“If we do not change the way we use this material in court we risk inviting a torrent of new claims. Our enemies will begin to realise that our justice system is an open goal and come rushing with spurious claims knowing the Government will have to pay out. Even more serious, genuine claimants have no hope of getting their claims properly examined.”

So spake Robert Buckland, the MP for Swindon, a part-time judge and a member of the Commons Justice Select Committee.

It is good to know that someone is aware of the dangers to the British purse if we mess with the historic rules of Justice. The Tax payers Alliance is up in arms too:

“It is extremely worrying if that problem is getting worse, and more claims are coming in. It makes it clearer than ever that action is needed so that taxpayers’ money is not paid out unnecessarily.”

They are of course, speaking of the danger inherent in a system which seeks to pay out compensation to ‘alleged’ victims in an out of court settlement rather than go to the expense, and face the difficulties of testing evidence in court – but only where those alleged victims are nasty alleged terrorists that nobody has any sympathy for.

A pity that our politicians and the Tax payers Alliance are not equally incensed by the prospect of genuine victims of sexual abuse getting their claims properly heard amongst the torrent of ‘Savile’ related claims that  are currently fueling the Paedo scare. There is every chance that BBC Licence fee payers will end up footing a multi-million pound bill as ‘closure’ for the emotive outpouring of hundreds of middle aged fantasists, among which there may even be some genuine cases of child abuse. Cases which will be treated with the same scorn by a public incensed to find that they are watching ‘The Great Escape’ for the fifth time that week, owing to the severe budget cuts imposed by a BBC seen as an ‘open goal’….

It is a hypocrisy not far removed from that which allows us to munch on that nice fat cow with the big eyes, but recoil in horror at that thought of minced up Dobbin with the equally big eyes.

We have overdosed on emoting this week, with the sad news that Frances Andrade’s latest suicide bid was successful. I say ‘latest bid’, for buried in the media reports was the information that Frances had made six attempts on her own life in the previous months. The fact that the seventh and successful attempt coincided with her having given evidence in the trial of Michael and Hilary Brewer a week beforehand on charges of historic sexual abuse led to claims that it was the interrogation by the Defence Barrister, Kate Blackwell QC, that was responsible for her death. Who would the media have blamed had any of the earlier attempts been successful? The teacher who had gone unbidden to the Police after she had learned that Frances had engaged in sexual activity with one or more of the Brewer’s at an age when she could not have given informed consent?

Frances was obviously deeply unhappy at the prospect of the forthcoming trial, as well she might be. 20, 30, and 40 years later, a lot of us (and a lot of rock groupies) may well be reflecting on sexual experiences that could be described as ‘sexual abuse’ on the grounds that we were not of an age to give informed consent.  Although I did in fact wait until I was 16 to so do, I should be appalled if in conversation with a friend I had confided under aged sexual experiences – only to find that my ‘friend’ had marched off to the police and laid a formal complaint, leaving me forced to relieve those experiences in the full glare of publicity and the unforgiving nature of an adversarial court process.

Needless to say, Frances’ death was scarcely a day old before those who would dismantle our ancient system of Justice were out and about on the airwaves.

Sir, Is the present adversarial court system competent to handle sexual abuse offences? The recent tragic death of an abuse victim after a gruelling cross-questioning in court suggests not. The legal mind appears not to grasp the psychological complexities involved. The judge in this case emphasising that the defence barrister had acted entirely professionally suggests that there is little understanding of the pressing need for change. The adversarial court system is a strong disincentive for abuse victims to speak out. A society cannot be healthy when the law obstructs justice and truth.

Marjorie Orr
Director, Accuracy About Abuse
London NW3

We already have a system whereby alleged sexual abuse victims are given additional weight to their evidence by the so called ‘trawling method’ of bringing forward other complainants who may or may not be genuine, but the sheer weight of numbers is believed to overcome the historic need for corroborated evidence. The victim’s identity is shrouded in secrecy. They are allowed to give evidence via video link, or hidden behind a curtain. To say that we should dismantle the system by which the defence can rigorously examine the evidence for which his client is threatened with jail is a step too far.  We are being groomed to accept it by the media though.

The problem lies partly in the fact that the media has groomed us to believe that the only help society can give victims of sexual abuse is either a highly publicised trial of the accused or a cheque in lieu of. It is a paltry sticking plaster for a deep wound, and one which says more about our need to feel that we are doing something than any genuine concern for the victims. How much better to put the money currently being consumed by highly paid lawyers, and funds for compensation payments, into dedicated mental health services? Both for the perpetrators and the Victims?

We are putting millions of pounds into giving Sky News footage of angry protestors kicking the sides of prison vans, yet precious few pennies into funding the sort of dedicated therapy that might do more good than forcing reluctant witnesses like Frances Andrade into feeding our apparently unremitting appetite for armchair emoting and righteousness.

It was the Barrister Helena Kennedy, QC, who was reported to have said even if the perpetrator is convicted victims do not always find relief: “Criminal processes do not provide the answer to individual pain.”

By all means rage at those individuals who prey sexually on children,  they are undoubtedly criminally wrong; but do not be fooled into believing that you are really doing anything for their victims – though you might arguably be preventing another victim for the following x number of years.  What the victims really need is care and compassion and dedicated psychotherapy in an intensely private setting, and that is something that as a society we seem to have no appetite to demand.

Last time I checked, there was but one such psychotherapist in the whole of Wales and her waiting list ran for years rather than months. In the meantime, her putative clients had to be ’counseled’ by a cheque through the post from the taxpayers of Britain via the Criminal Compensation Board.

Funding such a scheme properly rather than paying civil compensation would neatly remove the suspicion than some claimants are only interested in the cheque.

I love the BBC
February 16, 2013 at 00:07

For anyone who really believes that allegations of sexual abuse and rape
are dealt with correctly and sensibly by the police, they should try Googling
Nadine Milroy-Sloan. If they have forgotten the sordid entirely bogus details
of the rape that never was then the Guardian articles are as good a place to
start as any.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2004/feb/07/ukcrime.deabirkett

The roles of Max Clifford and his shady paymaster were never fully exposed,
nor were the police ever asked to explain their pursuit of the Hamiltons
without first examining the evidence which should have knocked it on the head.
At least they had the sense to drop it before it got to court.

I love the BBC
February 15, 2013 at 23:51

It seems the greatest of ironies to me that Frances Andrade is now viewed
as the ultimate victim of sexual abuse when she herself was adamant that it
was the last thing she wanted to be seen as. She did not see herself as a
victim. She had told the woman who went to the police that she would like the
matter to be dealt with internally, by the school that employed him. So the
court case she was persuaded to enter into by the police was pointless, in my
opinion. Unless they seriously thought that he was still likely to be cajoling
pretty young things into his private rooms and they wanted to protect
them.
What about his wife? The allegations against her are bizarre. The
only snippets I have managed to find out about the actual charge against her
are so monstrously unlikely that I too would have wanted some very robust
questioning had I been on the jury. I will be surprised if she doesn’t
appeal.

Frances claimed in court she had been abused by an uncle from the age of 8,
although her son claims it was from the age of 3. She was clearly able to
overcome all her difficulties and have a happy home life until that fateful
decision by a fairly new-found friend. She thought she had a relationship with
Brewer and it would seem his wife thought so too – only in the light of later
‘understanding’ did she term him a paedophile. Of course he manipulated her
and abused the trust placed in him as a teacher – from comments I have read
elsewhere, it would seem it was rife both at that school and at other elite
music establishments. But it’s also clear that Franceswas still returning to
him voluntarily after she was 18, and legally an adult. I strongly suggest
that her own conflicted feelings about the nature of the relationship played a
role in her repeated attempts to take her own life, which apparently started
after the police investigation began.

If it had not been for Brewer’s previous admitted sexual relationship with
another pupil, for which he resigned, then there is a chance I think that none
of the charges would have been proven.

Mina Field February 15, 2013 at 22:31

@ Voltaire.
You have obviously looked at all that long and hard and I
salute you for it. But in answer to your reference to Levitt’s opinion – I
believe she was wrong and that her reasoning utterly flawed. Whilst she can be
forgiven for not looking too closely at the elements you’ve highlighted –
that, she would consider to be the job of the defence; she set great store by
one or more of these people volunteering to her the statements, “I would have
been prepared to support a prosecution had I known of the others’. Either she
forgot that by the time they were talking to her we had been bombarded with
Savile propaganda night and day for three months, and so of course these
people knew what to say (probably learnt a lot through their consultations
with Pannone or RJW for a start), or she was deliberately sweeping this under
the carpet to further her agenda of ‘being seen to do something’.

I’ve just been reading a QC’s blog about the Brewer case and it contained
the line ‘ We are all one false allegation away from a jury’s verdict’.

Voltaire February 16, 2013 at 00:58

@Mina Field:

“We are all one false allegation away from a jury’s verdict”

So does this QC believe the accusations against Mr Brewer were false?

“or she was deliberately sweeping this under the carpet to further her
agenda of ‘being seen to do something’”

That was exactly the way I felt about the report, I thought she was wrong
and her reasoning utterly flawed as well. Notice how blatantly she sweeps
over the glaringly obvious fact that ‘Ms G’ has been obviously lying her ass
off? And tries to justify the fact she has changed her story at least 2
times with the stupid excuse that “DC S had – apparently for good reason –
not told Ms G the nature of the investigation she was conducting, and it may
be that Ms G had not understood what it was that she was being asked about.
It is apparent that Ms G is in poor health and it is possible that this may
have a bearing on matters”. As ‘Ms E’ appears to have spoken to the police
about her incident before ‘Ms G’ and ‘Ms E’ found out about the
investigation from her sister ‘Ms D’, who was tracked down by the police but
also told them that she had already been made aware of the issue having
witnessed it being “discussed on the Friends Reunited website” by ‘Ms G’,
i’m pretty sure ‘Ms G’ was already well aware of “the nature of the
investigation” so had no real need for “DC S” to inform her.

And does she honestly think in her heart of hearts that the complaints
made by ‘Ms A’, ‘Ms E’ and ‘Ms G’ were either “serious” or “credible”? Ha ha
ha, i’d be embarrassed to go bothering the police with any of those
complaints, i’m not even sure ‘Ms A’s’ would even constitute a crime and ‘Ms
G’s’ would definitely not. And I think ‘Ms E’s’ is rather too much of a
coincidence and too convenient, don’t you? Never told anyone but her sister?
Insisting on anonymity on ITV Exposure because “her family don’t know about
the allegations”, sure it’s not because she claimed Jimmy Savile rang the
house in order to ‘groom’ her and her mum answered and her mum will know
full well Jimmy Savile never ever rang the house? Just a thought…

Looks like the guy who plays Kevin Webster in Corrie is her next victim…
What is the world coming too…?

Mizz Mildred
February 15, 2013 at 13:05

All rather strange that I am reading Wolf Hall by Hilary Mantel on my
Kindle. We have Thomas Moore torturing/ burning heretics galore. Henry V111,
so ill informed about how the sex of a baby is arrived at. Lots of schisms to
play around with. The author gets inside everyone’s head including Thomas
Cromwell. You had to watch your back in those days and guard your head, limbs
and intestines. The same as teachers and care workers do these days and
priests , choirmasters, tutors of various sorts, scout leaders, and those who
take in children and those celebrities of course. At first light this morning,
when reading……I thought we are back in the days of the desire to escape
purgatory and get Brownie points for heavenly admission, by being believer/
informer or torturer of some sort. For heavenly admission, substitute money,
or a fervent desire for revenge or jealousy, publicity, or a tendency to go
with the flow. No asking the right questions about truth and integrity,
thorough investigation, and the mental history of the accuser too. The more
‘techy’ we get the more we seem not cope with sound bites and superficial
interpretations of circumstances. Court proceedings are cherry picked for
sensation mongering, with knee jerk reactions all round. I think we are
travelling backwards in a maelstrom of inventions not always used wisely.

