John Smyth, Church Scandal, Channel 4 9pm

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.

I agree

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 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.

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.

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.

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?

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

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.