‘ Reflections on Savile at Duncroft’
‘Reflections on Savile at Duncroft’
Edinburgh ESRC Project
Securing a data set on allegations of sexual abuse made against
the former disc jockey, Jimmy Savile
This project aims to secure data that might otherwise be lost, relating to allegations made against the former DJ, Jimmy Savile. The initiative for the project came from a lawyer and writer who is a former resident of Duncroft School (from whence the initial allegations against Savile emanate), and whose blogging activity under the name of ‘Anna Raccoon’ has generated a substantial body of related correspondence and contacts which provide and could lead to information not yet in the public domain.
If you are one of the people who has been in contact with Anna about this or who has contributed to ‘The Raccoon Arms’ blog, or another blog on related issues, we ask for your permission to:
(1) Add your blog contributions to our data base
(2) Allow Anna to pass your relevant communications and contributions to the research team OR/AND
(3) Allow Anna to pass your email address/contact details to the research team
If you are willing, we would also welcome the opportunity to interview former members of staff and residents from Duncroft to gather their accounts of what life was like there, and specifically what they might remember of Jimmy Savile’s association with the School.
Our aim is to digitally archive this data set and to establish a timeline of events, allegations and circumstances through cross-referencing Anna’s data with that set out in the media and in official reports.
We will code and anonymise all identifying data before recording or sharing findings relating to any of the above. In the case of (1), above, we may use the ‘handles’ or monikers that you have already provided. Your contact details will not be passed on without your permission
On hearing from you, or at your request, we will provide further information about the project. We will provide a consent form which clarifies your agreement and our obligations to you.
This project is being carried out by Mark Smith (Principal Investigator), Steve Kirkwood and Clare Llewellyn, University of Edinburgh with Ros Burnett, University of Oxford. It is funded by a grant from the Economic and Social Research Council(ESRC).
Contact details:
Dr Mark Smith mark.smith@ed.ac.uk
Dr Ros Burnett ros.burnett@crim.ox.ac.uk
Dr Steve Kirkwood s.kirkwood@ed.ac.uk
Clare Llewellyn c.a.Llewellyn@sms.ed.ac.uk
School of Social and Political Science, University of Edinburgh
- Talwin
February 25, 2014 at 8:33 am -
While I have read all the correspondence here on this unfortunate matter, I have not contributed to it. However, I should like to say what a welcome, necessary and potentially valuable project this is.
- JuliaM
February 25, 2014 at 5:56 pm -
Seconded!
- JuliaM
- Andrew Rosthorn
February 25, 2014 at 8:45 am -
I approve of 1, 2, 3.
- Mike
February 25, 2014 at 10:08 am -
Just a lurker, but fully supportive.
- Eyes Wide Shut
February 25, 2014 at 10:32 am -
This is great news! When they refer to blog contributions, I daresay they don’t want people like me who know nothing material to the Savile affair, but if it makes it easier to copy over a database to them, they can have my email
- Ian B
February 25, 2014 at 10:36 am -
Likewise.
- Ian B
- Margaret Jervis
February 25, 2014 at 10:56 am -
A very welcome development. Happy to have email passed on and anything of use if can be of assistance.
- Mudplugger
February 25, 2014 at 11:31 am -
I have no problem with any observations I have made on the affair being passed on.
- Moor Larkin
February 25, 2014 at 11:45 am -
The long grass getting longer?
The evidence is all in the public domain already. - Rightwinggit
February 25, 2014 at 12:23 pm -
Smithers? Release the hounds…
- rabbitaway
February 25, 2014 at 12:37 pm -
Like Moor says, the info is in the public domain already ! That said, I am of course, IN !
- Moor Larkin
February 25, 2014 at 12:41 pm -
Potentially deep in it, if the currently bent UK lawyers get their wily way………………
- rabbitaway
February 25, 2014 at 12:48 pm -
He who dares wins !
- Moor Larkin
February 25, 2014 at 12:54 pm -
He who loses tells it like it is………
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5j2F4VcBmeo
- Moor Larkin
- rabbitaway
- Moor Larkin
- rabbitaway
February 25, 2014 at 1:01 pm -
As long as we get a decent publication of the FACTS to counteract the BS that the msm have been peddling, I’ll be relatively happy !
“Onwards” - Carol42
February 25, 2014 at 2:14 pm -
Only a contributor but happy to give permission to pass on my email address if it helps in any way.
- GildasTheMonk
February 25, 2014 at 3:16 pm -
I agree, agree, agree
- sally stevens
February 25, 2014 at 3:59 pm -
As Mark and Ros know, I have a lot of written communications that have not seen the light of day so far. When they say so, I will pass it on happily. Quite a bit of it during the ramp up to the first aborted BBC show and before.
- Moor Larkin
February 25, 2014 at 4:12 pm -
Your light in the day was brought me here in the first place……
http://rockphiles.typepad.com/a_life_in_the_day/- sally stevens
February 26, 2014 at 2:43 am -
Too kind, Moor – and thank you for sprinting on! You might like this – http://rockphiles.typepad.com/a_life_in_the_day/2014/02/hell-hath-no-fury-part-three.htnl
- sally stevens
- Moor Larkin
- Chris
February 25, 2014 at 4:29 pm -
Quite happy to help in any way I can….
‘looking at it from my angle, yew see why I’m so sad…’
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xq2St8D0hb8 - Ho Hum
February 25, 2014 at 4:49 pm -
I have nothing of direct personal involvement to provide, but I am happy for you to pass on my email in case these people have any more general info requests to which I might be able to contribute from some of the older web pages that I may have copied away when this first came to light and I trawled Google to see if there was any material online which shed any more light on the allegations being made of not.
That said, there was next to nothing that I could find in general circulation, though, pertaining to the more lurid accusations, which was what led to my general cynicism on the matter, as nothing that monstrous, perpetrated for that long, could reasonably be expected to be as totally buried
- Eyes Wide Shut
February 25, 2014 at 8:40 pm -
There’s been a lot of research over the years into why people believe or pretend to believe what is on the face of it unbelievable: maybe Edinburgh should follow up with an investigation of why some people don’t believe. Do they share any specific set of character traits, values, experiences etc ? I suppose we’d all say “commonsense”, which is notoriously difficult to define as well as being rather uncommon. In my case I would have to say it was the utter silliness of the official pronouncements re Savile “He spent every waking moment contemplating abuse!”, “He groomed a nation”!, combined with the cheesy presentation of the “witnesses” which tripped my wires. Res ipsa loquitur: the thing speaks for itself. However, that wasn’t enough for me to rule the whole thing out. It did however inspire me to start looking around for alternative sources of information.
- Eyes Wide Shut
- Duncan Disorderly
February 25, 2014 at 8:23 pm -
- Eyes Wide Shut
February 25, 2014 at 8:56 pm -
@Duncan. Brilliant article.
- Carol42
February 25, 2014 at 9:04 pm -
Great article thanks, just like the last moral pain of satanic abuse when I was involved a little. I just could not see how apparently sane people could believe any of it, it was just too ridiculous and heaven knows what harm it caused to the unfortunate children caught up in it and their parents.
- IlovetheBBC
February 25, 2014 at 11:14 pm -
Powerful piece and well argued.
- Eyes Wide Shut
- Pete
February 25, 2014 at 9:00 pm -
My occasional comments have not included any “inside knowledge” but for what it’s worth I support this research and have no objection to my email being disclosed to the researchers.
My own scepticism is based on
(a) due to personal experience of high-security psychiatric nursing I find it extremely improbable that Saville was left alone with female patients at Broadmoor.
(b) Due to my knowledge of historical persecutions (witches, Jews, early Christians) and more recent social work scandals especially Orkney, I can recognise very similar mental processes in the public/media/police response to the Saville allegations, as discussed in Norman Cohn’s classic study “Europe’s Inner Demons”.
- rabbitaway
February 26, 2014 at 4:53 am - Geoff
February 26, 2014 at 7:25 am -
Yes, permission granted for 1, 2 and 3
- Andrew Rosthorn
February 26, 2014 at 12:06 pm -
Now the admen join the feeding frenzy.
Leeds agency gratterpalm has completed a rebrand of Basis, the social enterprise charity.
Part of a network of charitable projects, Basis delivers specialist training to professionals and young people with a key focus on the prevention of child sexual exploitation.After a review of existing youth-focused brand collateral, gratterpalm proposed that Basis needed to show more of its interactive approach to training and focus on training the professionals who work with the young people.
The agency created a new brand identity – with the positioning line ‘Bespoke training from the Social Issues Specialists’ – along with photography, educational literature and an updated website.
Charlotte Nutland, head of sales and marketing at Basis, said: “It’s crucial that we inform professionals and the wider community about this complex crime and make everyone aware that child sexual exploitation is happening within Leeds and indeed the rest of the UK.
“We want to arm professionals with the right knowledge and skills to help prevent this crime affecting young people. We worked with gratterpalm to create a powerful and honest brand that captured the unique work we do.”
Dan Lindley, design director at gratterpalm, added: “It’s really important that people are educated in the modern dangers that children face. It’s a sensitive issue so the design needed to be both delicate and strong. Similar charities focus purely on the victim and whilst we didn’t shy away from confronting this side, we wanted the key message to be of training, prevention, and hope.”
Established in 1978, gratterpalm numbers 160 staff and works with brands including Asda, Halfords, DFS and Arla Foods.
- Corevalue
February 26, 2014 at 12:33 pm -
Yes, for whatever small contribution I can make
- Mark Smith
February 26, 2014 at 1:53 pm -
Haven’t posted on this board before but just to acknowledge people’s contributions and willingness for these to be used in our research
- Duncan Disorderly
February 26, 2014 at 6:13 pm -
- Carol42
February 26, 2014 at 6:28 pm -
Great! Make a historic claim, no evidence, no proof of any offence or even that they ever met Jimmy Savile. Rob deserving charities , the NHS and the BBC of our money and they call this justice? It is an absolute disgrace, even if most of the allegations were true, most were also relatively trivial and if, as claimed, they were still affecting these women after forty years there is something far wrong with them. No doubt the bounty hunters will be after more of our money from the criminal injury board as will many other ‘victims’ I am beyond disgusted.
