1987. On Friday Denning also denied one count of indecent assault on a male. After the hearing DCI Michael Orchard, from the sexual offences, exploitation and child abuse command, said: “Christopher Denning is a dangerous serial offender who committed numerous offences over a 20-year period against a large number of young boys. One of these victims was as young as nine years of age. Denning’s only redeeming quality is that he has not made his victims go through the trial process.” He added: “I would like to thank the victims for their bravery and courage in coming forward. I hope that Denning’s admittance of guilt is the first step in helping them move on with their lives.”

But, as many have suspected, this concentration on celebrities both major and minor is but a distraction from some very serious matters that have been covered up for decades and that go right to the heart of the British Establishment. Despite a huge amount of effort, it's not going to go away as the genie is now well and truly emerging from the bottle and there's a real sense of the net closing in on some very big names, some of whom are still with us.

Theresa May recently announced the findings of the Wanless Report, as outlined in the Guardian:- 

Theresa May: Wanless report finds Home Office cover-up ‘not proven’

The official Wanless review into whether there has been a cover-up of the Home Office’s handling of child abuse allegations in the 1980s has returned a verdict of “not proven”, the home secretary, Theresa May, has told MPs. “There might have been a cover-up,” she said. “I cannot stand here and say the Home Office was not involved in a cover-up in the 1980s and that is why I am determined to get to the truth of this.”

Peter Wanless, the chief executive of the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (NSPCC), concludes in his inquiry report into 114 missing Home Office files relating to child abuse in the 1980s that there is no evidence that they were “deliberately or systematically removed or destroyed to cover up organised child abuse”.

Wanless says the record-keeping practices inside the Home Office at the time mean it is not possible to reach a categorical conclusion on whether or not files were destroyed as part of a cover-up but says: “We found nothing specific to support a concern that the Home Office had failed in any organised or deliberate way to identify or refer individual allegations of child abuse to the police.”

The home secretary responded to Wanless’s review of the original Home Office internal investigation into the missing files by asking him to look further at how the police and prosecution authorities handled the child abuse allegations that were passed on to them by the Home Office at the time.

She has also asked Wanless and his co-author, Richard Whittam QC, to establish whether any of the material mentioned in the internal inquiry or in connection with the 114 missing files was passed to the security services, and if so, what action they took. MI5 responded to the Wanless inquiry by carrying out a search of its own files but said it had not found any relevant to the review. 

The home secretary also announced that the Metropolitan police had agreed to investigate allegations by a journalist, Don Hale, that a file of allegations involving prominent people, including MPs, passed to him by Barbara Castle, had been seized from him by special branch officers.

Then the prime minister started spinning in a most unwise manner that will inevitably return and bite his arse. I quote selectively from a piece in the Huffington Post:-

Abuse Campaigners Are Not Conspiracy Theorists, Mr Cameron

Cameron has spun in a different direction, arithmetically, trying to convince people concerned about child abuse and cover-ups that two plus two makes nothing. Spinning on the day the Wanless report, into missing Home Office documents said to contain information about powerful people abusing children, was released, Cameron resorted to calling abuse campaigners conspiracy theorists. To do so, he exploited the fact that evidence could not be found within a few weeks to explain just how at least 114 files concerning child abuse went missing.

One of the missing files is a dossier presented in 1983 to then Home Secretary Leon Brittan by the Conservative MP Geoffrey Dickens. Mr Dickens, who is now deceased, spoke in 1983 of a paedophile ring involving "big, big names - people in positions of power, influence and responsibility". Despite attempts to posthumously smear Dickens, there has been progress in investigating abuse rings linked to powerful people, including those involving the Paedophile Information Exchange (PIE).

Therefore for Cameron to say, in response to the Wanless report, "It is important that it says that there wasn't a cover-up. Some of the people who've been looking for conspiracy theories will have to look elsewhere" seems astonishingly callous and shows little respect for survivors. The fact that NSPCC chief executive officer and former civil servant Peter Wanless wasn't able to prove exactly how files went missing does not prove that the abuse described in files did not take place or that the files were not deliberately removed or destroyed.

