crisis among child sex abuse police

www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/jul/11/historical-abuse-cases-children-risk

Oh managed it.

Good article petallus.

The key issue is increasing demands against a back drop of shrinking resources. Cuts to key services, like policing, probation and social work have been made, and continue to be expected. It isn't a case of either or. Historical abuse of the magnitude being suggested can't be swept under the carpet or we learn nothing. We need to accept that good public services cost money, and fund them.

A couple of issues occur to me from reading this article.

First, specialist child abuse teams have always been desperately under-resourced and in need of better psychological support to deal with the content of abuse complaints. It's time this was recognised and manpower increased, with accompanying support. The reality of historical or current child abuse, despite it being reported by gutter media as merely groping and interfering with children and young women who might have avoided it, is nasty and distressing for police officers to have to address, as well as those children and adults who have experienced it.

Second, government departments can always be allocated more resources when necessary. Defence, policing for strikes, demonstrations, riots, terrorism, world sports events with costs running into billions. Let's see this area of important work be properly resourced now.

I read the article and felt such sympathy for the police having to deal with these emotionally draining cases. Of course we need more resources. It seems to me that part of the value of these so-called historic cases, aside from bringing to justice these vile individuals, is the message that is being sent out that victims are important, and should be encouraged and helped to speak out, and that the rest of us should be a bit less naïve when it comes to protecting our children.

But it's money, or the lack of it, isn't it?

I do think any paedophile ring that might have existed in Westminster in the eighties should be investigated, because that sounds like the real horrible thing. But I'm not so sure that money hasn't been wasted on high profile celeb cases, such as the ones you are alluding to when. It's not only the gutter press feels like that.

And things like anti-terrorism should never be underfunded. You can't take money from national security.

It's been shown in the past that the police can cope with diverting resources into specialist areas and urgent work. Their system for temporarily clamping down on leave and offering overtime in certain departments has increased available officer time massively. One example, the consequences of the 1990 Strangeways riot, meant that for the next two to three years police officers had copious amounts of overtime and recruiting was increased. Not satisfactory for everyone concerned, but it does show that where there's a will the resources to meet urgent demand can be reconfigured and increased.

But maybe that's what making them stressed. Not enough time off from it.

As vegasmags says, definitely educate parents into the dangers involved in letting very young people go off in unsupervised groups.

I said certain departments, Jingle not departments dealing with child sexual abuse. There is no benefit in making those officers do even more of what is traumatising them or causing them to feel stressed.

When a serial rapist has to be caught, then yes, it's all hands on deck and leave may be cancelled, extras brought in for a manhunt. Interviewing the victims of sexual abuse and preparing a case for prosecution is a different area, where more trained specialists with forensic knowledge and good psychological support need ongoing resourcing as burnout and sick leave put added burden on colleagues.

I do think it's important that it is shown that celebrities will be held to account irrespective of when they committed their crimes; part of the reason they got away with it may be that many young people trusted them as they were in the public eye so it is a good lesson for young people to learn: just because someone is famous and/or familiar to you doesn't mean they won't behave inappropriately.

Whenim

You are absolutely correct in saying child abuse teams have been under resourced.

Can I just speak as I 'found', it will be from personal knowledge so there will obviously be somebody who will contradict me because they will remember things differently and I will take no offence if challenged.

70/80s police force. Think Life on Mars. Think Heartbeat. They were reflective of the police force of that era.

My hubby was a bobby and we have talked about this quite a bit. We remember 'jobs' that came in and how they were handled. For example if there was a case of paedophilla it would have been the case the only avenue to deal with it was by getting a police woman to be involved!. If there was a case of Domestic Violence again a policewoman would be found and that was in a lot of cases how it was handled. That of course was after policewomen were becoming a part of the service where they were being taken seriously. There would perhaps be a department for Domestic Violence for what was deemed serious cases but it only had about 3 people in it. It was a case that resources were not there, neither the understanding in lots of ways as joined up policing, specialist units were not available in the early days. Perhaps a lot of 'jobs' were handed over to Social Services as the police force was seen to police not be social workers. That comment aside there was an element of that through the local beat bobby etc. so I am not chastising the police but being realistic about the way it was.

The police service is no different to any other business or establishment. Over the years there has been a natural progression and more money, more resources, more understanding, better, well everything really. The police force and other bodies such as the NHS, Social Services have made fantastic progressions in their working practices and quality of understanding. The problem is the public, maybe quite rightly, expects those

In some forces, the public protection units have been subsumed into the CID and officers who have no specific expertise in abuse cases are expected to take a share of these. However, officers who have acquired expertise and attended training in abuse cases are now expected to do general detective work as well. I regard this as a short-sighted waste of expertise, as do the detectives involved. It is true that historic cases are now taking up far more time than before the Savile scandal came to light, but there shouldn't be a contest for priority between these and contemporary child abuse cases. Both have their place.