- sally stevens
February 26, 2014 at 6:59 pm -
Ever heard of an appeal, Duncan? The Trust will more than likely do that. There’s no ‘that’s that’ at the moment.
- Lucozade
February 26, 2014 at 7:26 pm -
sally stevens,
Re: “Ever heard of an appeal, Duncan? The Trust will more than likely do that. There’s no ‘that’s that’ at the moment”
True.
Bullying the trustees to make payments for accusations that have not even been investigated, yet many have already been shown to be false, after the man has passed away and can’t even say anything on the subject – is no reflection that he’s guilty, but the trustees would have been put under enormous pressure….
- Ho Hum
February 26, 2014 at 7:52 pm -
My guess is that the NatWest will, as executors, made a proposal along lines such as
– guaranteeing a fixed sum to each of the charity beneficiaries
– shown that that would be better than they would get even if they were to contest the claims and win, as the costs would eat into the estate more than just settling the matter
– given some sort of undertaking to bear the risks of any additional late claims, having maybe done side deal with existing litigants agents that they would take on no more claimants cases
– the beak will then go away and write up words that this is the best financial outcome possible and that he can’t allow the charities to overturn it, negating their responsibilities to maximise their income, just to pursue the truth or otherwise of the claims themselves, something on which he is, of course, not passing any judgement on himselfWell, something like that
Then, the charities look like vengeful whingers if they complain, NWs public image is preserved, and the general public can sit back and say ‘Ahhh, that’s good’, unaware that principle may be being flushed down the sewer right under its feet
C’est la vie
- sally stevens
February 26, 2014 at 8:08 pm -
The Trust was represented pro bono, so no legal costs so far. Don’t know if their brief is experienced in appellate law though. I’m sure they are talking this over at the moment.
- Ho Hum
February 26, 2014 at 8:23 pm -
> Sally Stevens
It’s not their costs which would be the problem
- sally stevens
- Ho Hum
- Lucozade
- Ian B
February 26, 2014 at 8:35 pm -
I like how we’re openly now in the realm of, to quote, ” is said to have”.
It reminded me of doing O Level history, and the teacher going through sifting historical evidence regarding (in particular) Richard III who “is said to have” murdered the little princes, and learning from that how uncertain things are, and how you can never really know.
“Is said to have”.
Indeed. And that’s all.
- Carol42
- rabbitaway
February 26, 2014 at 6:23 pm -
“Onwards” !
- Ho Hum
February 26, 2014 at 7:56 pm -
Have you ever wondered who Charlie Chaplin would have as the main characters nowadays in a present day remake of ‘Modern Times’?
- sally stevens
February 26, 2014 at 8:46 pm -
Ho Hum – so what costs exactly? Also, no judge is permitted to deny parties their right to appeal his or her judgment. Justice Sales can only find in this matter, and cannot issue any order that denies the Trust appeal rights. All he will do henceforward is submit his written opinion. And then he’s done. Moving on.
- Ho Hum
February 26, 2014 at 9:31 pm -
The NatWest’s legal costs, acting as executors, defending the estate, prior to its final distribution to the beneficiaries.
Assuming, of course, that I really have each of the parties involved here in their right place in the overall scheme of things
- Ho Hum
- sally stevens
February 26, 2014 at 9:50 pm -
NatWest already takes a good chunk of the Trust monies for administration. They have made a deal with the BBC and the NHS, presumably to settle claims against those parties, i.e. Duncroft and Broadmoor. Once the lawyers on the side of the alleged victims have been compensated under the current agreement there’s not going to be much left over unless they cut their fees. Not holding my breath on that.
So far, the losers are the institutions who stood to benefit from the Trusts. They are real victims.
I think the alleged victims can also seek recompense from the Government (taxpayers).
Anyway, dashing off to call Liz Dux. I’ve got a few dead people to sue, seeing as that’s the way to do it!
- Ho Hum
February 26, 2014 at 10:00 pm -
I’d start with Solomon, his estate should have accumulated somewhat by now, move on to Simenon if you want to increase the numerical probability, and then maybe think of closer to home, say Kennedy, Spitzer or Sanford.
As a last resort, there’s that guy works down the chip shop swears he’s Elvis…..
- Ho Hum
- Eyes Wide Shut
February 27, 2014 at 10:27 am -
This sort of thing drives me up the wall. It’s the principle that’s at stake. Call me old-fashioned but I would have thought that the victim of a crime, especially one as grave as child rape, would want justice, first and foremost: ie to see the perpetrator’s sorry ass in jail. To me this would mean (a) they were off the streets and (b) society was sending out a big message “We don’t tolerate this.” Now Savile is dead, so whatever he did or didn’t do, he will never face a jury of his peers. But putting that aside, it seems to me extraordinary that the question of monetary compensation can come to loom so large in cases where serious crimes are alleged. What are we saying here? That you can put a price on a crime? This is very close to the primitive notion of “blood money” : the whole tribe has a whip-round to pay off the family of a victim, in case they go all Hatfield and McCoy and start up a vendetta against the accused. And there’s usually a sliding scale in those cultures: rape a kid under the age of 10 and it’s not so bad because they can’t get pregnant, rape someone’s post-pubescent virgin daughter and it’s serious because her marriage prospects are damaged. I was brought up to believe that the broad difference between civil and criminal law in modern societies was the former was a matter of civil adjustment between individuals for wrongs of a civil nature (although some examples could be so bad they amounted to crimes) and the latter branch dealt with offences against society as a whole, although there would of course be individual victims. That’s why victims in criminal cases are regarded as witnesses not parties to proceedings and the prosecution is undertaken by the state not the complainant. And why just how badly affected the victim was psychologically by the crime may be an aggravating circumstance but doesn’t go to the question of whether or not a crime was committed. We’re losing all sorts of important concepts and distinctions here and I for one am worried about it.
- Moor Larkin
February 27, 2014 at 11:00 am -
You need to have your eyes wide open. I was reading that the Catholic Church has been stiffed for roughly 8oo million by 125 allegators. Reading this article that a wise woman referred me to, seem to show that the US media and the US Tort law has largely formed the evolving British form of both. The commentators unpicking the evidence are especially illuminating too.
http://www.themediareport.com/2013/01/28/cardinal-mahony-la-archdiocese-documents/
Of course it’s about the money.- Eyes Wide Shut
February 27, 2014 at 11:18 am -
If this continues, we are going to end up with a society where the notion of crime, and in particular sexual crime and in particular sexual crime against children, is regarded as a matter of civil compensation. This tells you everything you need to know about the prevailing value system in societies which pursue this remedy as the dominant one.
I’m quite familiar with the unravelling of the Catholic Church sex abuse cases in Ireland, BTW, where the situation is even more interesting than in the US. Unlike America, where Church and State are separated constitutionally, in Ireland for a very long time the RCC basically adminstered the education syste, the child welfare system and what we would now call social services i.e. orphanages etc. The reason for this was a much financial as anything else – the Irish State was more or less bankrupt after Independence and relied on the deep pockets of the worldwide Church to provide a basic security net. The whole furore over child abuse was only reined in when class actions had moved on from the Church itself to suing the State as vicariously liable for the actions of the RCC. At that point, after the demise of the Celtic Tiger, when Ireland was broke again, the government began to make noises that Enough was Enough and Time to Draw A Line.
- Moor Larkin
February 27, 2014 at 11:29 am -
Anglo-American cultures seem relatively unique in having a culture where “sex” has always been regarded as a crime (one way or another). The more I read of so-called “public school” paedophilia for instance, the more it sounds like ill-advised sexual experimentation that becomes bitterly regretted later in life. Now, for those who weren’t bothered in that way before, they suddenly spy a very profitable opportunity. Alongside all those who genuinely did commit the crime of “sex”, there are probably ever more now who will just say they did, and hope to scoop the pooling cash as well.
Just my growing opinion you understand, never having had one before on these matters, prior to the Savilisation process.
- Lucozade
February 27, 2014 at 1:39 pm -
Moor Larkin,
Re: “Anglo-American cultures seem relatively unique in having a culture where “sex” has always been regarded as a crime (one way or another)”
Not as bad as the muslims….
- Moor Larkin
February 27, 2014 at 1:49 pm -
@Lucozade
You’ve been watching too many modern movies…..
http://cinemahouston.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/valentino-banky.jpg
- Lucozade
- Moor Larkin
- sally stevens
February 27, 2014 at 8:57 pm -
They settled the last case against the archdiocese in LA about two weeks ago. 25 boys in Los Angeles, and 100 or more in Mexico. Rivera was tipped off by the archdiocese and went on the run in 1988. He remains free and unpunished. http://rockphiles.typepad.com/a_life_in_the_day/2014/02/nocente.htnl
- Eyes Wide Shut
- Moor Larkin
- Eyes Wide Shut
February 27, 2014 at 12:46 pm -
Well if you look back to the medieval period, most sexual offences involving women and children were in fact analysed as crimes against chattel property, because that is exactly what the victims were. So a Puritanical dislike of sex hardly entered the picture – what was at stake was the issue of the father’s control over his assets. That is why inter-familial abuse very rarely if ever made it to the courts: unless the complainants had evidence that they screamed blue murder, fought back etc etc, they were regarded as accomplices in the crime and treated as such. Even if they were 6 years old or younger when the offfending behaviour began. There is simply a wealth of jurisprudence in this area from the c19 and earlier including the infamous Wigmore Doctrine.
The issue of what were formerly referred to as homosexual offences is somewhat different. Specific acts were often ctriminalised, irrespective of the gender of the participants or their willingness or otherwise. It wasn’t until the 1880s that th La Bouchere Amendment to the 1887 Sexual Offences Act invented a category of homosexual crime per se as opposed to public order offences such as indecency etc. This was essentially a trade-off in parliament to raise the age of heterosexual consent – and the target there was child prostitution as a subset of prostitution, not the protection of young girls from unwanted forcible male attentions, whether of their family members or strangers.