There are compelling and troubling links between abuse in North Wales and that in children's homes and approved schools across the country, PIE, Westminster and Elm guest house in London. Not to mention links between Jersey and Jimmy Savile, and between Savile and Cyril Smith - who is also linked to Elm guest house and the abuse of children elsewhere. There are also questions to answer about the security services alleged presence at Kincora Boys' Home in Northern Ireland and Elm guest house.

These are just a few examples where connections have been established. Anyone who has researched child abuse rings in Britain is painfully aware of links between networks. Any commentator also knows that writing about these abuse rings at the moment is a legal minefield, as people who previously could have been mentioned - to help explain links between rings - have recently been re-arrested. As legal proceedings are active for those cases, it is not possible to name them in a piece relating to abuse rings, because it potentially prejudices forthcoming trials. The absence of that information in this piece protects me. The absence of files from the Home Office - however they went missing - can only protect abusers and their protectors.

The search for copies of the missing files widens as reported by ITV news:-

Former Blackburn MP's archives searched in hunt for abuse files

Police are searching the library archives of former Blackburn MP Barbara Castle in the hunt for documents which may help uncover claims of historical child sex abuse. Officers from the Metropolitan Police are working through the official archive of the former Labour Minister at the University of Oxford's Bodleian Library in search of the infamous 'Dickens Dossier', the missing file containing allegations of a paedophile ring in Westminster in the 1980's, as well any other information relating to abuse.

The developments come three days after the Home Secretary Theresa May ordered the Met to investigate claims by North West journalist Don Hale that he was handed a separate dossier by Barbara Castle in 1984, when he was editor of the Bury Messenger. He claims it contained the names of 16 prominent MPs who were involved in a paedophile ring, who were actively campaigning on behalf of the Paedophile Information Exchange (PIE) for Parliament to make sex with children legal.

But before he could publish the story, the says the files were seized by Special Branch officers, who warned Mr Hale he'd face prison if he published its contents. The 'Castle Dossier' was produced just 12 months after the 'Dickens Dossier' was handed to the Home Office by former Littleborough and Saddleworth MP Geoffrey Dickens. He believed high profile figures in Westminster and other areas of public life were abusing children. It's a belief Barbara Castle shared. She campaigned tirelessly against paedophilia and child abuse, and had asked numerous Home Secretaries what had happened to the 'Dickens Dossier'.

The Met are now trawling through 850 boxes of documents in the Barbara Castle Archive to see if contains a copy of either the 'Dickens Dossier' or the 'Castle Dossier', both of which have gone missing. Officers are also searching through hundreds of 'closed' files including letters and correspondence in search of any information which may help locate the whereabouts of the dossiers, as well as any other information which may help uncover allegations of high-profile historical sex abuse. 

  We also learn of a possible homicide as reported by the BBC:-

Historical abuse inquiry: Police examine 'possible homicide'

Police are investigating "possible homicide" linked to what has been described as a paedophile ring involving powerful people in the 1970s and 1980s. The group is alleged to have included senior figures in public life, the military, politics and law enforcement. 

In a statement Scotland Yard said inquiries were at an early stage. A key witness who has spoken to police has told the BBC that he was abused for nine years as a boy. He has appealed for others who may have evidence to come forward. The Metropolitan Police said detectives were made aware of allegations regarding possible homicide during the last month.

Speaking anonymously to the BBC but using the name "Nick", the alleged victim said he had given three days of video-taped evidence to detectives. His accounts are being assessed as part of Operation Midland, a new Scotland Yard investigation which is under the umbrella of its inquiry into historical abuse, Operation Fairbank.

Nick, now in his 40s, says that he was first abused by his own father before being "handed over" as a young boy to the group. "They were very powerful people and they controlled my life for the next nine years," Nick added. "They created fear that penetrated every part of me, day in day out. You didn't question what they wanted, you did as they asked without question and the punishments were very severe."

Nick said the group was "very organised" and would arrange for chauffeur-driven cars to pick up boys, sometimes from school, and drive them to "parties" or "sessions" at locations including hotels and private apartments in London and other cities. The children were not usually allowed to speak with each other and Nick says he struggled to work out the identities of the abusers. He has given the names of some of those he believes were involved to the police and the BBC.

