An Unsung Hero.
Lucy Faithful was a social worker. A no nonsense, old fashioned, put-the-children-first, social worker. Not one of your idealogical got-to-have-this-Saturday-off because I’m protesting about the ‘bedroom tax’ brigade.
She was so good at her job that she was elevated to the House of Lords – the first social worker to ever be so ennobled. Yeah! So she became one of those establishment ‘Tory Peers’ that we hear so much about who ‘protect’ Westminster perverts?
Scarcely! Lucy was formidable character – nicknamed ‘Lucy Faithless’ by the Tory whips for ruthlessly voting against the government when she thought the interests of children demanded it – she would have cheerfully fried and eaten for breakfast the entrails of any Peer, had she heard rumours of an ‘unnatural interest’ in children.
She was also an immensely practical woman. She founded the Lucy Faithful Foundation. You may never have heard of it – it doesn’t have the high profile of the NSPCC, nor the funding – but it does engage in practical work to protect children from sexual abuse. Note the term ‘practical’.
The Lucy Faithful Foundation doesn’t organise press seminars to disgorge titivating soundbites for the dying dead tree press, it doesn’t spend its money on afternoon television ads to bolster its profits, it doesn’t even work in tandem with ambitious ex-policemen to make gossipy commercial television.
It just quietly gets on with its work pioneering intensive therapeutic rehabilitation for sex offenders. It provides a help line where those who fear they may harbour sexual thoughts towards children can talk to qualified and experienced experts in the field and access the help they may need. That seems a lot more practical to me than demanding that those who harbour such thoughts keep them to themselves for fear of being hounded by the mob.
There is something quite illogical about demanding that those who offended 50 years ago are locked up in prison – but not providing a safe venue for those who may be at risk of offending today.
They don’t claim to be able to ‘cure’ every potential paedophile – but every person they do work with successfully is genuinely a child saved from abuse. More genuinely so than the NSPCCs recent claim to have ‘rescued’ 400 children from abuse, which turned out to mean that the children – and nephews and nieces – of those individuals who had viewed on-line porn which ‘in the opinion of a police officer’ may have included pictures of those who ‘may’ be below the age of 18 – had been either taken away from their family, or the putative ‘offender’ had been removed from the family home.
Any armchair paedo-hunter who cheers at the news that 400 children have been taken into care and are thus ‘protected’ from abuse has obviously never been in care themselves. ‘State care’ is a grim experience. If you doubt that, I suggest you go and experience it for yourself for a few months. You’ll soon get off your high horse.
It has become desperately fashionable to be shouting from the sidelines about the horrors of ‘child abuse’ – it even has its own Twitter hash tag these days; #CSA. Full of spittle-flecked judgemental attitudes – it has provided the moral high ground for the same sort of people who used to scream blue murder about homosexuality. ‘Paedo’ has replaced ‘Homo’ as the insult of choice.
Anybody who expounds any view that deviates from the approved ‘castrate them all’; or who fails to cheer as yet another elderly celebrity is hounded through the civil courts in search of ‘closure’ (which is apparently not the same as justice, but involves hard cash being handed over for sexual experiences alleged to have occurred 40 years ago – there is another word for this practice, but to use it would be to denigrate an honourable profession); or who suggests calm debate on any of the issues, is subjected to a howl of outrage that includes barring them from their profession, or publishing their names and addresses so that other late night members of the sycophantic squad can vomit out their spittle lathered lunacy directly into their home.
None of those ‘moral crusaders’ is doing a damn thing towards actually physically protecting children. The High Priests of the movement are busy publicising their money making ‘child protection’ courses; the political wonks are using the uproar to further their political aims; journalists are hanging onto their jobs; the ambitious TV presenters are furthering their career – ‘I’ve got a great idea for a series; Your Big Fat Abused Child Next Door’; and the professional fund raisers are planning their next Gala in Monte Carlo.
Two weeks ago, the Lucy Faithful Foundation gathered together experts from across the globe to discuss practical methods of protecting children from sexual abuse. They sent out press releases to all the national media. Not one journalist bothered to attend. Not one journalist bothered to rehash the press release. The BBC promised to send someone to learn what practical measures could protect children – but at the last moment they were diverted to cover a glossy celebrity filled piece about ‘600 Doctors and Teachers caught up in child porn sting’.