Society from the c19 onwards has always been far more exercised by the notion of boys as the primary victims of childhood or teenage rape., or even that they might be seduced into homosexual acts and a great folklore has built up about predominantly male institutions, whether boarding school, scouts, choirs and more recently sports teams.etc etc . I am actually quite peed off at this new term “paedophilia” which has entered the lexicon and led to a fear that everywhere boys and girls go, there is some pervert waiting to pounce on them: quite simply most child victims of sexual assault are (a) girls and (b) raped by family members or someone such as the mother’s partner who is in a quasi-paternal role. We’v lost sight of this, so no wonder we don’t know how to tackle the problem. We’ve been so busy redefining it, to suit our notions, it’s no wonder we don’t have a clue what to do about it other than go after a handful of 70s DJs. Talk about displacement behaviour!
- Lucozade
February 27, 2014 at 1:58 pm -
Eyes wide shut,
Re: “what was at stake was the issue of the father’s control over his assets”
True, in a lot of cases marriage had a lot to do with money back then and how a woman, or even a man could get better future for themselves….
Re: “That is why inter-familial abuse very rarely if ever made it to the courts: unless the complainants had evidence that they screamed blue murder, fought back etc etc, they were regarded as accomplices in the crime and treated as such. Even if they were 6 years old or younger when the offfending behaviour began. There is simply a wealth of jurisprudence in this area from the c19 and earlier including the infamous Wigmore Doctrine”
Very few people would ever have dared own up to it, even if they were attacked or forced into it and were the victim for fear of becoming social pariah’s, even until very recently. Though I don’t necessarily think the situation there seems to be at the moment – where everyone is now claiming to be a ‘victim’, and some parents (mostly fathers) are probably scared to even look at their kids for fear of a false accusation is much better tbh… :/
- Eyes Wide Shut
February 27, 2014 at 3:17 pm -
That’s the whole thing, Lucozade. I’m not sure “everyone is now claiming to be a victim”. Let’s start with kids themselves: not adults. That’s what’s at issue here. Kids are very, very reluctant to divulge abuse from family members (actually we should be clear about this – we are mainly taking about adult males in the family) and apart from a few high-profile cases of false accusations fomented by other adults, it is vanishingly rare for them to do so out of spite, malice, etc etc.
As a matter of fact, when incest cases did go before the courts right up to the late 80s, there was a tendency for judges to find “no great harm ” unless the child had also been severely physically abused, and to attribute the offence to messy, dysfunctional families living hugger-mugger in substandard accommodation. There is c20 (not c15!) case law to the effect that unless the child was subsequently told the acts were wrong and shameful they probably would forget all about it or not take it so much to heart! And that wasn’t the judge speculating about psychological consequences – that was the judge saying well, look this is no big deal, unless we choose to treat it as such and basically we don’t. That doesn’t sound much like a dread stigma to me.
I very much doubt most ordinary, decent fathers live in fear that their children or wife will turn around and accuse them of child-rape. They might be worried about many things with regard to their families, but if any father told me his major fear was being falsely accused of forcible incest, I would have to wonder about his general state of mind. Not to mention his suscpeibility to the Press which alternately tells us, and sometimes on the same day, that accusers of all ages must be believed and that there are also paddy-wagons full of innocent men languishing in jail because of women and children’s propensity to making false accusations. This is pure cognitive dissonance. otherwise known as “Switch your brain off and let the Daily Mail tell you what to think this morning. Don’t worry if we tell you something different tomorrow morning. Believe that too.”
What gets my giddy goat is how dare opportunistic, adult liars and greedy lawyers help to make a dog’s breakfast of what is a genuinely serious crime, burying the whole thing under such waves of noise that most ordinary folk are left with no clear idea of (a) what is the nature of the offence and (b) how best to deal with it.
- Moor Larkin
February 27, 2014 at 4:07 pm -
Newsnight itself ironically, devoted a whole programme to the Stanley Claridge stepfather/child molestation cases in 2000.
Who remembers it now?
http://jimcannotfixthis.blogspot.co.uk/2013/11/no-hiding-place.html
Shy Keenan was the primary victim, but the programme was mostly about her sister I think, although the footage has been removed from the internet since I blogged about it. Max Clifford acted as the agent between her and the BBC.- Eyes Wide Shut
February 27, 2014 at 4:40 pm -
I remember it well. If we can use such vacuous terminology as “classic offender”, that prog would come much, much closer to giving you an insight. Which is not to say that child rape doesn’t occur in other milieux and social classes as well: the author Edward St Aubyn gives a devastating portrayal of child rape in his Patrick Melrose novels, based on his own rape by his aristocratic father at the age of 6. St Aubyn’s family background would be worlds removed from the Claridge menage, but what the two offenders would have in common is an absolutely unshakeable conviction that it was all quite natural really, after all animals mate with their offspring, no biggie, plus a sort of droit de siegneur atittude to their children or anyone under their control. The sheer gratuity of the acts themselves are often not recognised. We imagine the perpetrator must be overcome with devastating lust as a result of their “paedophile wiring” or in the grip of temporary madness, but there is a kind of almost bored quality about some of these offenders: “Well there was nothing on telly, so …”
Claridge trotted out the Child Rapist’s credo: “She came on to me, she was asking for it, I was doing her a favour”, which I would hesitate even to call a psychological defence mechanism. If you’ve ever had the misfortune to talk with a genuine child rapist, you quickly learn this isn’t even a tactic to manipulate your responses, their thinking is so grossly distorted they believe it’s true. But even if they didn’t, it wouldn’t make it any real difference. They just take what they please. It is that simple.
Now to mix this up with cheeky-chappy antics from the era of “Are You being Served?” does the grossest disservice imaginable to people who have been raped as children. And I have no words for adults who invent tales of childhood rape in order to secure a pay-out or to give themselves some sort of victim chic or get back at someone or whatever base motive inspires them. They belong in some special circle of hell reserved for those who turn others’ suffering to their own vile ends.
- Eyes Wide Shut
- Corevalue
February 27, 2014 at 4:45 pm -
It’s not my fear that I will be accused by my own children, or rather at my age, grandchildren, but the fear that a social worker or satanic abuse believer spots some small, begnign “symptom” and takes the children away for “their safety” and resultant implantation of false memories.
- Lucozade
February 27, 2014 at 4:56 pm -
Eyes Wide Shut,
Re: “I’m not sure “everyone is now claiming to be a victim”. Let’s start with kids themselves: not adults. That’s what’s at issue here. Kids are very, very reluctant to divulge abuse from family members (actually we should be clear about this – we are mainly taking about adult males in the family) and apart from a few high-profile cases of false accusations fomented by other adults, it is vanishingly rare for them to do so out of spite, malice, etc etc”
Actually I know many people that claim to have been ‘victims’ of rape or sexual abuse and not all of them are genuine and they do appear to be inspired by the latest craze/fashion/way to get sympathy/revenge/their own way etc – they’ve seen others do it and decided to do it themselves. I also know of a few women who attepted to pull that trick to try and stop the father getting access to his kids or as revenge after a break up. Yes when children come out with false allegations of that nature more often not there is a stupid adult/s behind them pulling the strings, whether they’ve been told to come out with the accusations directly or picked it up from the toxic environment they are surrounded by, seeing other adults, their mothers, mothers friends do it etc… It happens and i’m starting to see it quite regularly….
Re: “That doesn’t sound much like a dread stigma to me”
No not with the judge, social services and other professionals, I meant in the community i.e among school friends, neighbours etc that like nothing better than a bit of idle gossip or chit chat….
Re: “I very much doubt most ordinary, decent fathers live in fear that their children or wife will turn around and accuse them of child-rape”
When someone makes a false allegation against somebody it isn’t a reflection on the victim of the false allegations character it is a reflection on the character of those who’ve concocted the false allegations. Apart from, if he is the father and it’s his daughter that’s made the allegation, it’s maybe a reflection of how he’s allowed his daughter to be raised and if it’s his ex that’s put her up to it, his choice in women. I know of at least two men that have recently been dragged through hell because of malicious stories concocted by their ex’s with their teenage daughters/step daughters throwing in their own two pennies for good measure (incidently the two ladies these two men are being accused by, or daughter has accused, are both close friends and both did it with in about a week of each other – coming out with all manner of things they’d strangely never complained about before).
Look what happened to the guy that played Kevin in Coronation street.
And I wasn’t really just referring to the threat of being accused of sexual abuse either. If a couple is split up and a kid doesn’t get what they want from one of their parents they seem free to be able to make up anything about that parent to the other parent to play them off against each other (a situation like this is probably the fault of the attitude of at least *one* of the parents of course).
Did you hear the story about the guy that was arrested and then set on fire because neighbours decided to label him a ‘paedophile’ for taking pictures of a group of teenagers damaging his property (again)?
This is what I meant about ‘being scared to look at’ children. Because they are a.) habitually used as ‘weapons’ between squabbling adults and b.) they are so over protected and obsessed (for want of a better word) over these days that with *some* of them (difficult ones anyway) a lot of adults will be quite understandbly reluctant to do or say anything that displeases them because some of them have learnt (from other stupid adults) that if things don’t go your own way or your angry with someone it’s a perfectly acceptable way to behave to get back at them with some slander and false accusations.
I come across a few people who’s solution seems to be, when they’ve fallen out with a ‘friend’, neighbour etc, to go and make a malicious call to social services about the way their bringing up their children. I could go on and on but I won’t because I don’t want to put personal things about other people on a public forum if I can help it….
- Moor Larkin
February 27, 2014 at 5:23 pm -
@Lucozade
Such ongoing family issues, with actual children – whether tots or still-vulnerable teenagers – are a very different matter to most “Historical Abuse” cases though.They are certainly very different indeed to what are effectively class actions from a very long time ago such as Duncroft or Bryn Estyn or Elm Lodge, that involve what is essentially stranger rape accusations.
Muddling these strands up is the fault of the law. It needs very different approaches to what are very different problems.