Moor
Larkin February 15, 2013 at 07:40

Anyone know the context of this 70′s Bizarro?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GQ7t9llZE1A

Makes Clunk-Click look like Bible-study…….

mewsical February 15, 2013 at 02:12

Bears remembering that “Lolita” was published around this time. Humbert
Humbert for the defense!

Voltaire February 15, 2013 at 09:19

@Mewsical:

Lolita is a fictional story though isn’t it? I did wonder how much the
character of ‘Humbert Humbert’ was actually based on the feelings of the
writer himself though.

He should have wrote the story from Lolita’s perspective too, though
later on in the story in might well have read sort of like one of these
‘abuse’ memoirs, I bet earlier on in the book it would probably have been
more like ‘saw Humbert by the pool today in this trunks – phwarr’, lol (as
she actually did appear to quite like him at first , before her mum died and
he started controlling her and ruining her life)…

Stephen Davies February 14, 2013 at 19:45

Anna I don’t disagree with the thrust of your argument at all —I know
nothing about therapy but I like to imagine I do know a bit about the practice
of law —at its best and at its most destructive —-at its best in my opinion
nothing but nothing reinforces and remedies the ills of Society more
completely —its trite jurisprudence to say the proceedings must be open and
many other things including the absence of political agends and proper
weighting of evidence—those things should be a given —as should restraint in
cross examination—-It shouldn’t be an Inquisition with a vituperous tongue as
a substitute for hot tongs or a ducking stool to test the truth of evidence
—can you withstand the emotional pain? —-good you are clearly telling the
truth coz only a dishonest man would wince as torture is applied.—Dishonest
men and women don’t worry—some of your Duncroft peers seem pretty brazen. I
think you sum up everything that was probably going through her mind prior to
trial —my exact similar assessment —I don’t just don’t seek to draw a
conclusion as many here seem prepared to do that because she may have been
accused of being a fantasist and found the stress of it intolerable it
indicates she was a fantasist —and sure if I feel strongly on the point its
probably because experience teaches me that the present system (and the way it
is moving more in the civil than the criminal courts) we are stripping away
the best of the old—rules of evidence,courtesy in the professions and much
else besides—-and bringing in much that is bad —indescrimate trawling, unsafe
presumption.and much else besides. Is it now time to throw in the towel and
accept state provided counselling as a substitute? —-well it was already
available probably but sorry I can’t accept that too readily as as the first
remedy of choice —-sure chokes off financial incentives —-sure may do much
good but loads of reasons why not —–in particular —enough resources —-and
present Society bears far to much resemblance to Brave New World —oh yea and
if you think provision of medical services is some how immune from political
influence any more than the Courts of Law —-some experience with an NHS Trust
for all its legal independence might disabuse you of such a notion —-and yes I
have pretty extensive experience of that as well as the Courts of law —–not as
a patient but being married to a consultant for many decades. I doubt the
political objective of restraining 14 year old groupies —the poltical agenda I
most readily identify as feminist —come to grips with rape law in Sweden as
illustrated by the the law and evidence in the Assange case to see where it
all might lead —read the transcipt of the decision in the Supreme Court
approving extradition —but read in particular the only dissenting judgement by
Gavin Lightman.

Mizz Mildred
February 14, 2013 at 15:36

I chanced on this site as well too (Stepen Davies) because it has helped me
to deal with my suspicions that porkies were being told about the extent of
Saville’s activities. Persons who appear to be on the side of paedophiles, are
not liked for their doubting opinions about some of the tales being told for
profit by dubious ‘victims’. The fact is, when we have more accurate
background information on such accusers of historic abuse, we may understand
more where they are coming from. I recall the cases, many years ago in the
North West, where accused men who had their lives wrecked by such accusations.
Later prison chit chat revealed some were innocent. My friend had a recent
emails from Australia about the same childrens home she and he brothers lived
in for part of their childhood, when mum died of TB. My friend was trawled by
police at the time the innocent men were on remand. Recently, due to the
Saville business, no less than 3 persons from Australia contacted her, as a
leader of a protest group about being trawled at that time, before the
internet was thought of! She is angry about this recent contact. No one from
this home was ever abused, that she knows of. It makes her so angry. So
nothing new about trawling for ‘victims ‘then. Our useless leaders pander to
the popular indignation about historic abuse. Mind the gap……which is there
because word slowly spreads about the pickings that can be had from such
‘fantasies’. Spoils it for the genuine cases.

Stephen Davies February 14, 2013 at 16:19

I no more approve of trawling indescriminately for evidence than I do the
use of emotive words at trial as a method of achieving Justice. That
innocent men go to jail is an obscenity —that someone might have killed
herself when I suspect there was no good reason for it had things been
handled differently is no less an obscenity —-the causation for both being
so far as I can see the game of competing subjective realities skillfully
painted no doubt by the professionals in the brightest colours for that is
how they are required to play the game if they wish to continue to put bread
into their and their families mouths.In fact I would say in the past
Prosecutors are generally more circumspect about obtaining a wrong
conviction than the Defence was intent on getting their Client off —now I
don’t know —–and yes I share the worry of the legal system being used as a
political bandwagon —-and yes there is more than ample evidence that it is
being so used.

Andrew Duffin
February 14, 2013 at 10:27

Well said.

And you didn’t even mention the current plans for secret courts, which will
make all this (and more) a hundred times worse.

It’s astonishing that such a thing could even be contemplated in our
country, until you look at the calibre of the current “leaders”.

carol42 February 14, 2013 at 00:19

I for one will be spitting tacks if the BBC pays out our licence money on
unprovan allegations which don’t seem to amount to all that much anyway and
from what I have read here some have been shown to be false where Savile is
concerned. As he left most of his estate to charity I think they might have a
very hard job getting any of that. Charities are notorious for fighting and
usually keeping any legacy left to them. Maybe it is just me but I cannot
understand why grown women feel traumatized by what seems to be fairly trivial
groping 40 or so years ago, don’t they have a life to get on with? I had my
share of unwanted groping and I guess most girls growing up in the 60s and 70s
did but certainly didn’t think of it as any more than a fact of life, soon
forgotten. You cannot live your life like a perpetual teenager.

mewsical February 14, 2013 at 01:44

Most of the charity money was distributed once the allegations came home
to roost, so nowt left there.
To address your point about fairly trivial
groping, at least from the perspective of having closely observed the
Duncroft claims pretty much from onset, and having been at the school from
late 62 to mid-64, with a couple of weeks here and there until summer 1965,
I believe there is more resentment towards Duncroft myself (which exposed
them to this alleged sexual predator), and the Savile complaints were simply
a means to the end, i.e. revenge on Duncroft and the system that landed them
there in the first place.

I wasn’t exactly delighted to have landed at Duncroft either, but my
attitude is you get through things, learn from them, and put them behind
you. If some of these girls hadn’t ended up at Duncroft, my bet is that they
could have gone through a lot worse than Jimmy Savile dropping by with cigs
and records.. By and large, it wasn’t fair and it wasn’t justice either, but
you can’t make Jimmy Savile responsible for your anger towards the
authorities, let alone so many years later. There’s no closure here.

Stephen Davies
February 14, 2013 at 12:35

As always Mewsical on the button —-I chanced on this site because of
Savile and Duncroft because mainstram media reports just didn’t ring
totally true. Savile being the largest single rapist and paedophile in the
history of England no more stands up at this point in time than Andrade
being a fantascist because her teacher wasn’t convicted of rape. The
issues raised are way broader than just individuals —gripes taken out of
all historic context and remedy sought in a culture where everything can
be reduced to a monetary value. The law provides for breaches of the law
—- just narrow issues when the real gripe lies in a broader context. I
admire both you and Ms Raccoon for making such a go of things having been
to Duncroft —all boarding schools in the 1960s were miserable unjust
places staffed by too large a proportion of what I see now as pretty
pathetic charachters some of whom were pretty obviosly immature in various
ways including their sexual preferences that made them seek an
institutional life amongst children rather than the outside world—didn’t
matter whether the state or ones parents put one there and paid a fortune
for it —–and sure they caused damage with use of their authority whether
their actions were criminal or not. But there were others who were
different —Miss Jones at Duncroft seems to probably have been one of them
in your and Ms Raccoon’s case —perhaps not someone one might choose to
have authority over one —but then one can’t choose on’s parents
either.

Moor Larkin February 14, 2013 at 13:30

@ all boarding schools in the 1960s were miserable unjust places
staffed by too large a proportion of what I see now as pretty pathetic
charachters some of whom were pretty obviosly immature in various ways
including their sexual preferences that made them seek an institutional
life amongst children rather than the outside world @

Moor “If” than “Goodbye Mr. Chips” then…………

Stephen Davies
February 14, 2013 at 15:43

Absolutly right though the few Mr Chips I knew had a lastingly good
effect on me. Perhaps even moor (gosh we have to stop punning)
Shawshank Redemption —-As one International Arms Smuggler I knew once
remarked ‘well if its time in jail in the USA it will be easier than
Public School’

Anna
Raccoon February 14, 2013 at
15:59

‘All boarding schools in the 1960s were miserable unjust places
staffed by too large a proportion of what I see now as pretty pathetic
characters some of whom were pretty obviosly immature in various ways
including their sexual preferences that made them seek an institutional
life amongst children rather than the outside world’.

Trust
me on this one – as a veteran of more boarding schools than I can be
bothered to look up at the moment, Duncroft was a beacon of liberal
thought compared to some I have endured. I can only say that if those
who would have the world believe that it was some Victorian workhouse
staffed by sadists and perverts had had the misfortune to have, as I
did, a Father who was prepared to spend thousands of pounds a year
having his daughter educated in some of the most famous boarding schools
in the country, they too would have looked back on Duncroft fondly…

I can only assume that their previous life must have been one of such
ease, indulgence and privilege that Duncroft seemed an unbearable
interlude in their life.

Wot? No 2 mile cross country run before you were allowed breakfast?
Allowed to see your family more than once every three months? As many
letters as you wanted from family and friends? No corporal punishment?
Television? A record player? Pop posters on the wall? No enforced church
on Sunday? Wear your own clothes? Sweets? Cigarettes? A platoon of
visitors anxious to check that you were being treated well?

I can’t say I was pleased at being punished for what I had done – but
really, some of these hard done by trollops should have had a spell in a
1960s public boarding school, that’d have stopped them whining about
Duncroft.