Actually working with sex-offenders, talking to them, treating them as the individuals they are, seeking to change the focus of their sexual orientation, especially to help protect the 90% of abused children that weren’t the object of some celebrity’s attention; rebuilding damaged families – well, there’s no column inches in that is there?
If you want to do something more than speculate on which celebrity will be arrested next – you can donate to the work of the Lucy Faithful Foundation HERE.
- Moor Larkin
August 1, 2014 at 1:11 pm -
I first heard of the organisation in relation to their involvement the “Circles” projects, but had not known where the name Lucy Faithful stemmed from.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/making-friends-with-a-paedophile-we-cant-kill-him-so-we-help-him-not-to-do-it-again-8793019.html
“Circles UK has been running these groups quietly in Britain for more than 10 years, but is so concerned about the hysteria around the subject that it usually shies away from publicity. While befriending paedophiles may be a hard sell to the tabloid press, the statistics show that it works. A review of a Circles project in the South-east found that none of its 71 past clients had made another contact offence over a four-and-a-half-year period. A control group of 71 criminals with a similar offending history committed 10 new offences in the same period.”- Moor Larkin
August 1, 2014 at 3:34 pm -
That should be Faithfull…
- Rightwinggit
August 2, 2014 at 4:16 pm -
Researched, I concur.
- Rightwinggit
- Moor Larkin
- Alexander Baron
August 1, 2014 at 1:27 pm -
Shouldn’t that be an unsung heroine, so as not to be politically correct.
- VftS
August 1, 2014 at 2:02 pm -
Alexander Baron August 1, 2014 at 1:27 pm
Shouldn’t that be an unsung heroine, so as not to be politically correct.
========================================
Unsung shero?- Moor Larkin
August 1, 2014 at 3:35 pm -
Shero … I like it.
- Moor Larkin
- Gil
August 1, 2014 at 2:41 pm -
It looks like a worthwhile organisation and also seems to put its money to good use. The Charity Commission website shows that it puts 93% of its spending towards charitable activities, as against 75% for the NSPCC.
- Moor Larkin
August 1, 2014 at 3:50 pm -
I wonder what the % is if you remove the Call Centre element. I seem to recall the landlady explaining that the NSPCC actually does nothing except refer caller to the Social services, and conduct seminars. Napac seems to have based it’s charity on the same model.
Fings aint wot they used to be:
https://archive.org/stream/crueltymanactual00londrich#page/160/mode/2up
- Moor Larkin
- Carol42
August 1, 2014 at 2:45 pm -
Good to know that some people are on the right lines. From past experience in this area I have often thought the those with such inclinations but who would never act on them have, due to are the publicity and hysteria, that is it far more ‘normal’ and common than they thought. This is a dangerous path as in their minds it is not as deviant as they thought.
- Demelza
August 1, 2014 at 3:56 pm -
I was already annoyed with the MSM, and their interchangeable use of “paedophile” and “child abuser”. And then I came across this podcast http://goo.gl/7D62w5 which tells the story of a teenage American boy who recognises the stirrings of paedophilia, and the struggle he and his mother go through trying to get help.
The four new horsemen of the Apocalypse: Terrorism; Paedophilia; Illegal Immigration and Copyright Piracy
- Jacqui Thornton
August 1, 2014 at 4:36 pm -
So pleased you have picked up on this too. When I read the NSPCC Facebook post about the 400 children who were rescued from child abuse, my blood started to boil at the way they manipulated the story to their own glorification. People were congratulating them for saving the 400… they had not even had anything to do with the operation and yet seemed happy to bask in the praise without putting anyone straight.
I posted them a question:
“Have 400 children actually been physically rescued in this operation, and if so, are they now safe somewhere in care?”
They replied:
“NSPCC Hi Jacqui. The 400 children figure referrs to them being protected. They were not in need of rescuing. Many thanks”THEY WERE NOT IN NEED OF RESCUING!!!!!
An hour later, they added:
“NSPCC Hi Jacqui We don’t know the details of the NCA operation but where children were in the care, custody or control of those arrested they will have been taken into the care of the authorities.”How much of an admission of manipulating information fed to the general public do people need to see through this organisation?
The posts can still be seen on the NSPCC Facebook Page. I have screen shot them for future reference should they ever drop off a cliff…Keep up the good work Anna, in a world that appears to have gone stark raving bonkers you help me keep the faith!