- Eyes Wide Shut
February 27, 2014 at 5:25 pm -
I don’t doubt that some people make false accusations that they were raped as children or that some children are persuaded by vindictive adults to make such complaints.
False accusations are made with regard to a whole range of crimes and offences, up to and including murder. What I do doubt is that the numbers making false accusations of child rape to the police are as high as the scaremongers would have us believe. I would go further and say that any woman who makes such an untrue allegation as a bargaining chip in a divorce case is in for a world of pain. From henceforth, she and her offspring will have come to the attention of the social services and once that happens, she will never be in the driving seat again as regards her little brood. In my experience, these tactics have a way of badly backfiring on all concerned. And I stick by my original assertion: the fact that we all know someone who has lied about something very, very serious, whatever it is, does not mean that “everyone is doing it” or likely to do it. That is paranoid thinking and feeds into an endless loop which can only benefit the lawyers and the child rapists: the former because they can sue on behalf of fake victims and also defend the real rapists on the grounds that ” we all know he didn’t get on with his wife: she’s behind all this.” It ‘s a great life, being a lawyer. If you can hold two mutually contradictory ideas in your head at one time, then you’re set for a glittering career.
RE: judge’s casual attitude to child rape – this didn’t come from their deep knowledge of human nature and objective research into the matter. They really did take a casual attitude to it. And children’s reluctance to report being raped by family members wasn’t due to fear that they would be stigmatised within the wider community. It was plain, old terror and what we would now call psychological adjustment to their reality. As for when the children who were raped became adults, they rarely chose to mount a case against their father/uncle/grandfather/step-father-rapist because their main objective was to get the hell out and away: not to come back and rake it all up again. The notion of “stigma” is a real red herring here. Loss of reputation as chaste vessels or the blot on the family escutcheon was the least of their worries.
I stand by my view that we the public are now so utterly bewildered by all the conflicting tales we are told about child rapists by media, police, professionals etc that we have lost sight of the fact that it happens, it happens more often than some of us believe and less often than others believe, and if we have so thoroughly effed up our handling of the crime that we are in danger of not seeing the wood for the trees.
- Moor Larkin
February 27, 2014 at 5:47 pm -
@eyeswideshut
Re the RE:The testimony of Eric Gill’s daughter also says something about the way Humans work. I’m struggling to believe she would have had the same casual air if she had been subjected to violent beatings and permanent physical damage by her father, rather than what appears to have happened. It touches on modern notions of “stigma” too I sense.
“When Fiona MacCarthy’s biography Eric Gill (1989) revealed from the evidence of Gill’s diaries, his sexual relations with his two eldest daughters Petra remained unflappable in the face of media furore. She made it clear that her own attitude to sex had not been harmed. The sisters had never been made to feel shame.”
http://stoneletters.wordpress.com/2010/12/20/eric-gill-and-incest/ - Lucozade
February 27, 2014 at 7:43 pm -
Eyes Wide Shut,
Re: “I don’t doubt that some people make false accusations that they were raped as children or that some children are persuaded by vindictive adults to make such complaints”
I actually know a girl (who was under 12 years old at the time) that made a false accusation of rape off her own back and the reason doesn’t appear to have been ‘spite’ or ‘malice’ at all in this case, it seems the most likely motivation was her wanting attention and she was inspired by the sort of talk and conversations she heard around her. So I don’t doubt that some people make false accusations (children and adults, but mostly adults by far) and i’m not scaremongering – just talking from my own observations. Yes i’m aware of people who have been genuinely abused too, and I don’t call them liars, but i’m not going to pretend liars like this don’t exist because I know for a fact that they do.
Re: “And I stick by my original assertion: the fact that we all know someone who has lied about something very, very serious, whatever it is, does not mean that “everyone is doing it” or likely to do it”
Well, as i’ve already said, I actually know several people who have lied about this sort of thing – not just one person.
Re: “That is paranoid thinking and feeds into an endless loop which can only benefit the lawyers and the child rapists: the former because they can sue on behalf of fake victims and also defend the real rapists on the grounds that ” we all know he didn’t get on with his wife: she’s behind all this.” It ‘s a great life, being a lawyer. If you can hold two mutually contradictory ideas in your head at one time, then you’re set for a glittering career”
Tell that to the people who do lie about this sort thing then, their the ones giving defence lawyers and genuine rapists/child molesters that sort of amunition by setting precedents. I know of a small number of people who were genuinely sexually abused as children, i’m not lumping them in with people who make things like that up to try and get their own way or for attention. Their two completely different sets of individuals.
Re: “And children’s reluctance to report being raped by family members wasn’t due to fear that they would be stigmatised within the wider community. It was plain, old terror and what we would now call psychological adjustment to their reality”
Yes if someone is very young and is being abused, especially by their parents, a lot of them wouldn’t say anything for fear of what that parent/abuser would do to them as they probably wouldn’t know at a young age that that parent/abuser is actually in the wrong (especially if it is a parent they live with as they are usually in control of nearly every aspect of the child’s life) and if they told somebody (out with the abusers circle of friends or family – who may choose not to believe it) that it would probably be stopped (them taken away, the abuser punished etc). When I was referring to fear of becoming a ‘social pariah’ I was talking about older children, teenagers, young adults (and some older adults) etc because for some, other people thinking your family is ‘weird’ or your ‘weird’ often *is* a big issue – it probably depends on the individual or how serious the abuse is/was, up bringing, self esteem, how they’ve been treated in life etc – but I wouldn’t say fear of stigma was a ‘red herring’ – it probably isn’t an issue these days because, yes, these days practically *everyone* gets bombarded with the notion on a regular basis in the media, books, magazines, films. I’m not not paranoid, and i’m not ‘scaremongering’, i’m just telling how I actually see it….
- IlovetheBBC
February 28, 2014 at 10:45 pm -
I’ve had the sobering experience recently of quizzing my teenager about a teacher at her school in front of the court for voyeurism. Given lurid headlines, I feared the worst.
I was calmly told that all the kids at the school know it is nothing to do with them, but a charge following an acrimonious divorce with his wife ‘being a dick about something they were both into’. Daughter and friends opined what a shame it all is because he was one of the best teachers at the school but that he will never be allowed to teach again.
Teenagers are not as daft as we sometimes think. - Lucozade
March 4, 2014 at 10:22 am -
IlovetheBBC,
Re: “I’ve had the sobering experience recently of quizzing my teenager about a teacher at her school in front of the court for voyeurism. Given lurid headlines, I feared the worst.
I was calmly told that all the kids at the school know it is nothing to do with them, but a charge following an acrimonious divorce with his wife ‘being a dick about something they were both into’. Daughter and friends opined what a shame it all is because he was one of the best teachers at the school but that he will never be allowed to teach again.
Teenagers are not as daft as we sometimes think”I actually don’t think teenagers are daft at all until their brains get poisoned by society and the over whelming about of bs they (and we) are forced to listen to day in, day out, usually by people that don’t particularly give a shit about them (or us) anyway….
But honestly even if I absolutely hated my ex is there any need to go as far as to commit perjury and try and get him jailed for imaginary crimes, put on the sex offenders register, unable to get a proper job again – that’s just plain vicious and vindictive. Though I do know a lot of women who do make up stories of abuse to try and get their own way after a break up or over a custody battle – a few have gone as far a court recently, but most haven’t, and some haven’t even gone to the police – it’s just an attempt to poisen other people’s opinion against their ex partner to try and cover up, or falsely account for their own failings. It’s not just women that try pulling these stunts or dirty tricks, but it is usually women that find themselves in the position where they are able to do it with any sort of success….
- Moor Larkin
- Moor Larkin
- Eyes Wide Shut
- Lucozade
- Moor Larkin
February 27, 2014 at 1:10 pm -
You don’t need to go back to the Dark Ages. The modern precedent was very clearly stated in 2002. The father of UK legal prosecution on the basis of Historical Allegations, Peter Garsden, seems to have traded solely on male victims, as revealed during the Home Office Committee that sat that year, to try and figure out all that was going wrong with the British legals system.
“That the abused and the abusers are all male seems re-emphasised and made certain, in this passage about the involvement of the police in these matters and why the criminal courts have never sought to pursue the possibility of a Paedophile Ring.”
http://jimcannotfixthis.blogspot.co.uk/2014/01/puppy-dogs-tales.html - Eyes Wide Shut
February 27, 2014 at 6:06 pm -
@moorlarkin
The notion of “damage” to the victim isn’t really what is at stake in the criminal law. Adults who have been raped by the men in their family as children might say a number of things: they got over it in due course/they never got over it/ it affected them in some ways but not others/ they would have preferred to have been beaten/at least they weren’t beaten. They may mean it, they may not mean it, they may mean it at the time they say it, they may change their minds and say something different. The issue is one of consent. Leaving the Gill girls aside, it is the highest degree unlikely that a 6 year old girl whose main interests are crayons, dollies and My Little Pony would willingly consent to oral sex with her father, say, in full knowledge of the act. Or that a 14 year old girl whose interests are boy bands, her peer group and whether or not she is too fat would respond to her father’s sexual overtures with “OK, Dad – just be gentle with me and treat me like a lady. As long as you don’t make me feel dirty afterwards, it’s all part of life’s rich pageant.”
But I suspect you are playing Devil’s Advocate here.
- Margaret Jervis
February 27, 2014 at 9:01 pm -
The Gill commune is wonderfully parodied in the the Wedding Group by Elizabeth Taylor – – patriachal tyranny run by women – you can see this in the the lives of the Bloomsberries too Augustus John etc. Brilliant monsters.
Think the Gill girls would be exceptional – and of course were devout catholics – take that as you will (I don’t mean they were fatalistic) but had a profound zest for life – doesn’t always happen that way of course even when there’s no abuse.
Paternal incest is rare by the way.
- Eyes Wide Shut
February 27, 2014 at 10:02 pm -
@Lucozade: again I don’t doubt that false accusations are made . With regard to a very, very wide range of crimes and offences. I wouldn’t be on this blog and contributing to it if I wasn’t deeply concerned with the abuse of process that I see unfolding.