Cardboard box? Tha’r had it easy girl….! (Old joke)

Stephen Davies
February 14, 2013 at 18:15

Ahhh Ms Raccoon as I remark below few who did not experienc an
expensive private education in the 1960s quite understand the rather
mixed legacy it bequeaths to one. For me part of that legacy (a good
part) was treating some teachers I started to have concerns about who
taught my children as a dog treates a lamp post—- with a confidence
certainty and enjoyment that only an old much experienced dog
takes—not so very different than an experienced advocate takes apart a
case—just the threat of invective being adequate —I did so in the hope
that no socially retarded but ‘respectable’ teacher (my imagination
never ran to his wife being included as well though) forming a view
that there wouldn’t be too many consequences if they ever thought of
chancing their arm in exerting unwanted influence whether of a sexual
nature or otherwise. Easy to see the things that unsettle a child when
you pick them up every day and can stamp on them quickly if the need
arises— way more difficult when the child is on his own for long
periods of time —way too vulnerable a scenario as I know coutesy of my
expensive education —not in actual fact that nothing too much too dire
happened to me but I heard of and witnessed things that were far from
appropriate Gosh I hear you mutter or the French equivalent —-but it
worked a treat and many of the teachers found my attitude a
hoot—particularly those who had been to public school —perhaps wishing
they were in a position to do what I had the appetite for against
colleagues who hadn’t moved with the times and hadn’t realised
teaching doesn’t give any proprietory interest in a child —no
substitute for the protection of a child than a parent who knows the
ropes —-and on that topic my admiration for your literary skills is
only exceeded by how you seem to have dealt with elements of your
childhood. I’m pleased Duncroft wasn’t so bad for you and I think I am
right in saying Mewsical also and I am more than prepared to believe
that Duncoft was far from the image painted by Newsnight —if I wasn’t
I would be have David Ickes (spelling?) on favorites rather than your
own –my brother in the states has started to follow you also.

JuliaM February
14, 2013 at 05:47

“You cannot live your life like a perpetual teenager.”

Today’s adults seem determined to prove you wrong there!

Mina Field February 13, 2013 at 20:35

Nothing much to add to all the interesting posts above except that the
‘upsetting’ robust cross examination of the complainant was specifically with
regard to the rape charge, for which he was found not guilty. It would seem
that the jury musn’t have found her credible on that particular allegation
because if they had they wouldn’t have let the efforts of Defence counsel get
in the way.

Stephen Davies February 13, 2013 at 22:03

Is not being credible on one count but credible on one or more others of
a similar nature amount to the right to be accused of being a fantasist? and
even if it does (which I personally would dispute) how does the use of such
language further the interests of ascertaining an objective truth?

Mina Field
February 14, 2013 at 06:21

@Stephen Davies
When it comes to these charges and the differences
between them, particularly with regard to sentencing, I don’t think they
can be loosely classed as of ‘a similar nature’ This is like saying a
petty thief may as well be accused of robbery. We didn’t hear the trial
but it is conceivable and even likely that her evidence about the alleged
rape sounded fantastical and improbable, and in that case the Defendant
has every right to have his legal advocate saying so.
As someone else
has stated, the remark by the judge about ‘catharsis’ suggests there was
much more said than we know about. Frankly, I find even the few reported
responses to the Defence QC a bit on the odd side.

Stephen Davies
February 14, 2013 at 11:21

Well it appears none of us know all the details but the overall
general support for the English legal system is touching —but what if
the use of the emotive word fantascist by the defence barrister was
unduly influential on a sensitive witness in giving her evidence or when
uttered so definitively by a senior barrister led the jury to acquit.
When I started in practice a young barrister would find himself quietly
ostracised in chambers if he directly accussed a Policeman of lying —-I
believe you to be mistaken officer was acceptable —-you are lying
officer was not. Same effect at the end if Plod was lying through his
teeth or mistaken the defendant wasn’t convicted —just it was achieved
with less collateral damage .Can we really say that justice is now of a
higher quality now that every policeman is routinely accussed as being a
racist and there is now something of a burden to disprove that
presumption.
There is another factor which some might want to
consider as possibly relevant —-the English Court System was devised
essentially on the basis that justice was administered at a local
level–people knew their own patch —-be they Magistrates, Circuit judges
, Jurors , Solicitors who practiced in the County town Barristers who
practiced on one particular Circuit or the local Police who brought the
prosecution —that may have been a little too cosy in some respects but
the corollary was that it did engender responsibility and caution —
words like fantasist used with a little more caution and restraint
mindful that anyone uttering them would need to be pretty sure they were
on the button or risk his reputation —prosecutions brought mindful
perhaps of just the sort of direct local criticism with direct local
consequences if that sort of case was simply a ‘fantasy’ —-might such a
system have been a better ‘filter’ for historic sex offences than the
present? No outraged national court of public opinion to play up to or
manipulate—no national press utilising reports of legal cases as if
legal cases and those who participate in them were sports stars who
‘scored’ a brilliant goal —-got the ball in the net by great showmanship
—-now litigation is a headline grabbing game —’brilliant’ lawyers can
become national media stars —their ‘patch is national even international
—the arbiter of their behaviour the national press —not so dissimilar
perhaps to some other media stars.
The criminal law system has moved
more centrally and with it national politicians have greater control of
it and a greater ability to use it for their own ends. Was fantasist the
right word to use in the trial? Well I don’t know but what I am fairly
confident of the politicians will seize on the word for their own ends
—-that much beloved figure on this blog Vera Baird has already —-better
the emotive word had never been uttered in my opinion for the sake of
the Defendant —-and for the sake of the Court of public opinion who seem
to think it was right —–and need to agrre with it as totally justifyable
or disgraceful —-hard cases make bad law

Jonathan
Mason February 14, 2013 at
11:46

It seems to me that the word “fantasist” came directly from the
defendant, whose defence was wholly based on the idea that Andrade was
a disturbed young woman who had made the whole thing up. To me a
better word would be “delusional”, but perhaps the defence decided
that “fantasist” was a less loaded term that would be better
understood by the jury and would be more polite than just saying that
she was nuts.

[Not having attended the trial, seen the demeanour of the
witnesses, nor having seen a complete transcript of the evidence, I
personally have no particular opinion on the veracity of the
allegations, though obviously the whole thing is a huge human
tragedy.]

Voltaire February 13, 2013 at 22:15

@Mina Field:

“the ‘upsetting’ robust cross examination of the complainant was
specifically with regard to the rape charge, for which he was found not
guilty. It would seem that the jury musn’t have found her credible on that
particular allegation”

Exactly, great point

What do they suggest in the future then? For those who have been accused
of rape to just be thrown in jail without a trial and no questions
asked??

I’m sorry for what happened to the woman and I know that a ‘not guilty’
verdict does not always mean the person is ‘not guilty’, but the same can,
and often has, been true in reverse, a ‘guilty’ verdict does not always mean
the person found ‘guilty’ is actually ‘guilty’. The jury (or anyone else)
can’t instinctively know that the complainant is telling the truth, they
need to be cross examined, though it should maybe be explained to them
beforehand that this is absolutely necessary, has to be done with everyone
and not to take the cross examination personally…

Jonathan Mason
February 13, 2013 at 23:02

We can never know what was going on in her (Andrade’s) head. For all her
protestations that she didn’t want to go to court, I assume that she must
have been motivated by desire for revenge against both Brewer and his
ex-wife. Maybe she was originally in love with him and resented the wife. It
is a bit much to believe that she just decided to take it to court (once the
friend had taken it to the police) simply for reasons of being public
spirited and saving others from a similar youthful experience.

Is it possible that it was true that she did have a long running sexual
relationship with Brewer when she was in her early teens, but that she added
on the allegations of the rape by the couple when she was 18 as an
additional cherry on top of the cake to make sure that Brewer got as long a
prison sentence as possible? Or could the threesome have occurred, but with
her as a willing participant?

Or was the whole thing a fantasy? The remarks about her having “some kind
of catharsis” in court made by the judge seem odd and out of place. It makes
me think there must have been something very odd about her behaviour in
court that perhaps the newspaper accounts have not described.

Could she have been mentally ill and have an undiagnosed paranoid illness
with delusions focused on the Brewers?

We shall never know.

Stephen Davies
February 14, 2013 at 11:51

Perhaps the catharsis was that she felt as a member of Society—perhaps
specifically as a member of the classical music community she should have
taken steps earlier —there is evidence that she wrote about other teachers
as well —-Revenge ? Jealousy? Delusional? —-come off it if there were
facts to back that up I would think about buying into that —-my present
understanding is that the prosecution came about because it was instigated
by others —-and she was drawn into the thick of it —perhaps in those
circumstances she put a brave face on things —-no hiding behind a screen
when giving evidence —overly feisty in the box to which the Defence
responded in kind.A forum for understanding and a quest for objective
truth or a game ? —-a rather dangerous game where a life was lost and
lives blighted because the game was played ‘professionally’ by the Defence
The whole thing is a tragic mess—its legacy if any apart from newsprint
and broken lives of a husband and children will be more poor legislation
that chooses to take one side or other in respect of the issue —-automatic
conviction for those who accussed of rape ? Sorry no more my idea of
justice than accusing someone of being a fantasist —-the same result of
blighted lives—the same result of reverberations into the future.

Jonathan
Mason February 14, 2013 at 13:19

Yes, but I do feel that the half dozen other suicide attempts prior
to the trial that Anna mentioned are hard to explain. They could not
have been caused by hostile cross examination. When a person is seen for
a suicide attempt in an emergency department, it is protocol for the
person always to be assessed by a psychiatrist before they are released
home. Did this happen six times, and yet she refused any kind of
follow-up treatment due to her interpretation of police instructions?
There are just a lot of unknowns.

One has to wonder why she continued with the case after even one
suicide attempt, assuming that the suicide attempts were precipitated by
stress over the court case.

Any reasonable person would know that if they were trying to put a
hitherto respectable member of society in prison for sex offences, that
they would be subject to cross examination in court with suggestions
that they were making it up. One would prepare oneself for that.

One is reminded in some respects of the case of King Edward VII
Hospital nurse Jacintha Saldhana who hanged herself. The media was in a
furore, the family of the deceased was presenting lists of 40 unanswered
questions to the hospital administration, and then the news came out
that she had made an extremely serious suicide attempt some months
earlier and everything suddenly went quiet.

Stephen Davies
February 14, 2013 at 15:37

Well yes and no –I don’t know if the suicide attempts were in the
lead up to the trial and what was the root cause of them but it is not
inconcievable it was a trial looming —she could have committed suicide
successfully had she been so minded any time in her 48 or so years of
life. I reject the assumption for the moment it was because she was
worried being found out a liar —better refuse to give evidence —she
could have gotten out of giving evidence easily and the case would
probably have collapsed —-but she didn’t —indeed she went to face the
issue more openly than the law required of her —there is an old adage
in the law that an honest man never recovers from being cut down in
the witness box —liars don’t worry about being found out is my
experience—I have seen too many in action to think otherwise —-its
part of their daily life —some of the Savile complainants seem of that
ilk. Well liar or not Ms Andrade was certainly cut down by the
accusation of being a fantasist if press reports are correct with the
consequences that followed. Its about causation.Abuse in childhood
whether consensual or not at the time leads to fragilility in some,
probably most, adults is my guess—leads some others to be abusers so I
am told —certainly probably leads to others becoming liars though
there too many of those around who weren’t abused unless abuse is way
more commonplace than I understand it to be. Any reasonable (?) person
making a complaint against a respectable(?) member of Society would
appreciate her evidence would be tested —-tested yes—tested fairly
—-tested without emotive counter accusation —tested to establish
beyond reasonable doubt for that is all that is needed —if the
Police/CPS/the Prosecution team thought Ms Andrade a fantasist and
they were I suggest rather better placed to form such an opinion than
the prosecution in the course of a ‘game’ then the prosecution would
or should never have been brought. Sorry for the moment the facts
don’t adequately fit a personally vexatious fantasist whatever the
Prosecution may have said. This is more probably from the little I
know more likely someone dragged into a Prosecution she probably never
wanted and for reasons best explained of her confronting one of her
greatest fears that her abuser (yes he was found guilty on counts of
abuse and so was his wife —pretty sordid stuff really of rather
greater manitude than Savile so far —so much for respectability) would
not just amount to her evidence being inadequate to convict on one
count but her being labelled a fantasist —–just out of interest does
outward respectability permit or indeed rquire the allegation of
fantasist against another respectable member of Society for justice to
be done? Well the teacher clearly had his fantasies and some of them
were played out for real aided and abetted by his wife so it seems
—who I wonder was the more dangerous fantasist here ?