- Moor Larkin
August 1, 2014 at 5:22 pm -
I once asked them on Twitter about their “opinion” concerning all the Child Abuse story-books bending the shelves of my local WH Smith. They responded with something to the effect that they had no comment to make on that subject; I have a feeling they may have said they “had no policy on it”, but I might be making that bit up. Don’t think I kept a copy of the exchange when I deleted myself off twitter though.
There was an NSPCC guy on Spiked comments recently, with his organisation being mostly insulted, so they seem to like social media. Better than getting their hands dirty I guess.
- EyesWideShut
August 1, 2014 at 5:42 pm -
Back in the 70s, there was a sub-genre of Nazi-exploitation books which purported to be “memoirs” with titles like “House of Dolls”. I was too young to have any interest in them, but I recall they all featured SS brothels in concentration camps, with the inmates being drawn from the female prisoners. However, they were never regarded as mainstream and WH Smith would certainly not have had entire shelves entitled “Painful Lives” devoted to them. They faded out in the 80s. Years later I remember idly reading something in the LRB or such like to the effect that there is no evidence of Nazi brothels etc. Concentration camp guards were occasionally supplied with visits by local hookers, but certainly no “Joy Division”. To cut a long story short, it was clear to me even as a child that these books served no purpose except to titillate the reader, under a fig-leaf of “moral outrage.”
Something very strange over the last couple decades when bookstores are coming down with what seems the same book in 20 -40 versions: all soft-pastel cover, big-eyed blonde child looking mournfully to camera, or alternately hunched over with their hands across their eyes and a title like “Daddy, Please Stop it”, or “She Sold Me For A Bag of Chips.” You can’t say this is consciousness-raising about a massive and hitherto invisible social evil. Something else is going on here, and I suspect it is not at all wholesome.
- GD
August 1, 2014 at 7:10 pm -
I read “House of Dolls” aged about 12 (my rather prim, proper and uptight) Aunt donated a staggering amount of books to a church auction that my mother felt a somewhat righteous, need to suppress, it was one of them.
Even at the time it struck me as odd that the book claimed to be derived from the diary of a Jewish girl in a concentration camp, and written (as I recall) at least partly in the first person, yet ends with her walking resolutely into the electrified fence in the deserted small hours…that did not make sense, and if the rest were true, would it not have been more respectful to end with a third person epilogue?
It intrigued me since and only quite recently I checked the back story. It really does seem to be another case of “real abused girl, sexually enhanced”, and nobody in the camps ever had it quite so lucky as in the fictional “House of Dolls”. Dani was a real person who lived and died in the camps in far worse, but less sexual and sensational conditions…
Of course, she probably did not have to have sex with anyone, so that’s all right then…
:o(
- Moor Larkin
August 2, 2014 at 11:48 am -
Your Aunt? Come to think of it, almost all child and sex abuse fiction seems to be aimed at the female market.
http://retardedkingdom.blogspot.co.uk/2013/11/viva-hate.html- EyesWideShut
August 2, 2014 at 12:59 pm -
Good point. In more innocent times, there was a whole slew of “bodice-rippers” aimed at female readers, “Forever Amber” etc, in which the heroines were constantly being carried off, raped, and inducted into high-class prostitution. They lapped them up during the last war I suppose if you go all the way back to Jane Austen, she was taking the piss out of late c18 Gothica, much milder than the c2o variety, but nevertheless out of the same stable. Or that silly cow in ” Jane Eyre” who announces that “she dotes upon corsairs”, a reference to a vogue for pirates of the Spanish main having their way with virginal passengers aboard a hijacked vessel.
But how we got from that, which was a bit daftie, to Misery Lit with its grotesquely explicit tropes, I really don’t know. The commercial imperative, I suppose. “Here’s more of what you like, with added extra ingredients.”