In a past career, I’ve seen false accusations of tax offences, which had to be investigated as the allegation was made. Now the penalties for the offences alleged are actually quite a deal steeper than those generally handed out to child rapists and the effect on the person under investigation can be truly traumatising and damaging to their business/quality of life/peace of mind etc. That’s even before a case is taken against them. No sex – money. That’s where it really bites. And believe me, if you’re brought up for benefits abuse you’ll find the cards stacked much more heavily against you than if you’re accused of child abuse.
My view is that our disgust at the Savile witch-hunt should remain founded in the principles which motivated us to take an interest in it. If we become persuaded of a contrarian view: that allegations of child rape are generally ill-founded, inspired by the profit-motive or malice, or that we are all at any time likely to find ourselves falsely accused in a quite random fashion, and must change our behaviours to accommodate that risk, we are simply the obverse image of the witch-hunters.
There is a real problem of child rape. If some malevolent idiots choose to piggy-back on a current fashion for finding it in all the wrong places to have a good swipe at an ex, well what would you expect? No doubt they’d have found something different 50, 100 or 500 years ago.
@: maggiejervis: if paternal or quasi- paternal(I’ve made it clear I am referring to male members of the family, extended family, or those with a relationship to the family) individuals are not in fact responsible for the majority of child rapes, then I would be genuinely pleased to hear what I’ve got wrong. That information would definitely change my views. My only interest here is to understand the problem better. Not to pretend that I do understand it. Or have all the answers.
- Lucozade
February 27, 2014 at 10:41 pm -
Eyes Wide Shut,
Re: “And believe me, if you’re brought up for benefits abuse you’ll find the cards stacked much more heavily against you than if you’re accused of child abuse”
What sort of benefits abuse? I thought if someone was caught fraudulently claiming benefits then they’d either be asked simply to pay them back or maybe be given a short jail sentence (depending how how much they actually swindled/the extent or severity of the case etc)….
- Eyes Wide Shut
February 27, 2014 at 10:57 pm -
@Lucozade. Well, it seems we don’t know the same people then. You know people who have been falsely accuse of being child rapists, and I know people who have been falsely accused of avoiding “bedroom tax”. Both by their neighbours. The bedroom tax dodgers were very swiftly expedited, without a brief at all – didn’t get legal aid – and that was that.
Be that as it may, I’m sure you are right, so we’ll leave it at that.
- Lucozade
February 27, 2014 at 11:40 pm -
Eyes Wide Shut,
Re: “Well, it seems we don’t know the same people then. You know people who have been falsely accuse of being child rapists”
Well I don’t actually know the boy that that girl I mentioned accused of rape, but it isn’t actually ‘child rape’ those other two guys I mentioned were accused of (more along the Dave Lee Travis lines, would probably sound a bit tamer if it were not for the incestous twist), but i’ve also known other women trying to insinuate they think ‘sexual abuse’ is going on when something else is going on with their ex and their not getting their own way, e.g (one example) *he’s* got custody of the kids rather than her….
I haven’t come across this regarding the bedroom tax yet….
- Eyes Wide Shut
- Margaret Jervis
February 28, 2014 at 2:39 pm -
@eyeswideshut – rates vary according to nature of the surveys -some being more reliable than others – but I without having the figures before me think it is likely to be peers who are the largest subgroups – ‘Rape’ of course is a subset of sexual – and a child is anyone below 18
But here’s research by the NSPCC – you will see that sexual abuse by parents and guardians ranges from 0 – around 0.1 of children
http://www.nspcc.org.uk/Inform/research/findings/child_abuse_neglect_research_PDF_wdf84181.pdf (that’s not a percentage of the total figures of sexual abuse of course – might be elsewhere in the report – but still a small minority I think
- Lucozade
- Eyes Wide Shut
- Margaret Jervis
- Eyes Wide Shut
February 27, 2014 at 10:14 pm -
@ maggie jervis: all patriarchies are run by women That’s the essence of the patriarchy. Lots of women, one Big Man, all the women fighting it out amongst themselves for his approval/attention. It’s the young men who are thoroughly expendable. We see this in various American gestures at polygamous communities, where the first thing Papa with 50 wives does is put the boys on the bus out of town as Missionaries, or Heretics, or Just All-Round Disappointments. Can’t handle the competition
- sally stevens
February 27, 2014 at 10:20 pm -
Polygamy is illegal and further not allowed by the LDS church; this doesn’t stop some welfare fraudsters from taking advantage, but these people re NOT members of LDS. However, all young people from the LDS church have to go on a mission for two years at least – the boys might be three. I think this starts when they are 18, but you can look it up. They go to foreign countries mostly. I have a childhood friend who is a Mormon, so learn these sorts of things from her. All Mormons I’ve met have been very nice folks, but doesn’t make me want to become one!
Monsters like Warren Jeffs are not LDS, they’re cult leaders and end up in prison.
- Jonathan Mason
February 27, 2014 at 10:29 pm -
It is strange, but I had completely forgotten this. My ex-wife told me that her father, an alcoholic, had tried to rape her while her mother was dying of cancer in the next room. This would have been around 1978. I believe my ex-wife was 18 at the time. I never had any reason to doubt the truth of what my ex-wife was saying, and certainly believed every word she said.
However it never, ever occurred to me at the time that we should make a report to the police. I am sure if we had been asked at that time, we would have said that there was no chance of being believed, and certainly no proof. It would also have totally disrupted a family that was already severely hurting due to the death of the mother. There was a son who was an alcoholic, a younger sister, and my wife had a twin who was already married with small kids.
The father later gave his daughter away at our wedding, but the marriage did not last long.
And now? I am not so sure. Could my ex-wife had made up the allegation to manipulate me into marrying her and taking her away from home? It is a possibility, given the fact that she later displayed great mental instability, but then that could also be a chicken and egg thing.
I just don’t know. If the father was still alive and the matter came to trial and I was a juror, I think I would have to vote to acquit on the grounds of an unsupported allegation that might be false, but I would be very uneasy about the whole thing.
Of course if the other two sisters then came forward and made similar allegations, that would greatly bolster the case for the prosecution, although from a jury point of view it would have to be decided whether similarities in the details of the accounts, if any, were the result of collusion or recollections of very similar experiences.
For example the alleged rapist might have asked each of his victims if she was on the pill, or might have used a condom in each case, or might have failed to sustain an erection, or been wearing pajamas, or Y-fronts, or saying or doing something that was notable and common to each allegation.
- Eyes Wide Shut
February 27, 2014 at 10:46 pm -
@ JonathanMason. As you say, your wife was 18 at the time of the alleged attempted rape. Whether it took place, whether or not she chose to do anything about it, whether you believe her or not, whether you or she feel it was important or not important, something which should have been reported to the police or something you shouldn’t, is ultimately a question of your adult understanding as adults and adults in an adult relationship. I have nothing to say with regard to this: you are the best judges of the circumstances and the appropriate response.
Children who are raped don’t have either the conceptual framework of the legal or social power to choose their course of action. We are not comparing like with like.
- Moor Larkin
February 28, 2014 at 9:20 am -
Interesting case of Internet Justice here:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2418232/Melina-Thomas-42-used-Facebook-catch-brute-raped-13.htmlThe most curious thing, from a reportage point of view, is that despite the victim being 13 at the time, the word paedophile never gets used once. The guy evidently pleaded not guilty to the three original charges and was actually found not guilty of one of them, but has since pleaded guilty to two more that arose after he was put in prison.
- Moor Larkin
- Lucozade
February 28, 2014 at 2:43 pm -
Jonathan Mason,
You’ll never know the truth Jonathan, other’s who knew her at the time she claimed the incident happened (unless you did know her at that time and i’ve picked you up wrong?) would probably be able to shed at least a little more light on it. I probably wouldn’t have told her to go to the police either, and people I know that have been told similar things haven’t made those suggestions to the person that told them either. I’d probably have felt she was a grown adult and that decision should be hers and no one else’s – going to the police about it might not necessarily have been the right thing for her….
- Jonathan Mason
February 28, 2014 at 8:14 pm -
No this happened before I knew her. My point was partly that back in those days people simply didn’t think about going to the police about such things. I didn’t doubt the veracity of the allegation at the time, but I don’t recall even thinking of going to the police about it.
It is only now about 40 years later that I wonder if the allegation could have been false.
We see the same kind of dichotomy here between the general attitudes of law enforcement today, who resemble my young self, not thinking to doubt the veracity of various allegations of sexual misconduct, and the attitudes of most of the (older) people who read and write on this board, who are pretty cynical about these kind of allegations.
Yes my ex-wife was 18 at the time of the alleged attempted rape, or maybe she was 17 or 19, I don’t recall at this point, but I do know that she was a very vulnerable person living in the house of the perpetrator at a time when her mother was terminally ill and unable to protect her, and that she was a virgin at the time, so not sexually experienced.
So I think that case was certainly intrinsically as bad as some of the celebrity allegations where the girls may have been technically children by virtue of not having reached the 16th birthday, but may also have been street wise and sexually experienced, and the allegations in many cases seem to have been of acts a lot less intrusive than attempted rape.
Of course I do not condone the rape of children in any manner whatsoever, but in most of these celebrity cases that is not really what we are talking about.
- Paul
March 1, 2014 at 4:00 am -
My tuppence-worth, with the realisation I may well upset genuine cases – which is not of course what I wish to do. In addition, I may well be wrong, but in the cases I will mention, the following is what I think. If I was on a jury……
In the last 34 years (since my first g/friend) I have had a few relationships. Not too many, but enough to make observations. Two of these ladies confided (?) in me, each after a short time in the relationship, that they had, years previously, been raped or near-raped. This was said, in my view, rather airily without any of the (expected) requisite pain displayed in their looks. Of course they could have gotten over it, I’m prepared to believe that also.
But something about the relating of the information also smacked of ‘victimhood’ for its own sake – if you see what I mean. In addition I also got the feeling that they were implying trust in me, but in an extreme manner – ergo -” I like you, you aren’t a rapist. Previous men I’ve known have been”. Not really the kind of thing you would wish listed as your plus points – all the things you are not. Strange. I might be wrong on the latter point but something about how it was said with one of them…..
