John Smyth, Church Scandal, Channel 4 9pm

spend the prosecution money on the fight against more abuse?

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 wish there was an edit button- I realise I made some errors here!

I watched it last night. I found the whole boys Christian camp thing weird but recall my brothers going off to Rotary camp every year and hating it so I guess it was something similar but with physical abuse.
I think I feel I am glad we no longer live in this world where men can no longer be considered 'charismatic.' The world these people loved in supported him in his privilege and so I can understand how the wife just saw herself as a satellite in this world. And yet, she dare not break away from it... I guess she felt like many women do, that she had too much to lose.
The positives to take from it were the children, confronting their own parents in this way takes immense courage and I admire them for that.
I am gald they made the documentary and I am glad I watched it. Very thought provoking indeed.

I totally agree Doodledog she was part of the abuse by keeping her mouth firmly and smilingly shut and leaving her own children in danger For a grown up child to say they hated the father and were frightened of him and she didn’t protect them, no excuse at all

Iam64 well it didn’t appear that her children were effected by the Stockholm syndrome as they are very able to condemn the father I heard one say they hated him They couldn t escape she could have.

I think she should be prosecuted for aiding and abetting (or something) and a judge and jury could hear psychiatric reports of her state of mind. If it is the case that she was incapable (as opposed to unwilling) to protect the victims then so be it; but I really don’t think that she should be able to just walk away as though nothing happened.

She is old now, and maybe there is little to be gained by jailing her, but I do think she needs to face up to her complicity in decades of very serious abuse. I may be mistaken but I thought that failure to report abuse was now a criminal offence?

Interesting post MartavTaurus.
Your summary of her words aligns with what I heard her say. Misguided and foolish seems a rather kind way of considering her approach. I agree, where was the love (Christian love’ for the victims.
I still wonder though about the extent of brainwashing/Stockholm syndrome that she (and her children) were subjected to by this man,

I think it is very convenient for her that she was able to attach all responsibility to her faith. Some faith, I'd call it!

I can't remember her exact words, but she said something like, her faith had taught her that you have to focus on the good. I think by that she said, she was married to him, and she knew she had to love the man.
So, where was the good for the abused, and the love for her own children?

I think she was misguided and foolish.

Two of her adult children describe her as his first victim. We don’t know if he physically or sexually abused her but she was frightened to upset him, to trigger anger

Wondering and discussing Ann Smythe’s part in these horrors has not imo seen attempts at making excuses for her

Blossoming

I’m currently reading Rev Richard Coles’ “A Death in the Parish” and he mentions abuse of boys at summer camps. It makes me shudder, so much damage.

He has no room to talk! He used to drive to remote laybys to have sex with strangers. He is repulsive but regarded by some as a national treasure.

MartavTaurus you may be right perhaps the other daughter had distanced herself from the whole thing for her own sanity

The mother never ever said anything about an impossible situation in her ‘apology’ which would have been her opportunity to, she never said ‘darlings I couldn’t leave he would have beaten me or he would have taken you I couldn’t have risked it’ during her weak apology. She seemed resigned to being his lackey even her apology seemed so passionless
She never tried anything to help the boys apart from to pat their bloodied backs and bottoms with her nappies she did nothing for her son who was beaten at least once or her daughters who were treated as second class citizens
she just went along with it all in a benign sort of way I cannot see a way of making any excuses for her.

He was the biggest piece of filth that walks this earth I wish
he d have lived to go to prison but yes she allowed him to be.

Even if his wife had left him, could she have retained custody of her children? Would they actually have become more not less vulnerable? I doubt her lifestyle was pleasant, in spite of the financial trappings. But I really doubt that she had the power to change things against the weight of the establishment who would have covered up for her husband.

Very true, Lahlah65

Bluebelle, as Lahlah65 says, with his power and influence, he might have gained custody of the children had his wife left him. They would have then been in an even worse position. With the power of the Church, the Establishment and the fact that he was a barrister too, John Smyth might well have gained custody.

Stockholm Syndrome is an interesting point too, Iam64

I’m currently reading Rev Richard Coles’ “A Death in the Parish” and he mentions abuse of boys at summer camps. It makes me shudder, so much damage.

He had four children, one died early where was the third one anyone know if anything was said as to why she didn’t take part?

I'm guessing because she couldn't bear to be in the same room as her mother, Bluebelle. But we don't know for sure.

I'm only saying this because we know that the eldest child who died, never ever mentioned her parents, not even to her husband. Her children never knew their grandparents. That sounds to me like she was protecting her own family. We know that none of them went to his funeral. They were estranged.

Maybe the other sister felt the same way, and couldn't bear to come face to face with her mother, and so decided not to take part. She was happy to tell her story to the cameras, but not see her mother.

The daughter who was in the room with the mother was younger by a long way. Maybe she saw less of what was going on.

I don't think anyone assumes that it is easy to leave a controlling relationship. Not agreeing with something doesn't mean that you don't understand the situation - it just means you disagree.