Anna Raccoon February 14, 2013 at 15:44

“I don’t know if the suicide attempts were in the lead up to the
trial”

According to her son, they were.

Stephen
Davies February 14, 2013 at
17:01

Thank you Ms Raccoon –may help on proving causation but before
everyone jumps on me it doesn’t definitively answer whether she
was afraid of being found out to be a liar or being accussed of
being a liar when she was not. My point appears to be being taken
too broadly I do not think there is adequate evidence to suggest
that the language used was not necessarily appropriate or useful
—it served no useful end —the only end it may have served was to
unsettle a fragile witness with the consequences that may have
followed. Fragile UNRELIABLE witnesses are taken apart by skillful
Counsel with an elegance ,subtlety and gentleness that can be
devastating —-no need for recourse to accusation—-accusation is
more likely to unsettle a fragile witness whose credibility is
feared by the advocate and needs to be shaken if the case is to be
won—– skill as an advocate is measured by the ability to pull a
case apart (with a huge amount of grunt work) by a mixture of
logic reasoning and subtlety (surely the appropriate skills needed
if the prosecution is strong enough to reach court having been
through the hands of Senior Police, Senior members of the CPS ,
Senior Prosecution Counsel as a matter of this gravity should have
been) then it is a little difficult to see that words such as
fantasist should be used by anyone unless the judge chooses to use
them at some point in time in any address to the jury because he
thinks justice might be served by it. Still subtlety, elegance and
gentleness doesn’t bring fame save to a few professional
colleagues and doesn’t grab headlines. More is the pity.

Moor Larkin February 14, 2013 at 17:26

@ if the prosecution is strong enough to reach court having
been through the hands of Senior Police, Senior members of the
CPS , Senior Prosecution Counsel as a matter of this gravity
should have been @

I’m not sure Historic Allegations are subject to much
empirical investigation. They seem to simply rely upon the
witnesses being prepared to testify. The Savile case was never
pursued in 2007/9 because the witnesses declined to testify –
according to the CPS. So far as I am aware there has been no
suggestion in the Inquiries since that any other evidence
existed and the suggestion seems to be that IF those people had
been willing to testify then the case might well have gone ahead
and reached court.

So I’m not sure you are way over-stating the credence we
should give to the fact that a case of this nature actually
reaches court. I have read non-celebrity accounts of cases of
this nature and the accused find that the ONLY evidence against
them is the testimony. More than one seem to have proved their
innocence by the lucky happenstance that they were able to find
their own evidence that they were physically in a different
place at the time of one of the example charges, so it seemed
clear that no investigation is done whatsoever by the
prosecutors other than satisfying themselves that their
witnesses/victims WILL take the Stand.

Anna Raccoon February 14, 2013 at 17:33

Stephen

It seems you are still working on the premise that only a
trial, and preferably handled differently, could deal with the
situation.

My thesis would be that where someone had got on with their
life for 30 years, and she seems to have had a happy marriage
and some wonderful children, that any trial, handled in any way,
is not the closure (that she actually didn’t, her friend did!)
sought. I risk being shouted down in a hail of ‘you just want to
let the guilty men off’ – but frankly I couldn’t care less about
the man concerned – my prime concern is the girl.

Having confided in a girlfriend, who then went to the police
– she was placed in an invidious position, damned if she did,
damned if she didn’t. It must have been unbearable – on the one
hand family and friends now openly acknowledging that she was
abused and saying ‘You’re doing the right thing, think of the
other girls’- and on the other hand, the thought of her entire
life being dissected in open court (justice must be seen to be
done).

I am arguing for another route, one that would not involve
any questioning, but actual therapy to help with the effects we
know that abuse can inflict – especially, and particularly in
this case, where the abuse took a form that was not recognised
as abuse in its day, not least by the victim, but is now
heralded as abuse by society.

It seems as though society feels the need to have these ‘show
trials’ to absorb the knowledge that free love and 14 year old
groupies are not a ‘good thing’ any longer – but I am not sure
they do anything for a middle aged happily married mother of
several children. Do we really care about the victim?

alan February 14, 2013 at 20:00

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=epveNhRBrB8
(Geoff Thompson – Fear, My Friend London Real ) is worth
watching.

“Writer, teacher, and martial artist Geoff Thompson
reflects on his early days as a nightclub doorman in Coventry,
how he listed and conquered a “pyramid” of his greatest fears,
why he continues to enjoy writing, and how being sexually
abused as a teenager led him to discover that forgiveness is
the only revenge.”

mewsical February 15, 2013 at 02:25

“Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who
trespassed against us.”

Pretty simple stuff.

And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from
evil.”

More complex.

Jonathan
Mason February 14, 2013 at
19:22

Fragile UNRELIABLE witnesses are taken apart by skillful
Counsel with an elegance ,subtlety and gentleness that can be
devastating —-no need for recourse to accusation…

Sounds reasonable, however since there doesn’t seem to be any
verbatim record of the cross examination available on the
Internet, it is difficult to know whether the counsel did this
related to the alleged rape and whether the accusation of being
a “fantasist” was not the final peroration to all that had gone
before. It seems like the counsel did win over the jury on that
particular charge.

In a former life I worked for a couple of years at a
prominent facility whose purpose it was to provide psychological
treatment to sex offenders who were deemed too dangerous to be
set free when they reached the end of their prison sentences. I
was able to review the case notes of many offenders, some of
them quite notorious or egregious, including documents from
their offending history. What struck me was how incredibly
detailed such court documents were when it came to descriptions
of sexual offenses in terms of details of bodily organs, body
positions, bodily fluids, and so on. It seems that the UK press,
when reporting on trials of sex offenses, no doubt for reasons
of decency, skips over all the real details and just summarizes
the general nature of the charges,so perhaps this part of the
cross examination involving an allegation of being a “fantasist”
is all they cared to print.

So, for example, we the general public do not have the
faintest idea about the alleged rape as to even basic facts, for
example, whether she sustained any injuries during the process
of being restrained by her rapists, whether he ejaculated inside
her, whether he or she were using any means of birth control,
whether she sought a pregnancy test after the event, contracted
a disease, or any of a host of hundreds of other details that
must have been laid before the jury. The defence counsel may
well have laid out a host of contradictions in her testimony
that we have heard nothing about and simply used the suggestion
that it was a fantasy as a final rhetorical flourish to
summarize what had been laid before the jury.

Admittedly I am not familiar with legal procedures in the UK,
but the judge in the case has since stated that there was
nothing improper in the way the cross examination was carried
out, and surely the prosecution would have objected had the
defence counsel stepped over the line.

Mina
Field February 14, 2013 at
21:58

We simply don’t know, as Jonathan Mason and others have
said, what did happen in the trial. What we do know is that
everyone has gone all ‘daily wail’ over one short exchange,
published for its sensationalism. The journalists have
therefore got the reception that they hoped for, and the
ubiquitous MWT has of course got his knickers in a twist. All
of which means that I am more persuaded by the judge in the
case and all the barristers and legal commentators, who
confirm that there was nothing wrong with the line of
questioning. The actual questions, and the tone and timbre,
would have been entirely dictated by her conduct in giving
evidence. Cross examination takes two to play, and counsel
doesn’t work in a vacuum.

We don’t know why she killed herself when she did, or
anything else about how her mind worked. If I were to hazard a
guess it would be that she felt many different things from
hour to hour, and that, yes, probably some of the time she
felt bad for ‘over egging’ matters and for ruining the lives
of people who had helped her and been good to her in the past,
whatever else had gone on.

Jonathan Mason February 15, 2013 at 00:18

@Mina

I think you make a good point there. Presumably she had
not seen these people for many years until she saw them in
the dock, and perhaps seeing them reminded her that once she
had liked them and that they had done many good things for
her. After all, did this couple really take an unhappy
teenage girl into their home to live with the family with
the main motive of sexually abusing her, or was the sexual
side an unfortunate by-product of the situation. People are
complicated.

Not very long ago I had a young relative of my wife came
to live in my house who had just turned 15 who helped out
with the child and a spot of light housework in exchange for
providing her with board and lodging and sending her to
school. The girl was pleasant enough and not the sharpest
knife, and she desperately wanted to have a boyfriend (I
think more for financial reasons than for romance) and tried
to throw herself at any man she met regardless of age. She
acted quite flirtatious with me, for example rubbing my legs
in the swimming pool and telling me I had sexy legs. Not
very appropriate as I am over 60 years of age. Nothing
happened, but my wife and I agreed to send her back to her
family before someone got her pregnant. Last week I heard
that she had hit her mother, so I guess things aren’t going
well there either.

I am glad nothing untoward happened to her while she was
with us, but equally I was relieved to get rid of her and
just wanted to get out of having any further responsibility
for her well being. I have no doubt that thousands of girls
in similar situations have more dubious outcomes.

We shall never know the whole sad story of Frances
Andrade came to its denouement, but several lives have been
ruined.

mewsical February 15, 2013 at 02:21

Defense should had objected to the word ‘fantasist’ as as
conclusion. It’s not evidence unless an expert is there to
testify.

I think the lesson here is that, if something happened in the
dim and distant teenage past, then let it stay there. For your
own sake if nothing else. Don’t let it ruin your life, and don’t
let those with ulterior motives tell you your life is ruined for
their own gain.

Voltaire February 15, 2013 at 09:59

@Mewsical:

“don’t let those with ulterior motives tell you your life
is ruined for their own gain”

Couldn’t agree more, my thoughts exactly.

Individuals should be allowed to decide and say for
themselves how they themselves feel about a certain situation
that they were involved in, why should they have how they feel
or are supposed to ‘feel’ dictated to them by so-called
‘experts’ that weren’t even there and that quite often do have
ulterior motives…?

mewsical February 15, 2013 at 16:03

This is precisely the manipulation that was applied to
the Duncroft women. Miss Fiona, whipping up the troops via
social media, Karin Ward reaching out on Voy to others of
her era because she couldn’t really remember what had
happened, and all of this instigated by Ward’s psychologist
or Mark WT/Meirion so that they could make their wretched
television show.

mewsical
February 14, 2013 at 16:36

I had no idea that Nurse Saldhana had made a prior attempt. And all
that fuss and bother at Westminster, etc. What a mess England is at
the moment.

Oscar February 14, 2013 at 17:17

perhaps she became convinced she would obtain this elusive “closure”
thingy we hear of but was bitterly disappointed.

Oscar February 13,
2013 at 20:03

In Steve Bidulph’s new book ‘Raising Girls’ he exstensivly interviewed
marketing executives who can pin-point the time when major advert corps
realised that if they could make young teen girls feel unhappy about their
looks and body, relationships and so on, they had a captive audience for at
least 12 years.