I was suspicious in fact on both occasions – it didn’t ‘sound’ right and the 2nd lady to impart this information to me (many years after the first) followed a similar pattern and thence my perception of it. Of course I could have been more attuned to it also, and so have pre-conceptions, having heard similar once before. But it is a very serious matter and not the sort of thing one does hear (or expect to hear) regularly, not something one wants to hear at all in fact, and thus not something to be flippant or pre-judgemental about. Certainly not for me anyway. On both occasions I got the feeling that I was more pained by the ‘revelation’ than she was in relating (her experience of) it.
Why tell me that and yet not seem too bothered? What do I do and say now? How do I proceed here? And yes – Have I got a nutcase on my hands? Those were some of my thoughts. Nonetheless I persevered and tucked the information away.
Was that the right thing to do given doubts about it all? But what is one supposed to say? And they were (seemed) otherwise attractive and the matter was related and breezed over and that was it.
It might have been mentioned again (by one of them definitely), again rather flippantly, but never more than occasionally, once or twice and was never otherwise a feature again.
They both turned out to be, shall we say, unsuitable material and went the way of a couple more and that’s the end of their story with me. They were both feminists in many ways, so it turned out, but with the caveat that most women are feminists these days anyway.
I know two more fellows who have had similar lady-friends. Both have alleged rape by previous partners, or so these chaps have quietly told me (probably half drunk and doing some man-bonding or quiet confiding). The way they related it (though of course I wasn’t there between them) seemed again, to me, to be a tale of severely denigrating an ex and so by virtue extolling the recipient of the dread tale. One of these cases had the situation that, despite this lady saying she had been raped by a previous partner, she still allowed the said ‘rapist’ to have custody of her (and his) daughter for weekend fathering – so she could do her single-mother clubbing was how I interpreted it. Would a rape victim hand over their daughter to their alleged attacker every week? Needless to say, there was never an incident I heard of and the daughter seemed happy enough so I was told.
In none of these cases were official complaints made, to my knowledge. They were all years before the tales were related to me (and friends). I suspect none of them would have held water at all.
So there you go. Of course every case is different and there will be genuine ones. All cases must be investigated if reported. The greater the plethora of false allegations the worse it is for everyone concerned. It is an horrific crime – if it has occurred. But if I was on a jury in these particular cases – I wouldn’t believe the witnesses!
- Moor Larkin
March 1, 2014 at 9:36 am -
I was watching a movie from 1987 the other day. It’s called The House of Games. I had seen it before of course but a couple of lines of dialogue had a whole new resonance. Basically the plot is the long convoluted con of a very successful female psychotherapist for $80k. The climax (other than a small epilogue-type scene) takes place where the woman has rumbled the con and is conning the conner. But then he (being the superior con-artist) rumbles her con and begins to mock her. She eventually resorts to the ultimate sanction and shoots him – about eight times.
Lying behind her anger is not the money (she’s rich) but the fact that as part of the con this guy took her to bed. Because she was being conned, she thought it all serious of course. In the course of that climactic scene there are lines of dialogue where she angrily says “You raped me”. He makes a reply to the effect he never hurt her and he never noticed her fighting. She says, “You took me under false pretences”. As I say, shortly after as he laughs at her and insults her, she empties her gun into him.
The epilogue scene is where she is with a mentor of hers, who once advised her that the way to mental balance is, “When you have done something unforgivable. Forgive yourself.” So she takes the advice of her mentor – although there is a slight twist, which I won’t ruin the movie anymoor by telling you.
- Jonathan Mason
March 1, 2014 at 9:03 pm -
Thanks, Paul. Interesting analysis.
I don’t even know if my ex-wife is still alive, but if her father is still alive, I think he would be the same age as Stuart Hall. It is rather odd to me to think that if I went to the police in North Wales now, they would still quite possibly take the complaint very seriously and interview family members and maybe even consider prosecuting a man of over 80 who is or was a severe alcoholic for something that may or may not have happened on a dark night about 40 years ago.
(Incidentally I have to wonder whether Stuart Hall has a history of problems with alcohol, but that is another issue.)
Like you, as a juror of mature years, I would be very hard to convince to convict a man of good character and national renown or indeed local respectability on historic sex offenses unless the witness/plaintiff was outstandingly credible, or there was documented contemporary supporting evidence, for example pregnancy, abortion, a child.
Yet, as I said, when I heard about this allegation as a young man in my 20’s, it would neither have occurred to me to question the veracity, nor to take it to the police. The times WERE different.
- therealguyfaux
March 2, 2014 at 5:33 am -
@MoorLarkin:
House Of Games, in the climactic scene you mention, that of the con being perpetrated by the psychiatrist being rumbled by the con man, contains the line: “You see, in my trade, this is called – what you did – you cracked out of turn. Huh? You see? You crumbed the play.” Translated from his argot, his point is that she went on a bit too long and spoke in too much detail about what she would have had him believe, and why, at this moment, she thought he should want to come to her assistance in the seeming straits she was in. Not necessarily that he would have believed her unreservedly had she been a bit less loquacious, but he implies that he wouldn’t have ruled out the possibility that she was being honest with him, had it seemed she was less intent to run a story on him and simply relate what the situation was about which she seemed perturbed. To him, the whole thing had an aroma of being too pat and memorized to have any veracity, hence his calling her bluff. And he tells her, just before she lets him have it, “You can’t bluff someone who isn’t paying attention.”
Many of the sexual abuse stories seem to have the same air of TMI and TL;DR as Dr Ford’s tale of woe to Mike the Con Man did– and spark much the same reaction in the listener, who then tunes out, and isn’t so much interested in the details being said as observing, as Mike did, how the person telling the story seems to “obviously” be bluffing. (OK, he says the no-attention part about her last-ditch effort to get him to listen, rather than saying it about her attempted con per se– however, it still applies.)
Sadly, since we cannot know in many cases whether those making the allegations are sociopaths in their own way much as Dr Ford was in hers, or Mike in his somewhat different way to hers and possibly theirs, we somehow feel we must err on the side of their mental problems not being criminal in nature, but rather as a result of unresolved trauma. We are made to feel as if we must suppose the one making the allegations to be an unfortunate merely confabulating, rather than a perjurer laying it on a bit heavily, if we begin to doubt their word. Better the guilty go free than that the innocent are punished unjustly, with respect to the giving of not-strictly-true (we believe) evidence.
Sadly, that is often also the result, with respect to the defendant, after the evidence, spurious or real, is heard. And the saddest of all is a real victim whose story, though unlikely, might have actually been the unembellished truth, but because it sounded “a bit off,” seemed not credible enough to convict the perpetrator.
- Ho Hum
March 2, 2014 at 10:24 am -
@ therealguyfaux March 2, 2014 at 5:33 am
This has been an interesting discussion, and yours an interesting treatise, but any conclusion that means that even Polly Toynbee might sometimes be right, just has to be wrong.
Doesn’t it?
- Lucozade
March 2, 2014 at 11:13 am -
Jonathan Mason,
Re “Yet, as I said, when I heard about this allegation as a young man in my 20′s, it would neither have occurred to me to question the veracity, nor to take it to the police. The times WERE different”
They only seem to have changed considerably very recently though. I know people who have been told similar stories maybe about 10 – 20 years ago (about incidents of about 20 – 30 years old), and they reacted in they same way you did, never questioned it, but never suggested (or demanded) they go to the police either. You’d just assume somebody would do that if they wanted to wouldn’t you? And if they decided not to that they must have their reasons for that….
- Lucozade
March 2, 2014 at 10:39 pm -
Paul,
Re: “One of these cases had the situation that, despite this lady saying she had been raped by a previous partner, she still allowed the said ‘rapist’ to have custody of her (and his) daughter for weekend fathering – so she could do her single-mother clubbing was how I interpreted it. Would a rape victim hand over their daughter to their alleged attacker every week? Needless to say, there was never an incident I heard of and the daughter seemed happy enough so I was told”
These nutters are 10 a penny – I know one just like that….
- Moor Larkin
- Lucozade
March 1, 2014 at 5:11 pm -
Jonathan Mason,
An ex of mine once told me that his mum wasn’t actually his real mum and that he and his sister had been adopted as babies because his real mum abused them (I think he said threw them down the stairs or something), only when I brought it up again several months later saying something like ‘but you and your sister are adopted’ or ‘but she’s not your real mum’ (can’t remember what I said exactly), he said something like ‘what are you talking about? Of course she’s my real mum’ – *he* must have made the story about him and his sister having been adopted because their real mum used to beat them as babies up and forgotten about it. And why he would have felt the need to make up a story like that (that you could have easily caught him out on) I do not know. So people *do* lie about stuff like this an awful lot, but that doesn’t mean everyone who claims something like that happened to them is lying either, just that it is not out with the realms of possibility….
- Paul
- Jonathan Mason
- Eyes Wide Shut
- Eyes Wide Shut
February 27, 2014 at 10:34 pm -
@Sally Stevens, I believe I said “gestures at polygamy”, and I am glad you know what I was referring to. I was very careful not to say “Mormon”, or “LDS”, precisely because I have done my research into the LDS and know the year and date when polygamy was outlawed. I don’t hurl accusations round willy-nilly, which is why I am on this blog.
- Eyes Wide Shut
February 28, 2014 at 12:01 am -
@ Lucozade “I haven’t come across this regarding the bedroom tax yet… ”
Don’t worry, you will
- Eyes Wide Shut
February 28, 2014 at 11:51 pm -
Just posted this on The Guardian in response to Jonathan Freedland – because I suspect they will pull my comment.Nonsense. The BBC Newsnight Programme which broadcast completely unsupported allegations against Savile was inspired by a BBC producer, nephew of a retired Head Mistress of an experimental School for Wayward Girls in the 60s and 70s. Trawling the Net for stories as BBc producers do nowadays, he came across a Friends United site where approximately 4 Duncroft ex-alumni were exchanging one-up-woman stories about their adolescent sufferings 40 years ago – and finally working out they might sue someone if it involved sex. The BBC producer was a god send to them as they were to him.
