John Smyth, Church Scandal, Channel 4 9pm

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.

The Church, the college, the organisations conspired to be complicit. These were run by powerful individuals, men, who conspired to send Smythe off to Africa sure,y knowing his criminal behaviour would continue.
His victims, like so many victims, were reluctant or unwilling to be part of an investigation leading to prosecution. Is anyone suggesting prosecuting anyone other than his wife.

As Maremia posted upthread, the CPS will prosecute cases with about 85% chance of conviction. I’m not minimising her collusion here, many women in abusive relationships collude often not fully aware that’s what they’re doing.

Surrounded by powerful, respectable men who were complicit perhaps she followed their example.

MartavTaurus

Of course she was complicit.
Smearing the boys' whipped bottoms with ointment, setting out cushions for them to sit on, giving them nappies to soak up the blood.
What more evidence is required?

😲
Yes, she was.

When this story broke many years ago it was covered up by those who could have acted there and then; instead they contrived to ship John Smyth off to work abroad where he resumed his vile activities. A boy at camp drowned in the swimming pool but they failed to convict JS for it as there was insufficient evidence.
This has all been churned over before.
The next time it came to public attention the police were busy with work on the Jimmy Savile case and did not pursue this one extensively, partly because the victims were unwilling to come forward.
Many more people could be blamed more than the wife who was, according to her adult children, his first victim.
I’m not defending her, just think a prosecution would achieve nothing.

You see what annoyed me although she said how sorry she was I didn’t see it at all I didn’t hear it, beyond a few small tears and a few words…. I d have been ready to slit my wrists (figuratively) if my children had thrown something like that or even less in my face years afterwards… it was all so bland and ordinary
He died 7 years ago has she been on her knees to her children before the documentary or was it only through that that she apologised for what she had done and what’s she done to amend since he died, or has she just carried on living a fairly well to do life ?
Did she have no family, no siblings, no friends that she could have found guidance or help from.
Yes times were different then but not that different she married him in 1968 I married in 1964 and I knew when I needed to get away and it would have been sooner if he’d ever harmed a hair on the kids head
Those poor boys how could she wipe the blood up snd then go to bed with the monster who had caused it all
I m sorry to blame a woman especially if she was unhappy or afraid (although I didn’t fully get that impression)/ but I think she is almost as much to blame as him
I don’t think prosecution would help, emotionally theres nothing there to punish

Of course she was complicit.
Smearing the boys' whipped bottoms with ointment, setting out cushions for them to sit on, giving them nappies to soak up the blood.
What more evidence is required?

The question is, was she complicit? For an investigation to proceed, there has to be a chance of conviction. For a conviction to be achieved, there has to be permissible evidence. Social condemnation is not evidence.

I think Winchester College had/has a lot to answer for too. The masters there knew what was happening, the wounds would have been evident.
Yet they chose to turn a blind eye, and worse still continued to send the boys to the house. As well as continuing to organise the summer camp holidays.

I see no benefit whatsoever in a prosecution?
Not even to show everyone that complicity in such behaviour is unacceptable and will be dealt with severely? Otherwise it will continue to happen.

Of course it's a hard ask to get someone to speak out about a colleague, a family member etc. But people must take on that responsibility, and they can only be encouraged to do so if they feel confident that something will be done.

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

all is known: as Iam said, she was 16, and certainly in the early days up against an organised and effecting "silencing" environment

I see no benefit whatsoever in a prosecution?

Who gains? those who would blame yet another women for what men have done.

Her non actions are now viewed with disgust, known to all, presumably she still believes in a God who may judge: could anything "punish" her more than her own tortured mind?

As I said above and Iam has echoed, spend the money preventing further abuse.

I agree

Doodledog

So why not give them the story? Sorry - I’m not sure of your point, so may be missing it.

If police, church whoever wouldn't act a juicy headline or two might have prodded them into action.

She did have options.

So why not give them the story? Sorry - I’m not sure of your point, so may be missing it.

Allira

^She could have told the police, the media, the camp organisers, social services- there were all kinds of possibilities.^

They would probably have closed ranks.

If we look at historic cases of abuse, how far did any victims or those trying to help get with reporting the abuse to the authorities?

The media? Church sex abuse scandals are to he sort of things newspapers use as headlines.

Allira

^these things happen when ‘good’ people do nothing^. 👍

Or they cannot quite believe it is happening.

Maybe, but we can’t speculate (based on what?)

A trial would bring what happened to light and a jury could decide what or whether blame can be apportioned.

Allira

^these things happen when ‘good’ people do nothing^. 👍

Or they cannot quite believe it is happening.

She knew, she saw the evidence with her own eyes.

The abuse here began in the 1970s and 80s. There were duscussions between other camp leaders but no-one did anything about it.

these things happen when ‘good’ people do nothing. 👍

Or they cannot quite believe it is happening.

Allira

^the camp organisers^
They must have known!

One would think. Should they be prosecuted too? these things happen when ‘good’ people do nothing.

If they had closed ranks (definitely a possibility) she would have a defence now. I am not a punitive person, but I feel strongly that as it is she has a case to answer.

the camp organisers
They must have known!

She could have told the police, the media, the camp organisers, social services- there were all kinds of possibilities.

They would probably have closed ranks.

If we look at historic cases of abuse, how far did any victims or those trying to help get with reporting the abuse to the authorities?

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 could have told the police, the media, the camp organisers, social services- there were all kinds of possibilities. I don’t know who her associates and contacts were likely to be, but arguably if the family were well-connected she would have more options than most.

As I said above, jailing her is probably more vindictive than just; but we do have to consider the lives that would have been blighted by her moral cowardice (or complicity - who knows?). We can speculate about her motives, but most people would be made to account for their behaviour. Why shouldn’t she?

Wyllow3

I'm not sure she needs to be prosecuted?

The shame will be with her the rest of her life

her own children have spoken up against her, in effect

Everyone knows.

I'm not sure either.

She was just 16 when she met him. She was scared of him too and always anxious to appease him.

No excuse for not speaking up but a bullying, dominating man can control a subservient wife and who would she tell? The Archbishop of Canterbury? 🤔