Carry on.

establishments to give them answers immediately. What do we want, answers. When do we want them, now.

I agree money can be found for other things, covering football matches, covering marches etc. A pot has to be kept to one side for the unknown, if it wasn't then there would be an outcry as to why there was no police coverage whilst say a riot took place, a march got out of hand etc. etc.

This is a historic case and I think that whilst there is mention of x amount of police officers on the case there will be a lot of police officers following leads in their respective forces and a lot of work being done without us knowing the details.

If a case comes in 'fresh' the police force for that area will be able to deal with it now so the numbers involved in this case to my mind don't have such a relevance. Police Officers in Vice and Paedophile departments will by the nature of the job be under pressure and the public probably don't think what evil they deal with day in day out, I applaud them and they will do the job well.

Officers dealing with these distressing cases - and domestic violence - need to be very balanced and mature individuals. Those who are themselves parents must be especially distressed and may need counselling no matter how mature their personalities may be.

You're right, anno. So difficult to be involved in cases that remind you of children in your own life - their ages, personalities, appearance, interests.

And, to remain professional and forensic in your approach to evidence gathering. The culture within the police service has changed,along with the culture in other agencies. Child Abuse, domestic violence etc are no longer seen as only women's work, or for men who aren't tough enough for 'real' policing. I just heard David Mellor proclaiming that it's nonsense to think there was any kind of peadophile ring linked to politicians. That's ok then folks, we don't need any more over sensitive police officers, feeling stressed by listening to fibs from folks fabricating all manner of things.

David Mellor. The man who is beyond reproach in all aspects of his public and private life. Must be true then.

The article is suggesting that the current heavy concentration on historic abuse cases involving victims who are now well into adult life is overtaxing the police/resources available. This is having a detrimental effect on how much time and money can be spent on rescuing children from abuse taking place NOW where victims are often well below the age of puberty.

To say that more money needs to be made available may well be true but it is not really addressing the issue directly since it is highly unlikely that this will happen any time soon when cuts are being made in many areas of public funding.

In many cases (the NHS, army, education, social services etc., benefits etc.) difficult decisions have to be made regarding where to put the limited funds that are available. Sadly, it is a question of prioritising.

Therefore, is it satisfactory, given the limited resources available, that historic cases should take precedence over rescuing children from present day abuse?

I agree with the argument that celebrities need to be publicly identified and prosecuted because their very celebrity enables them to abuse young people who are overawed by them. However, I believe that most young children can easily be manipulated by any adult they perceive to have power over them (teachers, doctors, parents, care home workers to name but a few).

As has been mentioned previously, Petallus it isn't a matter of either or. Resources are moved around and added to as needed, and it's clear that much can be learned from prosecuting historical abuse cases that will aid current child abuse victims, as has happened in North America and one or two other countries that have learned how to investigate and prosecute such cases in a way that doesn't inflict further harm on the complainants. It seems you feel strongly about letting some offences go unprosecuted, but I couldn't disagree more. Old sex offenders are not harmless and many are still abusing children, even when disabled and frail. Many who abused children decades ago are now abusing another generation.

According to the article it IS a question of either or whenim64.

Why do you think I feel strongly about letting some cases go unprosecuted?

Since it seems there are not the resources for all cases to be identified and prosecuted, I could say the same about you.

Surely there is room for more than one opinion in this complex and difficult matter!

We can agree to disagree Petallus. I feel equally strongly that money can always be found for priority needs and I believe that child sexual abuse should never be ignored, whether it is current of historical.

There is room for more than one opinion Petallus, and many different views have been expressed. We all seem to agree that resources are being stretched beyond reason. All public bodies operate on budgets, which means prioritising. I have been involved in investigations of sexual abuse against children, including infants. I've also worked with adults who experienced sexual abuse as children. There are vanishingly few resources to support those adults who need help as a result of sexual abuse in childhood. To deny those who have a need to report their historical experience to the police, any hope of it being investigated seems both cruel, and foolish. As When points out, other countries have learned so much about how better to investigate current abuse, by learning from past mistakes (and what worked well)

I did say there was room for more than one opinion Iam64.

I understand that you and when have worked professionally in this field.

I've had a bit of experience myself, both professionally and personally but not as a social worker.

Also, the person giving her opinion in the OP link is a professional.

But, think I've said more or less everything I want to say.