Now an entire tissue of fabrications about 70s personalities in Light Entertainment has given rise to (a) a series of trials where no one has been convicted, (b) a handy subject for journalists at their wits end as to what to write about next. Read annaraccoon.com and jimcannotfixthisblogspot.pt for a forensic account of the Duncroft role in creating this pseudo-monster called Savile. In this week of Carnival, it’s quite appropriate to reflect on papier mache monster- sally stevens
February 28, 2014 at 11:58 pm -
Eyes said: “Read annaraccoon.com and jimcannotfixthisblogspot.pt for a forensic account of the Duncroft role in creating this pseudo-monster called Savile. In this week of Carnival, it’s quite appropriate to reflect on papier mache monster.”
And while you’re at it, please read this (with an excellent link to Eric Hardcastle, a former UK p.i. and security consultant, who spotted this family association last year) http://rockphiles.typepad.com/a_life_in_the_day/2014/02/hell-hath-no-fury-part-three.htnl
and this – which discusses the role that Fiona’s powerful father did not play but most certainly would have if he had been told.
http://rockphiles.typepad.com/a_life_in_the_day/2014/02/he.htnl
- sally stevens
- sally stevens
February 28, 2014 at 11:52 pm -
Ilovethe BBC said: “I was calmly told that all the kids at the school know it is nothing to do with them, but a charge following an acrimonious divorce with his wife ‘being a dick about something they were both into’. Daughter and friends opined what a shame it all is because he was one of the best teachers at the school but that he will never be allowed to teach again.
Teenagers are not as daft as we sometimes think.”Teenagers aren’t daft at all, and frankly I’d rather hear more from them on this subject than a lot of grown-ups. I wasn’t daft when I was a teenager, I know that much. When I was a teenager, I was surrounded by a lot of daft adults, and I doubt that’s changed much!
- sally stevens
March 1, 2014 at 12:30 am -
Eyes said: “Read annaraccoon.com and jimcannotfixthisblogspot.pt for a forensic account of the Duncroft role in creating this pseudo-monster called Savile. In this week of Carnival, it’s quite appropriate to reflect on papier mache monster.”
And while you’re at it, please read this (with an excellent link to Eric Hardcastle, a former UK p.i. and security consultant, who spotted this family association last year) http://rockphiles.typepad.com/a_life_in_the_day/2014/02/hell-hath-no-fury-part-three.htnl
- Jonathan Mason
March 1, 2014 at 1:17 am -
Wow, the Eric Hardcastle blog post really does a superb job of presenting the whole Savile schemozzle in a succinct and digestible format, making a devastating argument that would convince many impartial people– if only they saw it.
- sally stevens
March 1, 2014 at 1:22 am -
I found it entirely by accident this week, while looking for a photo of Fiona SJ. He misses the mark as to how Duncroft was run, but that’s irrelevant balanced against the facts. I’ve tweeted it, and I know people are looking at it. Eric lives in Oz these days, but he’s English and he’s impartial. Please send it to as many people as you can. I think the plods will be looking at it soon. I’ve sent it to the Edinburgh team of course.
- sally stevens
- Eyes Wide Shut
March 1, 2014 at 10:42 am -
They pulled the comment, sally – but not before a couple of people gave it Recommends. Told you they would. It’s fear of libel – I didn’t name the Duncroft accusers but I described their accusations as untrue. The G would be liable for allowing my comment to remain on their website in a putative libel action.
- Jonathan Mason
- sally stevens
March 1, 2014 at 12:30 am -
And this – which discusses the role that Fiona’s powerful father did not play but most certainly would have if he had been told.
http://rockphiles.typepad.com/a_life_in_the_day/2014/02/he.htnl
- corevalue
March 1, 2014 at 3:50 pm -
- sally stevens
March 1, 2014 at 4:29 pm -
Thanks, corevalue! Wonder how that ‘n’ got in there?
- sally stevens
- corevalue
- rabbitaway
March 2, 2014 at 1:00 pm - rabbitaway
March 2, 2014 at 1:01 pm - Moor Larkin
March 3, 2014 at 10:27 am -
Emerging and unambiguous clarity that the “Fiona” used in the Exposure documentary, allegedly a defenceless Duncroftee who nobody would have listened to, was actually the daughter of an influential and powerful BBC producer. The makers of that tawdry show must have known this all too well and along with their many other deceits, they are revealed as frauds. The whole thing is revealed as a Con Trick, from the start.
http://rockphiles.typepad.com/a_life_in_the_day/2014/03/sitting-here-having-a-cuppa-and-the-oscar-ramp-up-is-blathering-on-the-background-an-occasion-i-have-little-or-no-interest-i.html# - Anon (;)
March 3, 2014 at 11:13 am -
Could someone, anybody, anywhere, please explain to me why Justice Sales feels the need to advertise for any more Claimants to come forward for SJS, but the same didn’t happen for Roache or DLT? Don’t get me wrong, I wouldn’t wish that on anybody, but why in this case, when the Press have been screaming for anyone to come forward for 18 months. Sorry if I am being thick, but I don’t get it.
- Moor Larkin
March 3, 2014 at 11:45 am -
@(;)
No answer for that exactly, but I was recalling the other day how Freddie Starr initially had an Injunction stopping Ward’s stories implicating him, but that was over-ridden by some judge or other. That was supposedly on the basis of “public interest” I think. Given that the story was evidentially completely false – otherwise Starr would have been in the court of Duncroft by now – on what basis did a judge override the law of libel merely to suit the word of lying journalists and conspiring legal elites?On a similar basis, why has Glitter never been prosecuted for raping that “13 year-old girl in the alcove”? The law and the CPS has become a disgusting fraud, and is only serving some caucus of power.
- Lucozade
March 3, 2014 at 6:27 pm -
Moor Larkin,
Re: “Freddie Starr initially had an Injunction stopping Ward’s stories implicating him, but that was over-ridden by some judge or other. That was supposedly on the basis of “public interest” I think”
So ‘public interest’ is a good enough reason to spread malicious stories about or invade a man’s privacy when he’s not even been charged with anything (and still hasn’t)? Public safety you could understand but ‘public interest’ – ridiculous.
Re: “Given that the story was evidentially completely false – otherwise Starr would have been in the court of Duncroft by now – on what basis did a judge override the law of libel merely to suit the word of lying journalists and conspiring legal elites?”
Good point – and why hasn’t anything been done about that? You’d think making serious false allegations like that (especially when you’ve made money from them) and wasting all that police time and money, as well as putting an old man and his family through hell would be a crime wouldn’t you? So it’s strange she seems to get a free pass no matter how obviously false her claims or ludicrous they are – she’s still presented as genuine when *all* the evidence points to the contrary….
- Moor Larkin
March 4, 2014 at 9:24 am -
* and why hasn’t anything been done about that? *
Because it’s “not in the public interest”. Whereas it is “in the public interest” to prosecute DLT again for at worst being a gauche joker. This is the corruption of the CPS. They care not one jot for “the public” and they only use “the law” to suit their own personal sense of crusade. It is just the usual abuse of power that elite groups drift into, when there is no opposing force – such as free and truthful journalism or a political class able to pass rational legislation on behalf of the common man.
- Lucozade
March 4, 2014 at 9:53 am -
Moor Larkin,
Re: “* and why hasn’t anything been done about that? *
Because it’s “not in the public interest”. Whereas it is “in the public interest” to prosecute DLT again for at worst being a gauche joker. This is the corruption of the CPS. They care not one jot for “the public” and they only use “the law” to suit their own personal sense of crusade. It is just the usual abuse of power that elite groups drift into, when there is no opposing force – such as free and truthful journalism or a political class able to pass rational legislation on behalf of the common man”
True. Whereas I believe it is in the public interest not to put so much power into the hands of people with ‘historic personality disorder’. Karin Ward and co probably won’t be prosecuted because the police who dealt with the complaint are probably just as guilty as she is and have probably known for a long time (if not all along) that
her claims had no actual basis in reality. It’s a very strange world here – as I don’t even actually see the point in any of it – apart from to make money selling a few books, getting paid for throwing together lazy documentaries etc – and maybe money for lawyers. The public don’t really need imaginary bottom grabbers and sleze bags, i’m sure there’s plenty real ones out there – but you can’t make as much money out of them…. - Moor Larkin
March 4, 2014 at 3:49 pm -
Watching Keir Starmer on the box, he strikes me as having a severe personality disorder. So far as the CPS is concerned, the moment a legal organisation loses interest in the facts, it just becomes a tyranny. Any human organisation can make mistakes, but when it willfully turns its back on the obvious truth, and even worse perverts the facts to suit it’s own agenda, as the Levitt report did, then it loses the right to any claim of respect. In point of fact it becomes no better than an adult bullying a child, or an abusive spouse exploiting their economic or physical power over another person.
- Jonathan Mason
March 4, 2014 at 5:38 pm -
Whereas I believe it is in the public interest not to put so much power into the hands of people with ‘historic personality disorder’. Karin Ward and co probably won’t be prosecuted…
Is that a new addition to the psychiatric canon, or should it be “histrionic personality disorder”.
- Lucozade
March 4, 2014 at 6:00 pm -
Moor Larkin,
Re: “Watching Keir Starmer on the box, he strikes me as having a severe personality disorder. So far as the CPS is concerned, the moment a legal organisation loses interest in the facts, it just becomes a tyranny. Any human organisation can make mistakes, but when it willfully turns its back on the obvious truth, and even worse perverts the facts to suit it’s own agenda, as the Levitt report did, then it loses the right to any claim of respect. In point of fact it becomes no better than an adult bullying a child, or an abusive spouse exploiting their economic or physical power over another person”
Very true.