The BBC has agreed not to reveal any of these names because of the ongoing police investigation and because of the need for further evidence to corroborate his account. "They had no hesitation in doing what they wanted to do," Nick said. "Some of them were quite open about who they were. They had no fear at all of being caught, it didn't cross their mind." When a child "stepped out of line", he said that abusers would inflict brutal and painful punishments. He said: "[The abuse] destroyed my ability to trust. It's pretty much wrecked any relationships I have had. Intimacy for me is a pretty much a no-go area."

Nick said he had one motivation for speaking to the BBC - to encourage other alleged victims or those who unwittingly assisted the abusers to come forward. "They need to find the strength that we as survivors have done," he said. "People who drove us around could come forward. Staff in some of the locations could come forward. There are so many people who must have had suspicions. "We weren't smuggled in under a blanket through the back door. It was done openly and people must have questioned that and they need to come forward."

Nick says his torment suddenly came to an end when he went to a pre-arranged place to be picked up by a driver and no-one arrived. He went the next day, worried that he would be punished for a diary mistake. Again there was no car waiting. He never saw his abusers again and says he still has no idea why.

At long last this whole dreadful murky story is beginning to emerge. Files may still be missing, but victims are coming forward with testimony and it's going to shine a very harsh light indeed upon the whole matter of child sexual offending, our attitudes to historical offences, not to mention the role of the Establishment, official 'cover-ups' and the accountability of politicians. Of course the Probation Service is expected to deal with much of the consequences and it's a moot point if TR will make this difficult and challenging task any easier? I'll end on this from the Daily Mirror in July:-  

Tory child abuse whistleblower: 'Margaret Thatcher knew all about underage sex ring among ministers'

Margaret Thatcher was warned that senior ministers were involved in a child sex ring, a former Tory activist claims. Anthony Gilberthorpe says he sent her a 40-page dossier in 1989 accusing Cabinet members of abusing underage boys at drug-fuelled conference parties.

Mr Gilberthorpe, who claims he was ordered to recruit boys for the ministers, says he posted the “graphic” allegations to Mrs Thatcher after befriending her. Mr Gilberthorpe, who was a young Tory hopeful when he was asked to recruit for the parties, said: “I outlined exactly what I had witnessed and informed her I intended to expose it. “I had met Mrs Thatcher on several occasions and even presented her with a birthday cake in 1983. I believed she had to know.”

Takes My Breath Away

It's not often that I read something that astonishes me, but a recent contribution to the debate about historical prosecutions of sexual offences on the 'Spiked' website genuinely takes my breath away and deserves wide publicity. 

Barbara Hewson is a barrister specialising in human rights law and feels that Operation Yewtree is 'destroying the rule of law.' I always try to choose my words carefully, but this seeming apologist for the sexual abuse of children is talking such utter and disturbing nonsense that I feel the need to bring it to people's attention, especially having flagged-up the issue previously here.

I hope the 'Spiked' website will not mind me quoting these selected snippets in order to give a flavour of the piece, but I would strongly encourage people to read the whole article.  

"I do not support the persecution of old men. The manipulation of the rule of law by the Savile Inquisition – otherwise known as Operation Yewtree – and its attendant zealots poses a far graver threat to society than anything Jimmy Savile ever did.

Taking girls to one’s dressing room, bottom pinching and groping in cars hardly rank in the annals of depravity with flogging and rape in padded rooms. Yet the Victorian narrative of innocents despoiled by nasty men endures.

What is strikingly different today is how Britain’s law-enforcement apparatus has been infiltrated by moral crusaders, like the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (NSPCC) and the National Association for People Abused in Childhood (NAPAC). Both groups take part in Operation Yewtree, which looks into alleged offences both by and not by Savile.

These pressure groups have a vested interest in universalising the notion of abuse, making it almost as prevalent as original sin, but with the modern complication that it carries no possibility of redemption, only ‘survival’. The problem with this approach is that it makes abuse banal, and reduces the sympathy that we should feel for victims of really serious assaults.