- GD
August 2, 2014 at 4:48 pm -
@Moor My AUNT…about 4′ 2″ hennaed hair, peep toe shoes and face of disapproving prune…
Other titles included “The Scourge of the Swastika” and most Harold Robbins up to that point in time…
Not exactly female orientated bodice rippers…the dichotomy is quite unaccountable…and I benefited from the most comprehensive theoretical sex education on earth through that summer holidays left alone in the house…
@EyesWidesShut Misery Lit seems to have multi tentacled origins. Some reaching back to Dickens himself (founder of Urania House), and others to the “penny dreadfuls” aimed at enticing the innocent into at least having SOMETHING to do with born again Christianity. I have never understood it. I have had the “lived experiences” that by sheer luck (remember, luck comes in two distinct kinds) put me in the right places at the right times, to be the veritable Barbara Cartland of misery lit…
…and, quite objectively, I would have thought that I was NO SHIRKER when it came to moaning, whining and expessing self pity about that…but therein lies the rub…”objectively”, I could never quite kill the objectivity enough to write a proper misery memoir, which is a VERY GOOD THING…because if I did I don’t think I could ever face anyone again after it was published. I do not much care who knows where I have been and what I have done (I am so *odd* in the present tense and to the naked eye that it makes no difference), but I DO DRAW THE LINE at being seen to put my name to 500 pages of “pity poor me and praise whichever Lord got me the book deal”…trust me, it is *not* that nobody ever offered…
- Moor Larkin
August 2, 2014 at 6:50 pm -
@ Not exactly female orientated bodice rippers…the dichotomy is quite unaccountable @
Things are often fifty shades of grey and rarely black and white. I wonder if anyone’s ever analysed the sexual leaning of those who found/find the Marquis de Sade’s literary efforts to be of such great import to 2oth Century literature. Not to mention what segment of society it was that formed the primary buying market for Lady Chatterley’s Lover. I guess I should google but I think it’s a generally accepted fact that men like to look at it and women like to read about it.
- Moor Larkin
- EyesWideShut
- Moor Larkin
- eric hardcastle
August 4, 2014 at 4:05 pm -
Barbara Cartland made a fortune with this formula.
- GD
- EyesWideShut
- Jim Bates
August 2, 2014 at 12:36 am -
“were in the care, custody or control of those *ARRESTED*” ???
So no actual convictions then?
Has the word ‘proof’ been removed from the language?- Moor Larkin
August 3, 2014 at 9:06 am -
An illuminating case study here:
http://www.frg.org.uk/ParentsForum/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=157&sid=234842b88bca47605a25132911f65c35
“Proof” will lie in images, I imagine.
- Moor Larkin
- Moor Larkin
- Giles2008
August 1, 2014 at 5:03 pm - GD
August 1, 2014 at 6:21 pm -
Thou shalt not, under any circumstances, ever take a look at a bad thing that hurts innocent people and strive to do anything that is sensible, practical, or even actually works, but only by accident, about it on pain of media excommunication.
Thank you for bringing Lucy Faithful to my attention…I have seen so much that is rotten and wrong in the world, it gets so that, whenever I see a new wrong and rotten thing I seem to be able to guess what else it may connect to based on points of similarity, before checking with rather frightening accuracy…it is a first to have been able to discover a good thing and connect that, in the same way, to the only person I ever encountered in Social Services that I m certain beyond doubt was truly decent. Sutre enough, run through Lucy Faithfull’s bio and there are several points of connection.
What a pity more of the world cannot be that way?
Lady Faithfull was, of course, right. You do not reduce any traumatic abuse by just “treating and protecting” the victims, even if that “treatment and protection” is nowhere near as abusive as the existing care system (within which the statistical likelihood of re-victimisation increases alarmingly anyway). Most pedophiles do not want to be pedophiles at all, much less to hurt anyone, far better to protect children by working with that part of the person they are than by blindly persecuting and alienating them.
…It’s common sense, the pedophiles who relish being pedophiles and do not care who they hurt are people who would be harmful even if they were not pedophiles (cue MWT accusing me of endorsing pedophillia AGAIN just in time to present an excellent illustration of how that might work )…
But ironically, the only part of that thinking to take hold in the media is it’s distortion to claiming that consenting sex workers will benefit if their clients are persecuted and coerced into pseudo rehabilitation…
Story of my life, every time someone gets the RIGHT idea, that will do some good, somebody else will be found making a name for themselves by distorting and deploying it to do terrible harm for personal gain…
Edging towards my 60s I realise I am STILL waiting on the steps for the friendly sheriff with the slight receding hairline standing between him and drop dead gorgeous, and the girlfriend who runs a coffee shop to show up, wrap me in a blanket, hand me a mug of cocoa and tell me I am safe and everything will be all right now…
I don’t think I would survive facing the fact that sheriff is never really coming…
…and the world goes on finding ingenious new ways to f*ck up kids…
- JimmyGiro
August 1, 2014 at 8:11 pm -
A related interview between Stefan Molyneux and Erin Pizzey; in which Erin, one of the first to set up shelters for the abused in marriages, was herself threatened by the militant Marxist-Feminists of the 70s, for not making war against men:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_lxoStFBrjo
To be virtuous, takes effort; to be pious, does not. All good causes will therefore be vulnerable to Cuckoos, who displace the good with the greedy.
