John Smyth, Church Scandal, Channel 4 9pm

correct, not early marriage, but from 16 the early association. He is likely to have hidden much from her until they were married - it's common for that to happen.

I cant have sympathy for what she allowed, but I feel we are not taking into account enough the power of the abuse that she suffered constantly from her early marriage, and had been isolated and brainwashed to the extent she did what she did, if we take her to court.

We need to get into a position where it can never happen again like this.

Threats of court will not help women to speak up, can you not see
It will just induce further silence.

Maremia

Have her children broken off contact with her?

As is stated upthread, one is dead and the other was not in the documentary. The remaining two appear to have forgiven her.

Why is that relevant, though? I’m sure many people forgive family members for dreadful crimes. That doesn’t make a difference to their illegality or seriousness.

Have her children broken off contact with her?

I ve just watched on you tube an interview of the son
I inaccurately thought he had only been beaten once but he was beaten regularly from the age of 7 He’s a very articulate man and has terrible memories
I have even lass sympathy for a mother who let her small son be beaten regularly by a monster who she went to bed with, slept with, cuddled, and had more children by
Words fail me

MartavTaurus

What Iam64 wrote is not inaccurate.

The wife said in the documentary that she was 16 years old when she met her husband.

I'm not sure she is someone I'd trust given what she was involved with. I think I'd trust public records rather than what she says.

TakeThat7

His wife enabled horrible abuse and took part in cleaning up blood why has she not been arrested

I agree. She was an enabler of such terrible abuse. To witness the injury and mop up the blood and not report anything is beyond my comprehension.

MartavTaurus

What Iam64 wrote is not inaccurate.

The wife said in the documentary that she was 16 years old when she met her husband.

The couple's birth and marriage dates are on public record. The enquiries into Smyths education, activities and social contacts produced incredibly detailed timelines of his entire life.

What Iam64 wrote is not inaccurate.

The wife said in the documentary that she was 16 years old when she met her husband.

Iam64

BlueBelle, the children have spoken out as adults and only as a result of the investigation triggered by complaints by others.
I absolutely understand the anger being directed at Mrs S but she appears to have been living the life of a surrendered wife. She met him when aged 16, a shy inexperienced teenager, he was a powerful older man.
The financial cost of prosecuting her would imo be better spent educating young women on the dangers of controlling relationships.
Not to mention working with boys and men who are the group most involved in abusing others

* She met him when aged 16, a shy inexperienced teenager, he was a powerful older man. *

That is inaccurate.

Anne S is 81, born in 1944 . John S was born in 1941.

They met in 1966 and
married in 1968 when she was 24 and he was 27.

So she was not "a shy teenager" and he was not a "powerful older man.".

There were probably a majority of boys being abused at some time or another at Winchester
Do you mean all 750 on the roll, keepingquiet? Can you point us to these figures?

butterandjam

fancythat

From AI Justin Welby has stated that he first became aware of the specific, serious allegations of abuse against John Smyth in August 2013, shortly after he became Archbishop of Canterbury. The findings of an independent review, however, concluded that it was "unlikely" he would have had no knowledge of concerns regarding Smyth in the 1980s

Especially as Welby was on the adult staff ( in the dormitory) at the camps where Smyth abused the attendees.
Welby was there in residence at the same time as Smyth.

But apparently doesn't recall the conversation which it is alleged he had with Mark Ruston , with whom Welby was lodging in 1978, about Smyth even back then.
The ‘Ruston report’ which was written in early 1982 details much of Smyth’s abuse to that date and clearly states that offences had been committed. Makin notes that there was also ‘evidence of what amounts to “victim blaming” in some of the correspondence’.

fancythat

From AI Justin Welby has stated that he first became aware of the specific, serious allegations of abuse against John Smyth in August 2013, shortly after he became Archbishop of Canterbury. The findings of an independent review, however, concluded that it was "unlikely" he would have had no knowledge of concerns regarding Smyth in the 1980s

Especially as Welby was on the adult staff ( in the dormitory) at the camps where Smyth abused the attendees.
Welby was there in residence at the same time as Smyth.

Primrose53

Cumbrianmale56

Unfortunately until 40 years ago, teachers in some schools could do what they want and Smyth was no exception. I can remember one at my first secondary school who would be in prison these days for his sadism that wasn't just confined to boys, He once grabbed hold of a girl with punkish hair and started pulling it out, and another girl who was wearing nail varnish had her hands dragged along a wall.
Sad to say this beast managed to live until he was 90 and given a glowing obituary in the local paper as he was a well known rugby league player in his younger years. Pity there wasn't a right to reply as plenty of people locally would have loved to have an alternative version printed.

Smyth was a barrister not a teacher. I know what you mean though about some being really cruel and abusive.

Same thing, people who were supposed to be respected abused their postion and knew they could get away with it as they had people to protect them.