Touching a 17-year-old’s breast, kissing a 13-year-old, or putting one’s hand up a 16-year-old’s skirt, are not remotely comparable to the horrors of the Ealing Vicarage assaults and gang rape, or the Fordingbridge gang rape and murders, both dating from 1986. Anyone suggesting otherwise has lost touch with reality.

Ordinarily, Hall’s misdemeanors would not be prosecuted, and certainly not decades after the event. What we have here is the manipulation of the British criminal-justice system to produce scapegoats on demand. It is a grotesque spectacle.

It’s interesting that two complainants who waived anonymity have told how they rebuffed Hall’s advances. That is, they dealt with it at the time. Re-framing such experiences, as one solicitor did, as a ‘horrible personal tragedy’ is ironic, given that tragoidia means the fall of an honourable, worthy and important protagonist.

It’s time to end this prurient charade, which has nothing to do with justice or the public interest. Adults and law-enforcement agencies must stop fetishising victimhood. Instead, we should focus on arming today’s youngsters with the savoir-faire and social skills to avoid drifting into compromising situations, and prosecute modern crime. As for law reform, now regrettably necessary, my recommendations are: remove complainant anonymity; introduce a strict statute of limitations for criminal prosecutions and civil actions; and reduce the age of consent to 13."

Well actually I think it has everything to do with justice and the public interest. As far as I recall, Stuart Hall has avoided answering at least one allegation of rape involving a child and the matter remains 'on file.' 

For a human rights lawyer, Barbara Hewson appears to have scant regard for the rights of children and even any understanding as to the trauma that sexual assaults invariably cause. Certainly any Probation Officer can attest to this fact as we routinely interview people who recount the psychological damage that often follows, including self-harming and suicide attempts. 

Readers will recall that a witness tragically committed suicide recently having given her evidence during the trial of her former music teacher at Chetham School of Music and charged with historic sex offences. Knowledge that the perpetrators often go unidentified and unpunished, and hence free to assault others, merely adds further to the grief felt by many victims. 

How dare this barrister try to excuse such behaviour, trample over the feelings of victims, call for a statute of limitations and a reduction in the age of consent! I think she is a disgrace to her profession and the Bar Council would do well to have a word in her ear. I note with interest that Hardwicke, her chambers, have completely disassociated themselves from her views and the article.  

But it gets worse. There are those who believe that the historic and organised abuse of children is so entangled with the Establishment in this country that the prosecution of these elderly celebs is being encouraged in order to deflect attention from the main story, namely the involvement of very senior members of the Establishment in past sexual abuse. 

It has been noted on several websites that certain details surrounding Stuart Hall's case have been the subject of seemingly spontaneous self-censorship. This should concern us all. In my view it is entirely right and proper that the police and Crown Prosecution Service continue to investigate and prosecute all historic sexual abuse allegations that are coming to light post Savile and that includes allegations concerning the Elm Guest House in West London from the 70's and 80's.     

A Fair Trial

Here in Britain we're used to the notion that our legal system has long ensured that everyone is entitled to a 'fair' trial, ultimately being judged by 12 other citizens. This jury is instructed to only come to a guilty verdict that is 'beyond reasonable doubt' and for that to happen the evidence has to be closely examined and tested in an adversarial manner. 

This system has served us reasonably well, but in cases such as rape or sexual abuse it's long been recognised that 'special measures' are required in relation to how the victim is treated by the process. All this has been brought into sharp focus recently by the absolutely tragic case of Frances Andrade who it appears took her own life shortly after giving evidence against Michael Brewer, now convicted of several historic counts of indecent assault upon her.

Quite understandably everyone involved in the case will be in the process of reflecting upon their actions and naturally observers in some quarters are wishing to apportion blame. As the Defence Brief says in his post on the subject today:- 

"Why do we use this system?  Because, only through challenging a witness can you test their evidence, assess the reliability of their account and judge their honesty.  This is because sometimes their evidence may be completely honest and accurate from their point of view but it may not stand up to scrutiny because they made a mistake.  Sometimes the witness may be actively lying.  Sometimes they may have been forced to give evidence in court.  We just don't know... until and unless we test the evidence!"