It’s a form of child abuse but the popular tabloid media is as worse if not
far worse in lecturing victims that their life is ruined.

mewsical February 14, 2013 at 03:16

Absolute Beginners is required reading.

mewsical February 13, 2013 at 18:35

Savile has not been accused of intercourse. What I find interesting about
some of the recountings from the Duncroft women is that Savile would wait
until one of the girls he fancied turned SIXTEEN at which point they would
receive a box of chocs the size of a small table from him. He knew full well
that once that magic line was crossed, it was fair game, whether it was grubby
or not. It was LEGAL. I think the age of consent must be lowered now, based on
the scenario you present, Voltaire. Perhaps in the 50s and 40s, 14 year olds
were considered to be very naive (far from true of course), but in the mid-60s
onwards, 13 upwards became much more sexually sophisticated, due to an influx
of information and a definite swing towards empowering teenagers, who were
money-makers and consumers. Either way, all this whining and whinging by these
Duncroft types is nothing more than an attempt to make money. I’ll bet if they
were informed that there was little if no chance of compensation, they’d all
lose interest very rapidly.

Voltaire February 13, 2013 at 19:47

@Mewsical:

Kids are definitely a hell of a lot more informed about sex these days, I
think some get sex education from primary school, I don’t think it should be
rammed down their throats, but I think it is good that they are being taught
this stuff at school and it is compulsory, as it is nothing more than a
natural part of human life and growing up, and, in my opinion, has nothing
to do with ‘innocence’ or loss of ‘innocence’ any more than learning to
drive or to bake a cake is.

I don’t think anyone should be pressured into thinking that they should
be having sex when they are not ready or just don’t want to, but I also
think that it is likely that many teenagers are ready and do want to before
the age of 16 – we are all different…

P.s I noticed in the CPS report that Jimmy Savile denied ever sending any
of the girls chocolates or watching t.v with them, but did say that he’d
heard these accusations before. Totally speculating here, but I couldn’t
help but wonder if ‘Ms B’ and ‘Ms C’ were the same women who contacted the
Mirror back in 1994 and maybe one or both of them had been contacted by the
Sun this time, as it does seem like an awful coincidence that ‘Ms B’s’
complaint sprang up so soon after ‘Ms A’s’ who we know for definite was
heavily pressurised by the Sun, who told her that “a lot of others” had been
in a similar situation as her and some had “not been as fortunate”, and
“that all it took was for one person to make a complaint and then OTHERS
WOULD FOLLOW”.

And we also know that the Sun had tried to implicate him in the Haut de
la garrene scandal not long before that, the same year infact, only
Detective Lenny Harper (who was in charge of the Haut de la garrene
investigation at that time) said, even back in October 2012, just after the
ITV Exposure Documentary, that “no specific allegations of abuse had been
made against the BBC presenter” at the time, and indeed, all I read in the
papers back in October was that there had been “allegations he’d visited the
place regularly”, well, even if that were true, is “visiting the place
regularly” a crime?

It’s obvious the Sun had been chasing a story about Jimmy Savile/sex
abuse since at least 2007 and were scraping the barrel for anything they
could get.

Surely if anyone had had a genuine complaint about him concerning Haut de
la garenne they would have complained at the time of the investigation,
especially with all the Suns digging?

The way this whole thing seems to have started seems riddled with some
very odd ‘coincidences’…

Jonathan Mason
February 13, 2013 at 20:28

Savile has not been accused of intercourse….

Not by the girls at Duncroft, but his official rap sheet alleges that he
raped over 30 women, making him one of Britain’s most prolific serial
rapists, (if the allegations are true). Paedophile, rapist, wrestler, radio
and TV personality, the man was nothing if not versatile.

Of course we the public don’t have any access to the details of these
rape allegations. But surely we can trust Mr. Plod the policeman to be
honest and do the right thing?

ivan February 13, 2013 at 22:18

Of course we the public don’t have any access to the details of
these rape allegations. But surely we can trust Mr. Plod the policeman to
be honest and do the right thing?

I very much doubt it considering their political leanings at the moment
– pleb gate anyone.

Voltaire February 13, 2013 at 18:19

I agree with almost everything your saying here though I haven’t read too
much about this particular case.

There is one thing I do struggle to get my head round though, and that is
the notion that at 14 years of age it is impossible for a person to be able
‘to give informed consent’ to sexual intercourse.

I appreciate that an ‘uninformed’ 14 year old would have problems here, as
would an uniformed 16 or 17 year old, but when I was 14 I, and every other 14
year old I knew, knew where babies came from, how they were made, that sexual
intercourse can sometimes cause infections or diseases to be transmitted so
it’s best to use a condom if your not in a monogamous relationship and get
checked regularly at a doctor or family planning clinic and it’s also a good
idea, if you want to avoid pregnancy, to start taking the pill before you
decide to have sex with someone.

I’m pretty sure that this is about as informed as most of us can be before
we actually go ahead and do it, but, as in other fields, ‘experience’ can only
be gained by actually doing it, surely? Sure, you can take advice from others
and learn from the experiences of others too, and perhaps waiting will allow
you longer to do this, but still, I don’t believe that it is impossible for an
educated 14 year old to ‘give informed consent’ and in some ways waiting
longer just has the effect of prolonging the period of ‘inexperience’, which
in my opinion is a bit over rated…

Jonathan Mason
February 13, 2013 at 19:25

The age of consent of 16 is just an arbitrary number, but it is the law,
just like a speed limit may be 30 m.p.h. and not 29 m.p.h.

If the music teacher had waited until she turned 16 before he laid hands
on her, then it would have been legal regardless of how much emotional and
psychological trauma giving him a blow job as a 16-year-old might have
caused.

It was interesting that some of the charges were thrown out, because the
sex might have been legal if it occurred after she turned 16.

In some other countries the age of consent is different. 12, I think in
Spain and maybe 14 in Germany. No doubt they have more psychologically
damaged women in those countries than we do. Or maybe not. I don’t think
anyone really knows.

Apparently if adolescent girls have sexual experiences with boys of the
same age, or close in age, this is not as damaging, so it appears that it is
not the actual sex act that is damaging per se, but the age and power
imbalance in the relationship that may cause psychological damage or mental
illness later on. Maybe this is why when I was 11 and sexually assaulted by
a bigger stronger boy of 12, I had forgotten about it by the time a couple
of days had passed due to other equally traumatic commitments such as a
French vocabulary test or a cross country run.

Of course it should be taken as a given that teachers should not have sex
with minor pupils, and there ought to be a law to that effect.

Personally I think that the focus ought to be away from the psychological
damage, which can never really be proved, and there should be a pretty stiff
fixed rate penalty for such offenses when they can be proved, for example by
pregnancy or DNA evidence that is enough to act as a deterrent just like a
speeding offence. Such persons should also be banned from working with young
people or the sick or vulnerable.

Oscar February
13, 2013 at 19:53

And if you continue to tell people that what they did in their youth
(whether consenual even if illegal) will ‘ruin their life’ enough times
they will probably believe it.
The teen years are ones of finding your
own way, perhaps with a some gentle guidance , and it’s bound to be full
of pitfalls and silly decisions. Banging into people’s heads that youthful
indiscretions, even ones they were tricked or co-erced into , will ruin
their life is an abuse in itself.
And yet money in the form of
compensation seems to be presented as solving all this.

mewsical
February 14, 2013 at 03:05

And there you have it.

Voltaire
February 13, 2013 at 20:43

@Oscar:

I totally agree with you

@Jonathan Mason:

I agree with most of what your saying too, though I think the issue is
simply the ‘power imbalance’, if someone is older than you but has no
power over you what difference should their age make? And in some ways, an
older, wiser boyfriend with good intentions could perhaps be a better
influence in your live than someone just as naive and clueless as you
are?

People seem to have this notion that learning to be a grown up is in
someway a bad thing and somehow connected to loosing ‘innocence’ which I
honestly struggle to get my head around. I feel i’ve become a better
person since growing up, and therefore more ‘innocent’. Sex is just a fact
of life like everything else, and by far, no where near the most
unpleasant fact of life. Obviously rape and REAL paedophilia are horrible,
but I can’t help but feel that theres too much mass hysteria about sex,
especially with regard to teenagers.

I’ve just checked the German age of concent on Wikipedia, I think they
have a sensible and reasonable law regarding the age of concent and have
seen no reason to believe that their woman are any more psychologically
damaged than ours, Germany is quite an affluent country I think…

Voltaire
February 15, 2013 at 08:27

@Jonathan Mason:

“regardless of how much emotional and psychological trauma giving him a
blowjob as a 16 year old might of caused”

Unless he forced her and gave her no choice in the matter I fail to see
how it would or should have caused her any “emotional and psychological
trauma”. Especially long term. Even if she didn’t enjoy doing it and was
just doing it because she felt obliged to (an experience i’m pretty sure
we are ALL familiar with), unless she felt she had to do this on a regular
basis, while it might have been unpleasant or grossed her out at the time,
I see no reason for any ‘trauma’ to last any longer than the blowjob
itself.

The fact he was her teacher and was therefore breeching rules and being
very naughty indeed aside for a moment, giving blow jobs at ages 14, 15,
16, 17 etc never appeared to cause as much ‘emotional and psychological
trauma’ 10 to 15 years ago when it still appeared to be considered by many
as just a normal part of sexual relationships, and in the case of younger
people, growing up.

It certainly never did me any harm – regardless of the other persons
age. Though i’ll say i’ve never not felt at liberty to refuse.

I am glad I will not be an ‘under age’ teenager in the future, as I
fear all this hysteria and getting of knickers in a twist will have an
impact on how much freedom that age group is allowed in the future. I just
know that when I was 14+ I always wanted to be treated as an adult and to
be allowed to make decisions for myself and whenever I was denied that I
got very upset (as I would today if someone tried to exert excessive
control over me).

I do feel very sorry for this woman and her family, who must be in
bits, but I have to say this is just ONE case, why should the law be
changed simply because in ONE case a woman taking her own life appeared to
coincide with having been recently cross examined in court? When, if it
was even a reason at all, the fact she’d made several suicide attempts in
the past, says it was not THE MAIN reason, she was obviously depressed
before hand, and at the very most this could only be viewed as having been
the straw that broke the camels back.

If anyone is seriously actually considering changing the law as a
result of ONE woman killing herself after cross examination, when millions
upon millions of others have been absolutely fine after cross examination
– even in sex cases, then it tells me that this event is being used as
sheer propaganda and if this madness continues, I might just consider
leaving the country…

mewsical February 13, 2013 at 17:54

I’m not sure how they are going to adjudicate the Savile claims, without
the accused being present to rebut the accusations. This makes it
oh-so-convenient for accusers. However, I imagine that they may have to
litigate against the Estate and the insurers. I think one has to weigh the
decision to make the accusation against the rigors of trial. You can’t just
point the finger and think you’re going to shake the money-tree in your
direction without a challenge to your position, and if you do, you’re living
in fairyland. Btw, payouts to victims of the Catholic situation were far from
secret in many cases – at least here. At least here. The majority of the
victims in the Catholic case were young boys in the general age range of 10
years old. Cardinal Ratzinger, the present Pope, now stepping down, was very
involved in cover-ups. I am much more outraged about this abuse of the truly
innocent than a cynical manipulation of the British public by a group of
opportunists from a care home they were at 35 years ago.

Oscar February
13, 2013 at 19:30

there is the ethical matter that Savile’s estate on the whole was left to
charity so needy people are the losers in the end.

But of course in this wacky world of today where the MWTs of the world
call the shots, his charity activities are demeaned as part of the
abuse.

Mudplugger
February 13, 2013 at 20:44

But under current no-win-no-fee legal systems, there’s no downside to
giving the ‘money-tree’ an exploratory shake, with a ‘free’ lawyer only too
willing to do the shaking for you – if some cash falls down, that’s great,
but if it doesn’t, so what ? Nothing to lose – it’s a one-way bet for
‘victims’.