Some more observations here:

The Church of England is closely tied to the state.There are people with immense power and privilege within its heirachy who seek to protect their own. The family clearly enjoyed an extremely comfortable lifestyle. It was, and still is to a certain extent, a different society where the social norms just didn't apply, especially regarding the way their children were educated.
There were probably a majority of boys being abused at some time or another at Winchester-it was accepted that you would have a tough time and this was necessary for the formation of the elites- like a kind of rite of passage. This was how they behaved and how 'men' were made.
Public schools were far worse when it came to corporal punishment than any state school, but it was part of how the system functioned.
The whole 'masculine Christianity thing, especially at the summer manor house, operated as a kind of cult it seems to me. Smyth was the head of the cult, and no one could go against his wishes. He operated a kind of brainwashing where normal behaviours didn't apply and cruelty seemed a necessary sort of initiation just to satisfy his perverse sexual pleasures.
Any cult needs willing minions to proliferate its ethos, and I think this is where the wife and to a certain extent the children, were given certain roles to play even without knowing.
Cults are very difficult things to leave- and so Ann Smyth and to a certain extent the children, were incapable of getting out. I feel she was trapped into a web of deceit and self-protection we mere mortals who would protect the safety of our children at all cost, cannot possibly understand.
All of this had nothing whatecver to do with religion but everything to do with power, control and maintaining the status quo.
This was how Epstein got away with it, and Saville too. They used the system of privilege for their own perverse ends, and to a certain extent got away with it.
I have no reason to believe it isn't happening again right now, and will continue to do so in the future- it's just the way societies function.

paddyann54

All done in the name of”God” as so many lie things are….re.igions…all religions should be banned

You can't! do you want to live under a Soviet type regime where religion was suppressed in favour of an atheist society and freedom to worship was denied? Religion just went underground and it was replaced by directing its people to put their faith in a very warped ideology. There isn't that much of a difference, the end result was still the subjugation of millions. Undeniably religion has often veered off into pure evil and the cause of much division and violated human rights. but banning it would also be a violation of human rights. Religion is not for everyone, nevertheless people should be free to worship their God as long as their religion doesn't take it upon themselves proselytise, just as people should be free to be atheists. All religions should be separate from the state and should not seek to trounce the laws of the country.

Doodledog

Many people were complicit. I don't think I am blaming Ann Smyth for what her husband did, but am blaming her for what she did (and for what she didn't do).

There is absolutely no chance that I would sit back knowing that a husband of mine had done that to other boys, and if he even thought about doing it to my own son (I think her son was about nine years old when it happened to him) I would have been fit to be tied. Saying nothing allowed other boys to be tortured because there were no consequences, and that was her fault, along with the others who knew but did not act. I think it was worse in her case because of the tending to the victims, and because she did not protect her child - that, to me, is unforgivable.

I think it was worse in her case because of the tending to the victims, and because she did not protect her child - that, to me, is unforgivable.

I agree. They may not have been murdered but they were traumatised which would have lifelong after-effects.

paddyann54

All done in the name of”God” as so many lie things are….re.igions…all religions should be banned

No, of course they shouldn't!

But there are some who use God and religions to pursue their own agenda.

But the fact that others were (and are) cruel does not bring excuses to this case, does it?

And again, this was not corporal punishment. The boys had not done anything wrong. The ethos of the camps was something about purification of impure thoughts, which was reinforced by stoicism that meant it was wrong to complain about the beatings, which went way beyond six of the best.

I think we are going round in circles now, so I will bow out. I don't think there is a lot of point in jailing AS, but I do feel that she, and any others in authority who knew what was happening and enabled it, should face a trial, and it should be recognised that people have a duty to protect children and report abuse when they see it. I don't care about the cost - justice should not depend on funding - but nor do I see why it should be particularly expensive.

All done in the name of”God” as so many lie things are….re.igions…all religions should be banned

Cumbrianmale56

Unfortunately until 40 years ago, teachers in some schools could do what they want and Smyth was no exception. I can remember one at my first secondary school who would be in prison these days for his sadism that wasn't just confined to boys, He once grabbed hold of a girl with punkish hair and started pulling it out, and another girl who was wearing nail varnish had her hands dragged along a wall.
Sad to say this beast managed to live until he was 90 and given a glowing obituary in the local paper as he was a well known rugby league player in his younger years. Pity there wasn't a right to reply as plenty of people locally would have loved to have an alternative version printed.

Smyth was a barrister not a teacher. I know what you mean though about some being really cruel and abusive.

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing,"
Or women.

Unfortunately until 40 years ago, teachers in some schools could do what they want and Smyth was no exception. I can remember one at my first secondary school who would be in prison these days for his sadism that wasn't just confined to boys, He once grabbed hold of a girl with punkish hair and started pulling it out, and another girl who was wearing nail varnish had her hands dragged along a wall.
Sad to say this beast managed to live until he was 90 and given a glowing obituary in the local paper as he was a well known rugby league player in his younger years. Pity there wasn't a right to reply as plenty of people locally would have loved to have an alternative version printed.

Wow! That just send a chill down my spine.
It wasn't until the murders of Holly and Jessica that safeguarding actually became a priority in all settings.

I have to agree with Doodledog, that although she didn't assist him in any way, she did nothing to stop her husband (by reporting him).

It reminds me a bit of Maxine Carr who was so abused and controlled by Huntley she couldn't think straight to do anything either, but colluded with her partner.