Obviously it has to be done with care, and I'm sure it was, but sadly it seems as if in this case the victim found it unbearable that she felt that she wasn't being believed. Some counts against Brewer were dismissed and she clearly took this as the court feeling that she had been lying. It's understandable, but so sad. With hindsight I suspect more care could possibly have been taken in preparing this woman for the cold, often bruising court process, together with de-briefing and reassurance following the dismissal of some charges.

I understand this complainant had been waiting two years for the case to come to court and during that time had been showing considerable signs of distress. I have to say that I find it shocking that it appears the advice from the police was not to seek professional counselling until after the trial.

There is bound to be an inquiry following this sad case, not least because the Home Secretary Theresa May is concerned that it will adversely affect the willingness of complainants to come forward in the future. I entirely agree and I sincerely hope that the misguided police advice was given over a concern that the victim's evidence might somehow be 'tainted', rather than the shocking and cynical thought that conviction would be more likely if the jury saw a more distraught complainant. 

In the end though the blame must lie fairly and squarely upon the perpetrator. If ever there was a  case that confirms beyond doubt the potentially devastating effect sex offending can have upon a person's life, this it.      
       

Grooming the Nation

With publication of the joint report by ACPO and NSPCC into allegations of sex offending by Jimmy Savile, we are now in possession of damning evidence that confirms he was without doubt this country's most prolific sex offender. In total 214 criminal offences are recorded in 28 police areas, committed over 50 years. 

Death may have robbed us of ever getting justice, however the joint report 'Giving Victims a Voice' is already proving cathartic for many and with some saying it's a relief to be believed at long last. The discussion as to exactly how Savile was able to get away with so much offending, effectively 'hiding in full sight' as the authors termed it, will go on for some time and the reverberations for our institutions and beliefs will continue to be felt for years.

Amongst other things, it forces us to look again at the 60's and 70's and our perceptions of what exactly was going on during this period of 'liberation'. According to this extremely thoughtful blog post by a fellow DJ, we even have to look carefully at Savile's version of DJ history that puts himself as being the first to use twin record decks. It seems he really did hoodwink us all, including Alison Bellamy the author of last years biography, as he went about 'grooming the nation' - another memorable phrase coined by the report authors. 

By one of those very strange accidents of timing, publication of the Savile report pretty well coincided with a whole raft of official figures on sex offending being released in a joint report by the Ministry of Justice, Home Office and Office of National Statistics.  I note that Inspector Gadget was quick off the mark in highlighting the somewhat astonishing anomaly that whilst some 400,000 sex offences apparently go unreported each year, crime is officially said to be 'falling'. 

So here we have official confirmation of what many of us suspected, namely that sex offending of all types is much more prevalent than generally thought to be the case. For a whole raft of reasons and graphically illustrated by the Saville case, victims are extremely loathe to report incidents to the police. Even if they do and the police take the matter seriously, the Crown Prosecution Service have to be convinced that a case is worth prosecuting. If the case gets to court and the victim feels up to the strain of giving evidence, the Jury has to be convinced and the conviction rate for rape in particular is extremely low.

But as if this scenario wasn't bad enough, probation officers also know from experience that as a type of convicted offender, the degree of denial and minimisation amongst sex offenders is considerable. I discussed the issue here following a report on HMP Wakefield by Nick Hardwick HM Chief Inspector of Prisons last year. He noted that:-   

‘The most significant concern we identified at our last inspection in 2009 remained. Almost half the men at Wakefield were in denial about their offence – to some degree refusing to take responsibility for their offending. There were no programmes available at Wakefield to tackle the behaviour and attitudes of men in denial and, as a consequence, little effective work was done with them.’

