Jimmy Savile

Thanks for that link, Micelf. For some reason, Uncle Mac always gave me an uncomfortable feeling when I was a child, but I put it down to my inverse snobbery.

This article explains much

www.lrb.co.uk/v34/n21/andrew-ohagan/lightentertainment

And he now wants to spend some time with his family. Where have they been????? They really need to trot out a new line when they jump before they are pushed.

So George Entwistle gets a full year's salary paid after resigning - nearly half a million! Wonderful....

So can we now agree that an innocent man was named and his reputation ruined. The mud will stick to him for the rest of his life, poor man. It is not Stephen Messham's fault I agree but this person is equally a victim of this whole mess.

I see they have now identified the political figure whose relative was mistakenly named, and it is the same photo shown to Stephen Messham and another complainant. On no occasion was a first name used, they all say, hence the confusion. I wonder if the gutter press will clarify this in tomorrow's editions? They were quick to vilify Mr Messham with non-stories like the two charges that resulted in acquittal.

You and me both, when, it is righteous indignation!

Children are interviewed really well with SSD, specialist child protection officers and NSPCC, Nightowl' I agree. It's the system around lawyers, court procedures with adults reporting historical abuse, preventative support for children and so on that I feel so angry about. Social workers pick up the damage and do their damnedest to help the child, whilst everything else going on around them seems to weigh against keeping them safe. The number of times I have seen children brought to safety, but then left to their own devices. Children removed from an abusive home, then targeted by other abusers, adults complaining about abuse when they were children being abused by the press and lawyers when they put their heads above the parapet to say 'yes, it happened to me, too.'

I think I need some time out from this, too - I feel like ploughing my car into the front door at No. 10!

I know that children are disadvantaged in court when but social workers have been aware for many years that they need to be interviewed in a completely different manner to check on their safety. It is twenty years since I was trained jointly with the Police to video interview children. That was extended a few years later to encompass all vulnerable witnesses. Sadly, I believe joint training no longer takes place and services for children are all the worse for that. At the time Stephen Messham was in care there was a culture of secrecy with children hidden away, and in many ways we are returning to that state of affairs. However, in between, as a result of the sex abuse scandals of the late 80s, there was a time when we started to get it right for children. There is still the expertise around to be used if the will to investigate properly is there. That is what I want to hear DC say.

Way back in 1877 the surgeon Joseph Bell wrote "Notes on surgery for nurses" in which he refers to the need for acute observation. "Remember that a child is nearly as reticent about their symptoms as a horse or dog". That applies as much to abuse as to physical symptoms. Yes, false accusations are made, particularly when children are grouped together in care, are already disturbed, and from past experience perhaps know more than they should about the details of abuse, but when they did give evidence it should have been listened to carefully.

The DG of the BBC has had to go - I expect other heads will roll. There is one report that two of Savile's cronies have gone abroad unexpectedly.

There are so many problems inherent in how we look after vulnerable children and check on their wellbeing. Before we got a grip on domestic abuse, the questions that would have exposed what women were going through were not asked. As soon as professionals started asking assumptive questions like 'what sort of weapons does he keep under your bed?' or 'how many times has he threatened you since we last spoke?' the information and evidence came floodng out. Children at risk of abuse will not necessarily offer up information, or complain, if we don't help them understand that we are concerned that they remain safe and ask them those helpful questions. I am not interested in legal gymnastics which discredit anything that is not robust enough to stand up to a barrister's below the belt cross-questioning. That is not a level playing field for abuse victims.

I feel angry and incensed about the way victims of abuse are being blamed and not believed, simply because there is such a lack of understanding about what actually happens when children are groomed or coerced. Their confusion and lack of coping abilities is used against them and they are called 'unreliable witnesses.' When is this going to stop? If we know our adversarial way of questioning witnesses doesn't always work for the victims of sexual abuse, we should use other methods. If we know that children may hide what is happening to them, and lie out of fear of the consequences, surely that should be taken into account? These abusers with political power and old boy influence really are the lowest of the low and they are lurking in the background at every stage of the process of bringing abusers to justice.

I suspect their backs are already well and truly covered and it will take a very careful inquiry to unpick the evidence. I am quite sure not all copies of the jillings report were shredded and that would be a good starting point, but I doubt it will come to light. I will say again that David Cameron needs to take control and show some leadership on this one.

I don't think anybody here has suggested that we condemn anyone without evidence. We are just concerned that evidence should not be destroyed - like the photos showing abuse at the Bryn Estyn home. The paedophiles and their protectors have been given too many years to cover their tracks.

Of course only the real offenders should be convicted....I'm not confident that many of them will be though. Paedophiles target vulnerable children and subject them to the most debased and depraved treatment which can often result in them becoming even more fragile and vulnerable.
Fragile and vulnerable victims do not make credible witnesses in Court.

I want fairness to the alleged abusers until they have been properly identified. After that they deserve no mercy. I do not want anyone wrongly convicted. That helps no-one.

I don't think for one moment they are all involved nightowl. Enough are involved though, to result in a blizzard of mis-information and rumour that not only protects the guilty but diminishes the chance of justice.

I agree, Marelli, - perhaps everybody was leaning over backwards to be 'fair' to the abusers - what a pity they didn't show such fairness to the abused.

My heart is pounding with anger, as I read this yet again about David Steele and Cyril Smith. I know I'm only stating the obvious - but WHY on earth did no-one whistleblow earlier on? These foul, foul individuals.

Are their own statements not evidence? Perhaps a bit more accusation might have saved some children from abuse.

Haven't we learned yet? Evidence is required befor we make accusations.

I agree Notso but we still can't assume they are all involved. I want justice, not a witch hunt

Anybody who can read knows it, Jingle. They have been condemned out of their own mouths. 'I did hear rumours...', 'it was just the culture at the time'. and other mealy-mouthed excuses.I quoted David Steel's remark about Cyril Smith - ' he only smacked a few bare bottoms'. Disgusting.

Odd question jings. Is grass green?

How do you know that?