And if it’s a very big money-tree, like the Government in all its
agencies (BBC, Police, NHS etc.), with extra opposition political help to
embarrass it too, then even more reason to give it a jolly rattle.

mewsical
February 14, 2013 at 03:09

No winners here. Just degrees of losing.

Yvonne February 13, 2013 at 17:29

From the comments, I doubt that any of those replying have either (a) been
a witness interrogated in court by an aggressive defence lawyer, or (b) been a
witness/plaintiff in an abuse case.

If you had you would know that, of itself, (a) is terrifying enough. The
remit of the defence’s legal team is to cast doubt on the veracity of your
testimony. They are well-skilled at quibbling and picking holes, taking
advantage of ill-phrased answers, and denigrating your honesty and powers of
recall. In the case of (b), it’s even more painful — not least if the event
took place 2, 3 or more decades ago.

Current research would seem to indicate that a preponderance of today’s
under-16s have had some sort of sexual experience within their peer group
(although it remains a moot point whether their responses are wholly factual
or just conforming with today’s early-teen received wisdom: surveys do not
prove anything). However, in the face of these modern perceptions, it becomes
very hard for someone who was an early-teen some decades ago to claim — justly
— that they did not really understand the implications of what was going on.
It thus becomes very easy for a defence lawyer to place a wholly different
construct on the events, pouring equal scorn on the witness’s purported
naivety, the reluctance to confide in parents, the continuing aquiescence.

If the witness was a victim of abuse, the sordid details have to be aired
(and robustly queried) in the court’s hearing. Yes, I know that has to be
done. But it’s small wonder that so few are willing to be the first to stand
up and speak about the abuse. They should, however, be applauded: sweeping the
whole thing under the carpet is not a fair and just solution.

It is less painful to be one of the later corroborators. And that’s the fly
in the ointment. When someone has been corageous enough to make the first call
there may be others, thus far silent, who will be willing to come forward and
endorse. And, amongst them, there are likely to be some false claimants.

The whole issue of justice for abused youngsters has become horribly
muddied and confused. Historically, valid complaints were often ignored or, if
there was any investigation, the findings were inexplicably buried. Or, as in
the case of the Catholic church, compensation payouts were made on strict
condition of secrecy. There are those who maintain that life isn’t, never has
been, fair: we should just accept the bad deals and move on. If we’re talking
about events in adult life then, in general, I might concede that point: we
have the capacity to do so. But children and young teens should never be put
in that position.

Oscar February
13, 2013 at 19:26

well I have been a witness 3 times and been grilled to the nth degree by
very good barristers and you are correct : it is a nerve wracking experience
– the heart is pounding- you could almost faint etc etc and so in the end
there is one thing to do : tell-the-truth.

I do not accept for one minute that being questioned in court is a
horrifying experience.
It’s the theatre of courts that causes the anxiety
but that’s as it should be. People should be intimidated by the whole
process as they are more likely to be truthfull.

And despite being at almost (imaginary) heart attack moments when being
grilled, I left the box satisfied that I had told the truth.
I do not
accept that anyone being questioned by a clever brief should feel
intimidated unless they are lying, exagerating or their version of facts
have become dimmed over the years.
And 2 trials I was a witness in
involved murder and shocking physical assaults . Sexual assault cases are
not unique and should not be treated differently.

Moor Larkin February 14, 2013 at 16:09

@ 2 trials I was a witness in involved murder and shocking physical
assaults . Sexual assault cases are not unique and should not be treated
differently. @

In the past sexual assault was closely aligned to violent assault
because the common-sense definition of rape almost inevitably involved a
woman being physically forced at some level, and there would therefore
often be some forensic evidence, if only collateral bruising etc.. I can
recall the nation being scandalised when Soames raped his wife in
“Upstairs, Downstairs”, and even though the characters were married in the
fiction, I don’t think any segment of society was of the view that the
husband had any such right to so abuse his wife – and that was in the bad
old days of the 1960′s…..

Anna
Raccoon February 14, 2013 at
16:14

-and yet it wasn’t for another 30 years that marital rape was
criminalised in the UK – 30 years after that notably liberal country
Russia had outlawed marital rape!

mewsical February 14, 2013 at 02:18

I had to make court appearances as a juvenile. Let alone be annoyed by
the rag press.

carol42 February 14, 2013 at 02:57

I was a wittness in a case against the police who had made totally
false accusations against an innocent young man whose life could have been
ruined. It was not exactly pleasant but I just stuck to the truth no
matter what was said and we won.

Jonathan Mason
February 14, 2013 at 12:12

I was once a witness in an assault case in magistrates court in
Liverpool. Although I was the only witness the defendant was convicted. The
prosecutor afterwards told me that I was an unusually convincing witness
(for whatever that is worth.)

I was once a juror (foreman) in a drunk driving case in Florida. The case
was really very straightforward but the defendant had a high-powered
Internet attorney who specialized in defending drunk driving cases and spent
all day trying to undermine police testimony based on trivial discrepancies.
(The defendant has been stopped for her car weaving, had open bottles of
alcohol on the floor of the car, could not walk straight, and refused to be
blood tested.)

What I learned from that case is that ultimately the jury’s job is to
decide which side is lying, because one side must be, and that this cannot
be done without observing the demeanour of the witnesses in the witness box
and under examination or without hearing the whole of the testimony on both
sides. You can never really know the truth based on the kind of newspaper
reports of the case of the type I have seen in the recent Brewer trial,
which are just written to promote a sensational story.

Incidentally. although fascinating to me, the case in which I was a juror
had no coverage of any kind in any paper, not even the local daily.

Surreptitious Evil February 14, 2013 at 15:37

“ultimately the jury’s job is to decide which side is lying, because
one side must be”

Not really, no. One side, or even both, can be mistaken. Lying implies
deliberate falsehood not making an untrue statement based on the best
evidence they have found (for the prosecution) or their often-faulty
memory (either side) or because of, as we may be now, contamination of
forensic evidence (or poor forensic procedures.)

Moor Larkin February 14, 2013 at 16:34

Talk of lying versus memory made me think about another current cause
celebre.

There seems an interesting corollary to the Huhne case. I noticed the
judge said to the jury yesterday:
Judge: not for Pryce to prove that
Huhne coerced her – rather it is for the prosecution to prove he did
not.
http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/10224453.Vicky_Pryce_trial___day_six/

So it seems that if Pryce is deemed innocent then the sentence upon
Huhne will be even heavier than otherwise, and consequently his
sentencing awaits the outcome of his ex-wife’s trial. It seemed curious
to me in this context that Huhne never appeared as a witness for the
defence for his ex-wife. I mean he’s in enough trouble as it is, so if
he did force her, then why would he not just admit it now? He’s in
enough trouble already and I cannot imagine he would have risked perjury
after all the consequences he is already having to deal with. On the
other hand, if he did not force her, then to just say he did, to end the
whole thing….. would be Perjury…
….. I can see why the law is so fascinating.

Oscar February 14, 2013 at 17:02

agree.

mewsical February 13, 2013 at 17:18

I recently had an opportunity to review an email which I believe is from
one of the Duncroft accusers. Not going to share it here, but no doubt from
its contents that someone is having a bad attack of conscience and wishes to
advise – in Latin, no less – that Mr. Savile did nothing wrong while he was
visiting the school, and that it’s all about the pecunia!

Friend of Dog
February 13, 2013 at 14:56

Regarding THE GREAT ESCAPE. It used to be shown every Christmas but not for
the past 3 years at least. Is there a conspiracy against Steve McQueen. This
needs to be investigated, preferably behind closed doors so that the guilty
can be exonerated.

john warren February 13, 2013 at 14:55

Wellwisher: Although I admire and accept your concern, the facts are
however, that our justice system is already being challenged and changed year
upon year. It’s not beyond belief at all because it’s happening. Anna has a
great point here. Something stinks to high heaven.

Our laws are being changed to suit the requirements of a rapacious,
capitalist, oddly federalised Europe. Disregarding the future economy, we’re
all being herded into the realms of some socialist wonderland. As a nation
state, we are already dead and gone. Our court’s of law are now, and will
increasingly act, entirely at the behest of a few EEC mandarins. We, as a
nation, are no longer in charge of our own destiny.

That seems to suit some people – who I disagree with but which is ok by me.
I’m armour plated. However, time will pass and for certain, more and more of
those same people are going to wake up looking for a nice breakfast but
finding the kitchen cupboard completely empty. The pantry stripped bare.

Should you not agree and wish to lay a nice fat wager… !

Oscar February
13, 2013 at 19:17

there seems to be a campaign to inject passion and emotion into trials
when I thought that the whole idea was for the courts to be the opposite in
order for the truth to emerge.
Next it will be ‘out of touch judges’
despite the fact they probably see more of the downside of life in a week
than most people see in a lifetime.

JuliaM February 13, 2013 at 19:28

They might SEE it – but only in an abstract sense. So long as they are
not forced to share it, it seems they are free to indulge their inner
bleeding hearts.

john warren
February 13, 2013 at 19:50

Well said Julia.

Wellwisher February 13, 2013 at 14:05

Is it just me or am I being sceptical that 31 alleged victims of sexual
abuse are in the process of suing the BBC and Savile Estate…then you have MWT
tweeting that the justice system must be changed in regards to cross examining
the alleged victims. It is unfortunate but we do live in a society where
people do lie if they believe they will be able to make ‘a quick buck’.
Everybody is entitled to a fair trial but the hysteria surrounding child
sexual abuse is really getting out of hand, what would happen hyperthetically
if the justice system was changed and alleged victims are no longer able to be
cross examined, there would be a dramatic increase of reports of alleged
sexual abuse as these alleged victims would know that their testimony would
not come under any scrutiny. It is obsherd to think that innocent until proven
guilty theory would be thrown out of the window and that anyone accused of
sexaual abuse would no longer need to stand trial as in the eyes of the public
prosecution are automatically assumed guilty. Why don’t we just throw away the
justice system all together as with the ‘peodo lynch mob’ we may as well go
back to 1692 and recreate the Salem Witch Trials…our justice system is there
to give every man or woman the right to to a fair trial. The more I hear about
this whole hysteria the more I become embarrassed and ashamed with the way our
society as become and to think for one minute that our justice system needs to
change is beyond believe. The rules are set for a reason so everyone is able
to have their say and a jury to look at the evidence and make a decision.
Sorry for rambling but it just gets right under my skin…

Mudplugger
February 13, 2013 at 16:14

It was only a matter of time before a Savile Estate + BBC case appeared –
the vultures have been gathering strength.

And there was I thinking they only wanted ‘closure’ – it looks like a
fat, juicy cheque will do just fine.

Wellwisher
February 13, 2013 at 16:28

What really annoys me is I was just watching the television when the
NSPCC advert came on stating that there are 46000 children at risk of
abuse yet you hear nothing about this on the news or awareness to issues
outlining this problem in the UK. Yet the media seem to be more interested
in the 500/600 cases of alleged historical abuse that happened in some
cases almost 50 years ago. In my opinion, if these ‘alleged victims’ are
only after ‘closure’ wouldn’t it be nice of them to donate any monies
awarded to help the innocent children that are actually facing abuse on a
daily basis, not by a celebrity who apparently 40/50 years ago placed
there hand on your arm for a couple of seconds too long and made you feel
uncomfortable or had a squeeze of your bottom etc, but the children who
are abused daily by people known to them, who gain their trust and who in
most cases are a family member, friend somebody well known to them. But
then that is wishful thinking that they would want to help prevent abuse
from happening as this would not benefit them in any way….