Now Wakefield is a maximum security prison holding 750 inmates, most of whom are serving life sentences and many have convictions relating to the most serious sex offences imaginable. So that's at least 300 men saying they are innocent in just one jail. This point was picked up by Paul Sullivan writing in the prisoners newspaper 'Inside Time' last November in questioning if it was right for the HMI to concern himself with in effect making a judgement on issues of denial by prisoners. He went on to set the scene as he sees it:-

'With the removal of the need for evidence in trials for alleged sexual offences (1994 Criminal Justice Act), the payment of massive compensation to accusers (even if there is no conviction or even trial), the burgeoning of police trawling and allegations of historic abuse, for which there is no defence or alibi after many decades, and the recent concerns of helpful evidence going ‘missing’ and failure to disclose evidence that would help the defence, the window for innocent men being convicted and locked up is open wide and, despite mountainous hurdles placed in the way of any men trying to have a conviction overturned many hundreds do succeed each year, - although NOMS will not admit to having a figure many support groups keep track.'

So, having negotiated all the hurdles that lie in the way of obtaining a conviction, here we have in one paragraph what I feel is a pretty distorted view of the process and an alarmingly naive belief in the veracity of significant levels of denial amongst sex offenders. I have to say that it's a view that is widely held however, but one I hope the Savile case might help in dispelling. The truth is that of course some wrongful convictions do occur in our adversarial justice system and some false allegations are made, especially in relation to rape, but it's a question of degree isn't it, and clearly the figures just don't add up do they?

Paedophilia

My attention has been drawn to a recent article on the Guardian website concerning the subject of paedophilia. Bravely penned by Jon Henley, it's a very informative piece that attempts to dispassionately explain the condition and put it into some sort of context.

I say bravely because it's a topic much loved by the tabloid press when they feel there might be some mileage in whipping up a storm by demonising someone or other. Typically they don't understand the term and feel no obligation to try and explain it. The term is often used far too widely to describe all sex offending against children, when in fact the definition is quite narrow.

According to wikipedia:- 

As a medical diagnosis, paedophilia is a psychiatric disorder in persons 16 years of age or older typically characterised by a primary or exclusive interest in prepubescent children (generally age 11 years or younger, though specific diagnosis criteria for the disorder extends the cut-off point for prepubescence to age 13).

Of course any person who acts upon these interests either by means of physical contact or the creation or possession of images is committing a criminal offence.  

Paedophilia is regarded as a paraphilia that according to wikipedia "describes sexual arousal to objects, situations or individuals that are not part of normative stimulation. Paraphilia involves sexual arousal and gratification, involving a sexual behaviour that is atypical or extreme."

According to some sources there are as many as 549 paraphilias and there is no universal agreement that they are indeed disorders. Apparently, in the current version of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, (DSM-IV-TR) "a paraphilia is not diagnosable as a psychiatric disorder, unless it causes distress to the individual or harm to others." 

This makes sense to me. I well recall a client who had a propensity for drinking his consenting partners blood. It was behaviour some found extremely unpleasant, but not a disorder or criminal act in my view. The infamous extreme BDSM 'Spanner' case continues to be problematic in terms of the boundaries between acceptable consenting sexual behaviour and the criminal law.

Of course at one time homosexuality was felt to be a deviance, then a disorder, then a paraphilia and currently a sexual preference. It was also at one time a criminal offence. I was interested to discover that another paraphilia, necrophilia, was not made a criminal offence until the Sexual Offences Act 2003, thus admirably demonstrating that our views of acceptable sexual behaviour is a continually changing one.  

I must say that I had not appreciated that the long-defunct Paedophile Information Exchange had once been affiliated to the National Council for Civil Liberties and who in turn had given evidence to a House of Commons Select Committee in 1976 along the lines of:- 

"Childhood sexual experiences, willingly engaged in with an adult, result in no identifiable damage....The real need is a change in the attitude which assumes that all cases of paedophilia result in lasting damage."

I find such a statement quite shocking even for 1976 and it again serves to highlight our changing attitudes over time. I'm sure it will send a shiver down any probation officers' back who has to deal with child sex offenders and their typically well-entrenched distorted thinking patterns. As the subsequent lively discussion shows, it raises loads of issues, not least the notion that informed consent can be given by minors. 

Having been involved with sex offenders and people with extreme sexual preferences that significantly differ from my own, I have to say that I have difficulty in regarding any as 'disorders' 'per se' rather than just preferences on an admittedly extremely broad spectrum of sexual interests.