- EyesWideShut
August 1, 2014 at 10:15 pm -
Here, here.
The “pious” are all around us: the piously politically correct, the piously socially correct, the piously economically correct.
It means no more than mouthing the current group consensus, whether or not you have an eye on the main chance, or are just going along with it because you can’t be arsed.
It is bloody hard to be virtuous. There are no manuals for that.
- Jacqu1999
August 2, 2014 at 12:08 pm -
Excellent video, thanks for posting.
- Jacqu1999
- EyesWideShut
- JaundicedView
August 1, 2014 at 8:14 pm -
Forget feeble, learned or loony Lefties with no Right wing BIG BIZ bent-media backing.
The NSPCC, like the whole Right wing Child Abuse Mass Panic BIG BIZ, 1978-ongoing unchecked – is also ‘Market Led’.
http://www.kingofhits.co.uk/index.php?option=com_kunena&Itemid=65&func=view&catid=2&id=118361
- Pete
August 1, 2014 at 9:05 pm -
Thanks for posting this Anna, I shall certainly be studying their website closely.
- EyesWideShut
August 1, 2014 at 10:02 pm -
Had a bit of time to follow the website links, including the newspaper articles discussing the work of The Foundation. A lot of them from The Independent – interesting. A blast from the past: an attitude of mind we seem to have lost, one which focuses on the genuine (not fantasy) harm BUT also focuses on how we can stop it happening. As opposed to knee-jerk reactions along the lines of “Hang em and flog ’em” or even more disturbingly as Carol and Jacqui have pointed out, the utterly bankrupt notion that “We have plucked those kids out of a bad situation – who cares what happens to them next? If they end up in Care and get more of the same, or something else just as bad. At least we charged in, all guns blazing, so I don’t have to bother about it. There was an instant reaction. Wham-bam.”
Very impressed by the volunteers who worked with people who rang the helpline and admitted they were close to the edge. it takes some courage, humanity and real faith to be there on the end of the line, as opposed to saying ” So you admit to it? Why don’t you just kill yourself then?” I feel personally humbled reading about them. Love the article Moor linked to.
- GD
August 2, 2014 at 12:06 am -
It is all a bit like…”As long as I get credit (+salary and expenses) for rescuing them who the feck really cares how it ends?”
- Surreptitious Evil
August 2, 2014 at 7:02 pm -
Although it is nothing to do with the OP, I have been amazed by the difference in the attitude from the volunteers (both Games and Host City) for the Commonwealth Games – uniformly nice and enthusiastic, competence variable as usual – as opposed to the paid staff. Surly, indifferent and officious.
I’ll note that I didn’t actually attend any venue – I’ve merely worked in the City throughout the Games period.
- GD
- The Jannie
August 2, 2014 at 10:40 am -
“All good causes will therefore be vulnerable to Cuckoos, who displace the good with the greedy.”
Thank you, Jimmy, I’ll save that for later.
- margaret jervis
August 2, 2014 at 10:41 am -
NO.
- Surreptitious Evil
August 2, 2014 at 7:00 pm -
“NO” to what? A bit of context would be helpful unless you are just trolling.
- Margaret Jervis
August 4, 2014 at 7:04 pm -
@surreptitious No to giving money to the Faithfull project and anything associated. Lucy Faithfull was commandeered to the Ray Wyre cause when she became a bit doddery- the entire enterprise is wrong-headed. Goes back a long way.
You clearly have little knowledge of Anna’s site and my work if you think I’m ‘trolling’. Had only a mobile when first commented – felt it necessary to saything decisive but minimalist.
- Margaret Jervis
- Surreptitious Evil
- Pericles
August 3, 2014 at 11:16 pm -
Another brilliant piece. ΠΞ
{ 41 comments… read them below or add one }