Mudplugger
February 13, 2013 at 16:41

It’s often dangerous to raise the topic here, but chances are none of
the eventual target of juicy cash-handouts from the Hillsborough event
will ever find its way to deserving causes either. Funny that.

Oscar February 13, 2013 at 19:13

” the NSPCC advert came on stating that there are 46000 children at
risk “.
Presumably they imply that of you donate money to the NSPCC
these children will be saved from abuse ?.
Or if they know this for a
fact what are they doing about?. Informing authorities?.

Voltaire February 13, 2013 at 23:35

@Wellwisher:

I think you are perfectly right to be sceptical, I think Mark
Williams-Thomas does have an agenda, or even a few agendas, you should look
for them in everything he tweets. He’s like a propaganda machine.

I re-watched the ITV Exposure update shown in November about the Jimmy
Savile thing recently and, oh my gawd, the total dishonesty, misleading
information, propaganda and the stupid horror movie inspired music and sound
effects to imply some really dark evil conspiracy (when the only conspiracy
in reality is probably his and his pal Meirion Jones’ from Newsnight),
completely and utterly beggars belief in the light of what is now known
(from reading Anna Raccoon’s blogs, the CPS report, observations from others
etc)…

Stephen Davies February 13, 2013 at 13:52

Sorry to dissent —and I do so with the benefit of some legal experience and
in dissenting I don’t disagree with the principles about the need to achieve
justice—- just the best way that is achieved —but I do think the ADVERSARIAL
system is not always the best way of establishing an objective truth in all
cases—the present system provides for whichever subjective truth either side
put forward side, the jury prefers and nothing beyond that..I suspect it might
not have worked in this case —no gripe with the need for alledged perpetrator
or alledged victim or the Society in which they live (which brings the case on
Society’s behalf ) all having proper safeguards of their rights but really
shouldn’t one question the outcome in this case? and if one does —- look for a
better system.

Moor
Larkin February 13, 2013 at 14:25

I keep seeing this argument that all trials are “subjective”, but this
just isn’t true because there is usually “objective” evidence present. A
jury makes a subjective decision but the reason the system works is because
their individual subjectivity is leavened by objective evidence. To try to
say that all legal process is just a soap opera with the best actors winning
is just avoiding the issue that the area of “historical allegations” is
almost unique in the way those cases are balanced.

I would tend to agree that the adversarial system is not the way to
handle historical allegations. Often a genuine *victim* may just want to be
heard and listened to and some kind of Tribunal might be a better vehicle.
Insidiously the law inevitably encourages a guilty plea because then the
penalties are promised to be lighter. I can imagine an innocent man who
actually cares for the ‘hurt’ person, being more likely to plead guilty, to
avoid imposing more “suffering” on that person, whereas a guilty man who
cared nothing, would fight genuine charges tooth and nail, on the basis he
had nothing to lose.

The way laws about corroborative evidence that were designed to help
protect pre-pubescent children from clear and present danger have been
hijacked by adults pursuing historical grievances is the real scandal. One
problem I suspect is that the secrecy around family courts means we do not
even know how many children have been protected by those laws, so we don’t
even know if the original concept carries any actual judicial merit in the
case of Minors.

Stephen Davies
February 13, 2013 at 17:02

Well Moor Larkin you may have conducted moor (no pun intended) criminal
trials than I have and are justified in your assertion of what is ‘true’
(whatever that might mean) but my experience is rather different then
yours —a trial is not a soap opera but it is most successfully conducted
by both sides considering it something of a game that they are required to
win —indeed the rules are such that you have to play the game to win —if
that is the definition of a quest for objective truth or as a result of
the game being played by existing rules objective truth is found then my
definition of objectivity is a little different than yours.I didn’t see
Kate Blackwell in action —-did she accuse Francis Andreade of being a
‘fantacist’? Perfectly legitimate in Court proceedure —–or would the
damage have been lessened with no lessening of a quest for the truth if
the assertion had been put in a less corrosive manner such as ‘My client
alleges that you are a fantasist’ —or even if less perjorative language
than ‘fantasist’ had been used. Well words like fantasist in my opinion
are better suited to soap operas than an objective quest for the truth but
then I don’t watch soap operas or thankfully don’t now conduct criminal
trials —-and just in case you think me a hypocrite comfortably retired
neither my partners nor I ever accepted instructions to conduct the
defence of anyone charged with a sexual offence–the ‘truth’ in such
matters (lying as readers of this blog appearing to agree) being more than
a little difficult to ascertain —-and not furthered by rules that admit
—even encourage language better suited to a television drama

Moor Larkin February 13, 2013 at 17:18

I can see that it is a “game” for the lawyers, and understandably so,
because to become emotionally involved would make their job impossible.
The game certainly relies on those lawyers competently being able to
ensure all the relevant facts pursuant to their case are presented and
any rebuttals prepared. One of the other unique things about the
“historical allegations” as I understand them to be being implemented is
that disclosure of all the information the prosecution have uncovered is
not required to be made to the defence and that this is different to
other areas of the way law is conducted (maybe not all, I wouldn’t know,
but most).

Anyhow, whether I am right or wrong about the law, I do agree with
you that these cases should not be subject to adversarial law, but
rather something more discursive and healing. There is also a huge issue
to my way of thinking about the purpose of gaoling senior citizens for
something they did wrong half a lifetime before. I believe many of these
old people actually admit the offences anyway, almost as if glad to have
it off their conscience but given that they are in that sense probably
reformed already and no longer of any danger to anyone, I fail to see
any purpose in locking them up. The police of course see each conviction
and sentence as a “result”.

Stephen Davies
February 13, 2013 at 19:22

We agree more than we disagree Moor Larkin —I looked on it as a
game because that what my profession required of me—- but both emotion
and reason led me to believe that that was wrong and ultimately
destructive—-a destruction not so very different to that of the media
when it became a game of infotainment —individuals deserve more
respect than as I remark ‘ The practice of Criminal Law is a Middle
Class game played with Working Class pawns’ just as they deserve
better than the present press—–Some victims of certain crimes are not
compensated for the offence committed against them either by
conviction or compensation under the present system.I do think though
that law rather than counselling is a more appropriate remedy since I
have always thought that the true victim needs public affirmation of
their reality—less condemnation of the offender but rather something
different—perhaps vindiction—-and never at the risk of their reality
being termed a fantasy by the prosecution lawyers as the matter is
examined in the course of a game —-such a process requires a shared
value system between Society and the victim—-its pretty obvious that
that doesn’t presently exist in Society—-but then I see law for what
it might be or might have been rather than what it is —-and
counselling for what it might become —-a Brave new World conditioning
of how to see the world—rather what it may for the moment be. The
issue of shared values was a matter for intense jurisprudential
discussion in the late 1960s in what were known as the Hart/Devlin
debates —a topic worthy of one of Ms Raccoon’s blogs when she hasn’t
better things to do —– for the consequences of it have been great.

Duncan Disorderly
February 13, 2013 at 13:16

Preventing proper cross examination of those making accusations of sexual
abuse is predicated on the idea that nobody, or very few people, make false
accusations. Even if it true that few lie about sexual abuse – and I don’t
have reason to dispute that – preventing proper cross examination will mean
that very confused or mentally ill people will send the innocent to jail in
far greater numbers than is currently the case. Worse, it will be exploited by
malicious individuals who lie for compensation or revenge.

JuliaM February
13, 2013 at 13:33

But that will suit the feminist whackjobs that are always screaming over
the rape conviction figures. Can’t make an omelette without breaking eggs,
and all that!

M Barnes February 13, 2013 at 13:13

Couldn’t agree more.

To go alongside your Helena Kennedy quote, I am trying to remember who said
Justice and the Law are 2 different things (or something to that effect).

therealguyfaux
February 14, 2013 at 03:05

An undoubtedly apocryphal tale has it that Oliver Wendell Holmes, US
Supreme Court Justice, was once hailed on his walk to work one morning with
the exhortation from a passerby, “Do justice, Mr. Justice!”, to which
Holmes, something of a moral sceptic if not a downright cynic, is said to
have rejoined, “No sir! We do law– ‘justice’ is none of our business!” The
story is believed because Holmes, even if he never said it in so many words,
expressed many times during his long legal career, which spanned from the
1860′s to the 1930′s, that sort of sentiment; he did in fact tell one
graduating class at Harvard Law School, at their commencement address, that
they ought never confuse what’s “Legal” and what’s “Moral,” as that can lead
to much mischief and grief, even though such a principle, to them and to
most people, can and does stink to High Heaven.

M Barnes
February 14, 2013 at 13:08

Thanks! I will need to find out about Justice Holmes – I do love this
blog. The argument about confusing moral and legal is a cracker. I would
hope that they coincided more often than not. When they don’t it is
perhaps because ‘moral’ is enormously subjective whereas ‘legal’ is
(generally) precise. ‘Moral’ changes over time, and sometimes very quickly
indeed. ‘Legal’ not so much. Perhaps what Justice Holmes should have said
was be careful that you are clear which one is which.

Oscar February
14, 2013 at 16:52

he sounds interesting.
i’m in awe of great jurists.

Jonathan Mason
February 13, 2013 at 13:12

Agree with what you say about the Andrade case. It is really hard to get
accurate information from reports in the UK press–for example I have not been
able to find a full transcript of her cross examination–but there is a
plethora of contradictory information in the press reports.

For example (from various reports), she voluntarily appeared as the sole
witness against the Brewers even though she didn’t want to appear in court,
but she was not subpoenaed or forced to testify. She could have testified from
behind a screen, but she did not want to as she wanted to be able to see the
accused.

She apparently said that being cross examined was like being raped all over
again, yet THE JURY DID NOT BELIEVE HER RAPE STORY, though it agreed that
Brewer had sexual contact with her when she was under age, which apparently
was not forcible rape, though legally speaking she would not have been able to
consent to sexual acts before she turned 16. It appears from reports that the
under age sexual activity was consensual, not in the legal sense, but in the
sense that she was not forced to do it with physical threats or blackmail.

She was told by the police not to undergo therapy before the trial, but she
had been taking antidepressant medications, a form of therapy for depression.
Then again, the police forces involved said they had not advised her to to
without therapy.

She self-harmed throughout her life, telling the jury in the Brewer case
it was what made her “feel alive”. [Guardian]. Well fine, if you enjoy
that kind of thing, but she took an overdose of paracetamol at the age of 13,
which is an incredibly dangerous drug to take as an overdose as it can destroy
the liver, and she died from an overdose of insulin (apparently) that she had
(apparently) stolen from her husband. (How can we know she was not
murdered?).

The whole story is a horrible mish-mash of misinformation and
disinformation.

One rather obvious interpretation that I have not seen in print ANYWHERE is
that she might have killed herself because some or all of her testimony was
lies or fantasies. As said above, the jury did not believe her rape story,
though it may be that the jury just decided to go for a compromise verdict on
the grounds that there wasn’t smoke without fire, but that she wasn’t a very
reliable witness either. Juries are like that.

I am going to be very interested to see what happens when the Stuart Hall
case comes to court. It could be a veritable firestorm as he has sworn to
vigorously defend himself. I always liked Stuart Hall as a reporter on Look
North when I was young as he and I both had an interest in antique clocks of
which he has a huge collection. He also has a great sense of humour. I will
find it hard to take it if he is convicted of rape, but one must be objective
and acknowledge that we viewers know nothing of the personal lives of the
talking heads on TV.