Just to clarify though, that is not the same as in any way condoning the commission of sexual offences. I remain completely dismissive of the notion that harm may not be caused to a victim of a sex crime - there is no possible way that a perpetrator can know for sure what effect their behaviour will have.

In reality the truth is that significant and long-lasting psychological harm will almost certainly be caused and all probation officers can cite examples where sexual abuse has had a devastating effect on a person's ability to cope and lead a normal and fulfilling life. This has always been the case and I can only assume that a contrary viewpoint could only have been fostered by manipulative perpetrators suffering from considerable distorted reasoning. 

(Interestingly, only very recently in a BBC2 TV interview with Kirsty Wark, comedian Billy Connolly surprised many by saying that he still loved his father, despite years of sexual abuse. He cited the power of forgiveness as being 'immense'. It should be noted though that Billy's wife, Pamela Stephenson, qualified as a clinical psychologist and specialises in the field of human sexuality. I'm sure he would be the first to acknowledge the tremendous help it has been having ready access to such expertise in coming to terms with his childhood experiences.)       

For the protection of us all, the default position must be that harm will be caused. As such the probation service remains at the forefront of challenging sex offenders and attempts at changing the behaviours that are potentially harmful to others.

As with all our sexual preferences, they arise from a combination of genetic predisposition and environmental influences and are firmly rooted at our core. In the final analysis, I acknowledge that potentially harmful sexual preferences will remain in most instances and that therefore perpetrators must either be encouraged not to act upon these, or be subject to such control and monitoring that any potential harm to others can be minimised. 

As an aside, I guess this Guardian article must be viewed in the light of yet another consequence of the on-going Jimmy Savile revelations. Unwittingly he continues to posthumously facilitate discussion of some extremely sensitive matters hitherto regarded as taboo. I notice that this now includes necrophilia and this just may help explain part of his enthusiasm for acting as a volunteer hospital porter.  

PS 08/01/2013
Following on from the initial Guardian article which has generated widespread consternation, academic Sarah Goode published this interesting piece in the Independent yesterday.  

The Legacy

Barely a year following his death, Jimmy Savile's fall from grace has been swift and spectacular. The massive headstone has gone to landfill, the commemorative plaques and road signs have been removed, the statue will not now be commissioned and his charities are being wound up.

The truth is finally out that the idiosyncratic national treasure, a charismatic but immensely irritating loner, was probably one of the most prolific child sex abuser's of all time. It turns out that he fooled us all, but at the same time we are now beginning to appreciate that all the worrying signs were there and remarkably he did little to hide them. 

Certainly over the years Jimmy has been the subject of much discussion and speculation amongst colleagues, usually in the pub. It just didn't seem to add up. An adult male, much of who's professional time was focused on children, but who's private life remained a mystery. I don't recall there ever being any evidence of close adult sexual relationships either male or female. Despite our concerns, lengthy discussions always resulted in the acknowledgement that seemingly nothing untoward had ever surfaced. Equally, there'd been none of the usual celebrity 'kiss and tell' revelations. 

We now know that Jimmy Savile was typical of many child sex offenders in his ability to target vulnerable children and groom them, confident in the belief that he could cover his tracks because they would be too scared to speak up, or be believed. It's now becoming all too tragically clear that, as with many sex offenders, a great deal of time and effort was expended on long-term planning in order to position himself with trusted access to children and vulnerable young adults. 

Disturbingly, it now puts into perspective the true motivation for the unorthodox charitable involvement both at Broadmoor Special Hospital and Stoke Mandeville Spinal Injuries Unit. In addition I must say I was completely unaware of his earlier involvement with an Approved School for girls. The fact that there is emerging evidence of sexual assaults on both boys as well as girls, together with members of his close family, means that he ranks amongst the most dangerous of predatory sex offenders. 

Classically it would seem that part of the reason that he remained unexposed was his use of threats and rewards. Newspapers and nosey journalists were threatened either with legal action or the fact that his considerable charity work would be jeopardised. Family members were silenced through the implied threat of largesse drying up in the form of gifts including houses. All these traits of manipulation, scheming, obfuscation, minimising and denial are extremely familiar to those of us who work with sex offenders. They are without doubt a very challenging type of offender for us and emotionally draining.            