- Lucozade
March 4, 2014 at 6:18 pm -
Jonathan Mason,
Re: “Whereas I believe it is in the public interest not to put so much power into the hands of people with ‘historic personality disorder’. Karin Ward and co probably won’t be prosecuted…
Is that a new addition to the psychiatric canon, or should it be “histrionic personality disorder” ”
Yes “histrionic personality disorder”,
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Histrionic_personality_disorder ,
seems to be an extremely common condition, though I think it’s probably more learnt behaviour than an actual ‘illness’, if you ask me….
- Lucozade
- Moor Larkin
- Lucozade
- Moor Larkin
- Ellen Coulson
March 3, 2014 at 2:16 pm -
Did anybody see article in yesterday’s Sun
- Carol42
March 3, 2014 at 3:05 pm -
Unfortunately I can’t read the page as you have to subscribe, can you summarize ?
- Carol42
- sally stevens
March 3, 2014 at 7:59 pm -
“Dux said the charity “has caused a lot of unnecessary cost for all. The scheme could have been approved by a court in two hours.” Instead, she said, it took six QCs three days, which means the estate’s value is likely to have decreased because of the costs of proceedings.”
In other words, the lawyers have probably cost a bucket-load, so a LOT less for the ‘victims.’ A LOT less. They also posited that the payout for 139 ‘victims’ was expected to be 60 thousand pounds. Not now it won’t. No winners here at all.
- sally stevens
March 3, 2014 at 8:12 pm -
I did some rough math, and with any luck, the ‘victims’ may receive four thousand pounds a piece. Figure the QCs make at least five hundred pounds an hour, and the ambulance chasers will take their cut. Here in the States, if you have to litigate a tort case, then the rake off for the lawyer is 40% of the recovery. I’ll bet the ‘victims’ are upset. Tough life.
- Anon (;)
March 3, 2014 at 9:55 pm -
Slater and Gordon will receive £16,000 per case, YES sixteen thousand pounds per case, regardless of the amount for the Claimants – FACT!
- Moor Larkin
March 4, 2014 at 9:51 am -
Back last August I recall that the BBC were “committed” to pay £33,000 per complainant.
Presumably the NHS will do the same?So will that be three lots of £16,000 per claimant?
That would be nearly £6M for Slater & Gorgon, based on the 120 claimants per organisation.
I imagine this is what they call an Economy of Scale……..
- Moor Larkin
- Anon (;)
- sally stevens
March 3, 2014 at 10:10 pm -
So, that’s 2.5 million pounds right there. Then the silks have to be paid as well – another million. Tuppence ha’penny for the claimants, at least from the Trust and Estate. Perhaps this will educate the public that if you have a complaint for abuse, don’t expect dime one out of it. Nor much justice either. This is the sort of thing that puts people off coming forward unless the situation is extreme, and the defendant is alive and punishable, after due process. I don’t think they can get victims’ compo either, as a crime has to be proven for that to happen. In this case, nothing but speculation as to whether Savile did anything improper. Do you have a link or anything Anon(;)?
- Fat Steve
March 4, 2014 at 6:51 pm -
Liz Dux’s words speak volumes –what do the silks know about law that I do not know better?
Recent developments appear to institutionalise the manner in which this sort of ‘case’ actually more accurately ‘complaint’ will be dealt with —and unless there is a very great deal of evidence that hasn’t been brought into the public domain (a possibility) then there appears to be genuine and obvious cause for concern —time I suspect for many well meaning people to decide to limit potential risk by withdrawing —the law of unexpected (or should that be the law of inevitable) consequences whereby those in genuine need have support withdrawn.
Hey Ho Edinburgh University should find their research a lorry load of laughs.
Might I suggest a need for a competent practicing lawyer to join the researchers ???- Margaret Jervis
March 4, 2014 at 8:40 pm -
‘Recent developments appear to institutionalise the manner in which this sort of ‘case’ actually more accurately ‘complaint’ will be dealt with’
ever evolving area of tort – the sole practitioner one might say – and compo claims are made – on legal advice – after a criminal conviction – but of course it ‘s not necessary to have a conviction. Savile claims were facilitated by JGE v Portsmouth Diocese – November 11 first instance July 2012 -upheld by CoA – extended vicarious liability for torts-not-related -to – employment-duties beyond direct employment.
The vicarious liability, overcoming of limitation, and other maters had all been previously decided in the higher courts over the last 20 years in relation to ‘abuse claims’ in favour of claimants. Amazing that Exposure went ahead only after the JGE CoA decision – but I guess that’s coincidence for you.- Moor Larkin
March 5, 2014 at 9:16 am -
@Margaret Jervis
Tort Law is one thing, but it is the perverting of the criminal law to pander to the needs of those tort lawyers that is the real corruption. It has been recognised since the start of this century that historic abuse case by the tort lawyers rely on the forces of the criminal law doing all their actual work for them, and further that there is good reason to suggest all these elements of the law are inter-relating and corruption within the system is now endemic, albeit any individual lawyer might just reason that this is how the system should be. Unpicking the mutual back-scratching in the Legal Estabklishment is the only thing that will stop this, and politicians would be the only power capable to do it, but politicians are now subordinated to the law as has been demonstrated time and time again this century. The Law has become a predator on the people. - Fat Steve
March 5, 2014 at 8:31 pm -
I was not referring to the development of liability within the Law of Tort but rather the institutionalisation of a process whereby claims in Tort are accepted and disposed of on ‘commercial’ grounds apparently irrespective of the merits —if I understand the judgement in the Savile Estate case correctly no claims had been proven and such evidence as I am aware of is less than conclusive yet the Court found that settlement of the claims HAD to be entertained as if they had a good or reasonable chance of success. It gonna make Will drafting loads of fun —will there be a stock phrase inserted in future in wills that all claims brought against the estate must be fought to trial and final appeal before any distribution —-a clause that might be termed the poison pill clause ????
- Moor Larkin
- Mark Smith
March 5, 2014 at 8:08 am -
The suggestion of a lawyer(s) on the research team could be something that happens at some future stage. What we have undertaken to do under the terms of this project is to bring together ‘urgent’ information on the case as contained within Anna’s blogs and the contributions to these, as well as conducting some interviews with key individuals. Once we have this data we will bring together academics from a range of different disciplines e.g. social and cultural history, memory studies, law, criminology, and other interested parties to advise them of its existence. Our intention (and that of the ESRC, our funders) is that data on the project (within the limits of data protection) should be open to interested parties for further research. It may well be of interest to lawyers.
- Moor Larkin
March 5, 2014 at 9:10 am -
Any researcher, lawyer or village idiot need only plough through Appendix 12 of Pollard to realise that this whole shenanigan was a fraud from the very beginning
http://jimcannotfixthis.blogspot.co.uk/2014/03/seeing-believers.htmlIt has been facilitated by the internet, just as the entire hysteria is being renewed constantly, with bottom-feeding journalism feeding off forum detritus. That legal authorities have embroidered these threads into a tapestry of legal bullying is a travesty. That serious academic research is now deemed necessary to look into the inside of this ping-pong ball illustrates the paucity of reason now governing the UK. Best of luck chaps.
- Fat Steve
March 5, 2014 at 8:58 pm -
@Mark Smith –your research is limited as your University and Sponsors think appropriate. The nub of the matter as I understand it is that as a result of the televising of various accusations which may not be totally accurate various legal processes within both the Chancery and The Criminal Law have addressed those and other accusations without necessarily exercising a discretion that might reasonably be expected by ‘the man on the Clapham omnibus’ .. The same might reasonably be said of the MSM. I pray in aid of this contention the various acquittals of celebrities and apparent lack of evidence within the public domain substantiating Savile’s alleged activities . The issue of child abuse is a serious matter. Equally reputation of both the dead and the living is a serious matter. Both in a manner of speaking are about where Society has come from and where Society is going. I hope if you are interested you might consider the Hart/Devlin debate in the late 60s. I personally think that Savile’s popularity in life and his execration in death is something of a perfect metaphor for English ‘mainstream’ Society over the last 50 years in the country —and almost a perfect topic for research and I wish you well. For sure you will have more than a few lawyers happy to help pro bono
- Carol42
March 5, 2014 at 11:30 pm -
I remember the Hart v Devlin debate from university, it really made me think and I remember the lecturer saying at the time he thought all the loosening of that ‘silken Skein’ was great but now he could see how easily it unravelled. We live with the consequences today.
- Fat Steve
March 6, 2014 at 10:18 am -
@carol 42 pleased my reference to the Hart Devlin debate rang a bell with someone –like you I studied it at University which in my case was left wing but rather illiberal. Devlin was and remains a hero of mine and I rather unwisely adopted much of his critique in my jurisprudence paper quoting with admiration his famous or infamous observation that Society cannot live without a measure of social intolerance which guaranteed me my well deserved Desmond. I still think Devlin was correct as appears to be bourn out by the Savile saga —-just I think he might be a little surprised (or not) at the issues that Society are now intolerant of —-not the intolerance to child abuse which Devlin would have considered a sign of a healthy Society but the fact that that laudable objective appears to be the excuse for intolerance to a certain sort of behaviour which does comply with what is presently thought politically correct thinking and behaviour —one might observe that the much loved heroes of yesterday are the hated villains of today perhaps indicating a societal wish for a certain catharsis from the past . I am though pretty sure that Devlin did not mean intolerance to proper legal process or legal rights for the individual to defend themselves—Devlin was talking about the basis for legislation not legal process and as you are probably aware he wrote in admiration of the jury process —-something ho! ho! ho! that seems to be getting in the way of the script devised by those who have staged this particular little morality play.But as some observers here have commented it may all be about money and whilst I may not agree it does appear that these issues seem to be being seen to be ultimately reducible to that measure (or should that be hopelessly contaminated by it ?) .
- Fat Steve
- Carol42
- Lucozade
March 5, 2014 at 9:10 pm -
Mark Smith,
Good luck with it all….
- Moor Larkin
- Margaret Jervis
- sally stevens
March 6, 2014 at 4:00 am -
- sally stevens
March 6, 2014 at 4:02 am -
Always a tough row to hoe.
- sally stevens
{ 133 comments… read them below or add one }