JuliaM February
13, 2013 at 13:31

The problem with these case is that you can’t really ‘vigorously defend
yourself’ against an accusation that goes back 20, 30 years. Can you?

It comes down to who is more sympathetic and believeable in court on the
day…

Jonathan
Mason February 13, 2013 at 14:00

Well, in the case of the Brewer defence, it was clearly the defendants’
claim that the plaintiff was a fantasist and had made the whole thing up,
which is why the defence lawyer adopted that line. I imagine Hall would
instruct his lawyers to take a similar line, if that is what he means by
vigorous defence.

Of course at this point we don’t even know if he ever met the women who
are accusing him or if he had some kind of relationship to the plaintiffs.
There does seem to be a huge divergence between the charge of rape of a
22-year-old woman and some minor cases of kissing or groping. What we do
know is that Hall has described the charges as “pernicious”.

Jonathan
Mason February 13, 2013 at 14:23

Also, I am not sure whether Brewer testified in court, but it sounds
like Stuart Hall does plan to testify in his own defense, because to not
testify could hardly be described as defending vigorously. Since he is a
very fluent speaker it would be very interesting to see how he deals
with the prosecutor in cross examination.

Ted Treen February 13, 2013 at 12:44

The more I see of ANYTHING done by our wonderful altruistic rulers, the
more I am convinced that “Yes Minister” was in fact a documentary…

Brass Monkey
February 13, 2013 at 18:56

Hear Hear!

The Jannie February 13, 2013 at 12:28

Today’s only “BUT” – media is a plural!

(removes pedant’s hat)

john warren February 13, 2013 at 11:56

Wow Emma!

Very well observed and thought through. Your summing up of yet another
legal malaise makes total sense to me. Sadly however, it’s yet another
sticking plaster left lying in a drawer when it’s bandages that are required
to stem the rivers of blood flowing from our benighted land’s wounds.

Oscar February 13,
2013 at 11:52

well said and the truth.

JuliaM February
13, 2013 at 10:53

/applause

Stephen Davies February 15, 2013 at 11:12

No one could possibly fault your judgement or action in returning the girl
to her home. You couldn’t handle a difficult situation, You weren’t required
to legally or morally —-certainly the care of children (or at least this one)
wasn’t the profession you chose in life. Andrade’s teacher was in a rather
different position through choice. He chose his profession and the
responsibilities that came with it.So important were some of those
responsibilities in Society’s eyes that the criminal law imposes sanctions if
they are not discharged. Obvious and trite legal theory. Well accept the
playing field if that is the one you chooses —-Pupils with benefits is not
part of that deal —so important is that principle that the Ccriminal law will
give you a whacking if you overstep it. I for one don’t find those perimeters
too wrong because its about the restriction of the use and potential abuse of
power and authority . No teacher has any proprietorial right within a child
and I would hazard a guess possibly could have since even a parent has none
save as against Society. That there might be mitigation if the perimeters of
the playing field are overstepped is quite a seperate matter —-don’t
confabulate all the various elements that the law takes into account in
achieving some form of Justice—-the extent of informed consent is highly
relevant —–I don’t doubt some 14 year olds have a reasonable idea what is
taking place—some possibly adequate (I personally know of a relationship
between what was a 40 year old man and a 14 year old girl that resulted in a
prosecution but also a subsequent marriage between the criminal party and the
girl that has lasted 30 or more years and produced one of the most stable and
happy families I know) but equally I am a little doubtful decisions made at 14
that may affect the rest of ones life are always for the best. Its why the law
says some decisions can’t be taken before a certain age —entertaingly to a
chain smoker such as me to buy a packet of cigarrettes before the age of 18
—but its perfectly lawful for my son when he was 16 year to enter into any
relationship heterosexual or otherwise with anyone other than someone such as
a teacher.Yes even now the law recognises the potential for greater potential
for abuse by a teacher past the age of 16. The law is there to protect —that
is its function —how it ensures protection is quite another matter—-present
legal theory suggests positivism is the most effective method —for the purpose
of this post punishement if one likes. If one takes law as a function of
social engineering (I personally don’t) then there is a need for show trials
and the modern day equivalent of the auto da fe.—Cry HERETIC or the modern day
equivalents FANTASIST or PAEDO perhaps One side or the other is heretical to
prevailing views and so one or other side is wrong (esteblished by a
professionally played game that posters on this blog appear to have the same
touching faith in at reaching the truth as perhaps some in the middle ages had
in the methods of the Catholic Church). Law should surely not be so different
from the practice of medicine if it is a perform the FIRST function that might
reasonably be expected of it —the health of Society —-and the starting point
might reasonably be the same as that in medicine ‘Primum Non Nocere’—First do
no harm —-Social Engineers deem themselves as capable of doing infinite good
with their theories much as the Catholic Church must have believed when
dealing with the Cathar heresy or the reformation but don’t appear to think
too much about the law of unexpected consequences. Yes cry ‘HERETIC’ with all
the stigma and punishment that went with such an accusation. Cry it louder and
louder and its bound to work —-or not as History might reasonably be said to
teach

Jonathan Mason
February 15, 2013 at 12:45

True. Bottom line is that prison sentences exist to act as a deterrent to
breaking the law, not because society wants to lock up a lot of teachers.

Jonathan Mason
February 15, 2013 at 15:49

No one could possibly fault your judgement or action in returning the
girl to her home.

As I recall the girl herself questioned the wisdom of that decision, though
I think it would have stood up in the court of appeal.

mewsical February 15, 2013 at 17:52

Btw, this last comment applies to Voltaire’s post, not to the discussion
about the 15 year old girl.

Stephen Davies February 15, 2013 at 18:19

To Jonathan and Mewsical —–Thanks for reading my final post —it should have
appeared after your post Jonathen about your wife’s relative who came to live
with you but I am not that good on a computer.Hope my posts weren’t too dull
or too intense but yes Mewsical I reckon Duncroft is only newsworthy because
its been made out for something I doubt it was. Ms Raccoon has moved on to a
similar story in some senses —-yes yet another ‘investigation’ that produced
sound bites with all the intellectual nutritional value and balance of a
chocolate bar and consumed with as much thought as the chocolate bar whilst
walking along the street whilst absorbed in other things.—but chocolate bars
appeal to an untutored palate, are easily accessible, and give a pleasing nice
intense sugar rush—not so different in appeal from a salacious story that
appeals and quickly satisfies the public appetite for what passes as moral
indignation — Still Mewsical Miss Fiona /Karin Ward/Meirion have as Andy
Wharhol predicted had their 15 minutes of fame —–and so has Andrade—— though I
am not so sure Andrade ever set out to get it or wanted it —perhapd a
different approach to life to your Duncroft peers

Voltaire February 15, 2013 at 21:47

@Mewsical:

The Sun were definitely trying to pressurise and manipulate ‘Ms A’ into
going to the police (probably because it would make a juicer story), telling
her that they “had some information that Jimmy Savile may have been connected
to the infamous care home in Jersey” but they “could do nothing about it
unless she was prepared to make a complaint”. Why I wonder? If they knew of
any actual victims of Jimmy Savile over in Jersey, why not get them to report
it? Whats ‘Ms A’ got to do with it? And if they did not actually know of any
alleged victims of Jimmy Savile over in Jersey (and I doubt they did), what
the fuck were they talking about?

Chasing a story if you ask me and I wonder if ‘Ms B’ had also been
approached by them but was more canny about covering it up when she went to
the police?

Also I see no reason to discount collusion between ‘Ms B’ and ‘Ms C’ just
because they claim not to have seen or been in contact with each other since
leaving Duncroft. Is it not possible ‘Ms B’ and ‘Ms C’ cooked the story up
together then ‘Ms C’ got cold feet and bottled out? Perhaps it is possible
they invented the story together and forgot to confirm details of where they
were sitting in the tv lounge, whether it was under a blanket or not etc? And
that is why their accounts of those details varied so much when put on the
spot by the police? (I have some quite clear memories of the rough layouts of
most rooms I can remember being in going back to before I started primary
school and how I was seated etc and these women where at this place for more
or less 2 years…). Or maybe ‘Ms B’ was merely reiterating gossip she had heard
in Duncroft at the time (perhaps put about by ‘Ms C’ herself) and hadn’t
actually seen it with her own eyes at all and that accounts for why ‘Ms C’
claimed not to remember her and had such a different version of how it
allegedly happened? Or perhaps ‘Ms B’ and ‘Ms C’ went to the Mirror with this
story back in 1994 and the Sun decided to trace ‘Ms B’ and ask her if she was
willing to now go to the police about it, as they did with ‘Ms A’ after she
hadn’t seen them in over 3 months the same year, and that explains the
differences in their stories e.g the story was 14 years old and if it was
invented, rather than a real memory, some of the smaller details had been
forgotten by this time?

Did Alison Levitt consider or look into any of those possibilities? Given
the suspiciousness surrounding a lot of the other accusations I think she
should have done…

Who is ‘Rochelle Shepherd’? I was wondering if she was ‘Ms B’, given she
was described as being in her “late forties” and claimed not to have been
abused by Savile herself , yet appears to be one of the ring leaders, this is
also the impression I got from ‘Rochelle Sheperd’ on tv.

I think Fiona is ‘Ms G’, as she claimed to have been part of the 2007 –
2009 police investigation, yet at that time there was no mention of the hand
jobs in his Rolls Royce or at the BBC she claimed happened on the ITV Exposure
documentary – and even Alison Levitt commented that she “did not know at the
time she met her that Ms G had participated in a television programme about
Jimmy Savile. During that programme she made a number of allegations which go
considerably further than those made to DC S in 2008″. Even before the CPS
report came out I had been curious why the statement made by Surrey police
made no indication of Fiona’s accusations if she had, as she seems to have
claimed to Newsnight and the Daily Mail, actually been part of the 2007 – 2009
police investigation. The CPS report has made my suspicions all the more
stronger regarding Fiona’s claims and the way she whittered on in the ITV
Exposure documentary and the way ‘Ms G’ seems to have whittered on in her
statement to the police in 2008 seem kind of similar. Also Alison Levitt has
described ‘Ms G’ as now being “in her mid-fifties”, which is the sort of age
i’d probably put Fiona at in the ITV Exposure documentary if asked. ‘Ms G’s’
story also seems to have changed in telling it to the police in 2008 and by
the time Alison Levitt interviewed her in 2012. Being asked to ‘massage his
groin’ is added to he asked for a ‘blowjob’ in 2008, and (what she said on ITV
Exposure aside) by the time Alison Levitt speaks to her in 2012 ‘pot of tea’
is changed to ‘tea as in something you eat’ and being asked for a ‘blow job’
and making an excuse and going off to hide “in the lavatories until he had
gone” and getting “into trouble for abandoning him” is changed to her “having
given him a ‘hand job’” but saying “that she had refused to give him a ‘blow
job’”, from her recorded statement in 2008 to speaking to Alison Levitt in
2012 – it seems this lady can’t make up her mind what happened, hmm…

The ITV Exposure documentary was an utter farce and I think the follow up
to it in November was an even bigger one “trial by posthumous innuendo” was a
very apt description for it. I couldn’t believe the propaganda, manipulation
of facts and downright deceit in it and the eerie horror music and creepy
voices used to read out his letters to help set the scene and give the
impression of some deep, dark, satanic conspiracy was just ridiculous looking
back. The makers of that show must think their audience is so stupid – unless
it was actually intended as a joke…? lol