I disagree that she had no choice. She could have gone to the police herself, or taken a beaten boy to the police. She could have contacted the school, or the people running the camps. She could have done all sorts of things, but instead she mopped up the blood.

Staying with someone who mistreats you is one thing, and I have sympathy for those who do so. Staying with someone who is abusing your child is quite another, and IMO goes against most mothers' instinct to protect her children.

I also wish people would stop referring to this as corporal punishment, particularly if they haven't watched the documentary. I don't approve of that either, but this was a long way from even 'six of the best' at school. It was sustained beating, with blood and trauma, and both the victims and the abuser were naked. It was abuse.

Nannee49

theworriedwell I wasn't making any distinction between the official co-conspiritors who covered this appalling man's back & his wife, ditto.

Except we know exactly what she knew, do we know exactly what others knew? I don't know as I didn't watch the documentary but I saw her on the news.

theworriedwell I wasn't making any distinction between the official co-conspiritors who covered this appalling man's back & his wife, ditto.

Lahlah65 it’s definitely not easy to be a battered wife whether it’s physical or mental abuse or both but when children are involved you find the courage I would have lived in a tent to get my children away if he’d have ever touched them.
Perhaps it’s her personality but she seemed very under invested, very bland and lacking in spirit, even in her apology as an old lady it was weak at best She could have told someone, even a hint, could have probably saved those boys

I think she liked to be within his glory, his enthusiasm and popularity and anything bad that came with it was worth it
You can’t blame the era, you can’t blame the upbringing she knew what was going on. She was weak at best and a coconspirator at worst

However he was the abuser and escaped by flipping dying where is the justice

He had four children one died early where was the third one anyone know if anything was said as to why she didn’t take part

I think she was terrified of him. She said she came to realise there were two sides to this man.

Nannee49

Thanks GrannyGravy13 for highlighting this programme.

The horror, the cover up, the sheer arrogance of running rampage knowing his back - like so many others' - was covered over & over with no fear of discovery or punishment, so sure of his hideous pals seeing him right.

Organised religion stinks, too open to horror committed behind closed doors, hiding behind big skirts and silly hats, completely untouchable. Evil.

Did his "hideous pals" see what his wife saw? He did it but she was his coconspirator.

Lahlah65

I am quite amazed at how many people here think it would have been easy for Ann Smyth to ‘just tell someone’ and that everything would have been stopped. There are so many other cases (eg Cyril Smith) where establishment figures have been allowed to continue to abuse children. And corporal punishment was not even illegal - there was so much that nobody wanted to talk about.

The fact is that this was widely reported to the police and other members of the clergy. This man was a powerful establishment figure and his bullying would not have stopped at those closest to him. He was brazen and manipulative.

Even if his wife had left him, could she have retained custody of her children? Would they actually have become more not less vulnerable? I doubt her lifestyle was pleasant, in spite of the financial trappings. But I really doubt that she had the power to change things against the weight of the establishment who would have covered up for her husband.

I am not denying the bravery of others here who have left abusive relationships with little more than the clothes they were wearing, and I was in an abusive relationship for a very long time too. But I was not supported when I did have a courage to report it to my GP or when the police came to our house as a result of a report by a member of the public. And my husband had nothing like the social and political power that this man enjoyed. But he told lots of lies about me, and it was easier for people to believe that I was the problem.

She helped to hide what he did. Only one person knows her motivation and she isn't saying much. Did she get some sort of kick about her powerful husband or from tending to the wounds he inflicted or was she prepared to ignore anything to protect her marriage and lifestyle. Would she have helped him hide the evidence if a child died.

Whatever she is despicable and should be locked up.

Thanks GrannyGravy13 for highlighting this programme.

The horror, the cover up, the sheer arrogance of running rampage knowing his back - like so many others' - was covered over & over with no fear of discovery or punishment, so sure of his hideous pals seeing him right.

Organised religion stinks, too open to horror committed behind closed doors, hiding behind big skirts and silly hats, completely untouchable. Evil.

Absolutely disgusting! And he called himself a Christian!

She was weak, and controlled but to allow her own child to be beaten is not normal He was the abuser she helped cover it up She was the main person who could have stopped it all but she didn’t No where has it said she was ever beaten, hit or hurt so she herself was not a victim of DV she was just ‘under his controlling spell’ and I can’t help thinking she liked the rich life style and basking in his popularity
Most people would have left when the girls had to be kept upstairs out of the way while the boys had ‘fun’

She didn’t marry him in the dark ages she married him a few years after I married, she could have left even though there wasn’t a lot of help or understanding of break ups and divorce
She had a comfortable life style with a popular clever presumed, benevolent husband she chose to stay and be part of his ‘game’

A whole generation before my Dad was a lovely gentle man but my mum was certainly not subservient and she would have soon told him if he stepped out of line so I m not buying the ‘bride of the times’ theory