It's going to take some time for the full extent of Savile's offending to be established, but the true and unexpected legacy is that the whole subject in now up for discussion and victims at last feel empowered to come forward with their stories, confident that they will be listened to. I don't just mean victims of Jimmy's unwanted attentions either. As reported by the BBC today, all charities working in this field are seeing an unprecedented increase in people making contact.

For far too long there's been a cynical view in some quarters that a number of people were coming forward to make historical claims of sexual abuse, particularly in children's homes, out of a motivation for compensation. This completely fails to understand the trauma involved in deciding to talk about past abuse. The huge step in facing up to the unwarranted feelings of shame and being able to cope with the pain that inevitably forms part of the process. In my experience it is a process never entered into lightly or vexatiously.

Any probation officer can vouch for the long-term harm and emotional damage that can be caused by abuse. Sadly it's a common aspect of many of our clients backgrounds and for some victims they never get over it and self-harming, retreat into drugs or alcohol dependency become normal. Suicide is not uncommon.  

The whole sad and unfolding Jimmy Savile story serves to confirm much of what we in probation know all too well. Sexual abuse is far more widespread than society is so far willing to accept. It features in all sectors of society and at all levels. Of necessity it is hidden and not a subject for polite conversation. There are victims everywhere and we must be prepared to listen to people if they feel the time is right to talk about their experiences. There are going to be lots more historic cases coming before the courts and some famous names. This is the somewhat surprising, but true Jimmy Savile legacy.

More on Sex Offending

The Archbishop of Canterbury's recent announcement concerning child sex abuse in the Diocese of Chichester will have surprised many, including professionals, not least because we all thought every public body had well-established procedures in place for safeguarding children. I guess the Church of England thought that as well, until that is the findings of this internal report made their way to Lambeth Palace. 

The inquiry by the Archbishop of Canterbury's office concluded that the West Sussex diocese has "an appalling history" of child protection failures, with "fresh and disturbing" allegations continuing to emerge.

It is to be hoped that this situation is far from typical and Church authorities must be absolutely dreading the uncovering of similar and widespread systemic failures to that found in the Roman Catholic Church. In an unprecedented move, and no doubt in order to send a signal through the whole Church, Lambeth Palace will now oversee clergy appointments and the protection of all children and vulnerable adults in the diocese amid concerns that safeguarding procedures remain "dysfunctional." 

The report went on to say that the abuse had been made worse by the "very slow" way the diocese recognised concerns and failed to act with "rigour and expedition". This is the key point for me really. Yes the inquiry found that, despite it being Church policy to have every cleric CRB-checked every 5 years at least, 138 hadn't. But this is a red herring in my view and merely a bit of a bureaucratic sop to the public.

It's obvious that CRB checks are out-of-date as soon as issued and reliance on this procedure alone can encourage a false sense of security. In the final analysis, everyone in any organisation involved with children or vulnerable adults has a legal and professional duty to be alert to any behaviour that is worrying or inappropriate, and act immediately.   

  

Praise Indeed

Everyone enjoys a positive stroke now and then, and probation officers are no exception. A few weeks ago I was breezing through reception and out of the corner of my eye I spotted a young woman who had been on an order to me some years ago. I can't remember what the offences were, but I recall she'd suffered some sexual abuse, had been thrown out by parents, spent some time sleeping rough and had teamed up with various male friends that were not, shall we say, ideal. Not an untypical scenario - but this very bright, 'savy' young woman didn't need any offence-focussed work done with her, or lectures, advice or rebukes - she just needed a break and space to sort her life out. I remember she kept all her appointments with out fail and we just used the time to chat about nothing in particular sometimes - 'probation' is often like that - building a relationship. The order ended successfully.

As I swept into the office that morning, we just exchanged a quick smile as the woman was in deep and animated conversation with a young man sat next to her. As I passed into the general office I heard her explaining to her friend ......"well of course most of 'em are wankers, but he's ok."  Clients are often like that - they say what they think and can see straight through bullshit.  It absolutely made my day. 

(p.s. She was only visiting with a friend - I checked lol)