Wrongful Allegations…
I can happily read books until my eyes bleed. I love to learn. I particularly love books that can teach me something new, cause me to stop reading, stare into the middle distance – and perhaps change my mind about something I was previously sure of.
Of course, some books make you do that halfway through – as it turns out that reading that book was something you wished to change your mind about. ..
I have never before come across a book that taught me something, made me stop in my tracks, stare into the middle distance, and change my mind – before I had even opened the first page.
‘Wrongful Allegations’ was just such a book. The title alone. ‘Wrongful’ – not ‘False’. Wrongful is indeed the right word. ‘False’ has connotations of a cognisant mendacity that is simply not true of all allegations that we have been in the habit of describing as ‘false’. There are many reasons why the wrong person may be ‘in the dock’; they range from revenge, a desire for compensation – all the way through to wrong identification or a belief that has arisen, that this person has abused you, as a result of the input of others.
It is a measure of the thoughtful and balanced nuance that Dr Ros Burnett has brought to producing this book, that even the title can have such an effect on me. The book itself is a series of essays from acknowledged experts drawn from around the world covering every possible aspect of the all too frequent occurrence whereby someone who is innocent of any wrongdoing finds themselves penalised by the media, public opinion, and the judicial system even though they are either never charged, or eventually acquitted by the courts.
A prison sentence is only part of the process of punishing a person accused of the most heinous crime known to modern society – that of taking the sexual innocence of a child. Those who are guilty rightly go onto prison – however, the guilty and the innocent alike share the same initial punishments of humiliation, loss of reputation, adverse publicity which may result in harassment, sometimes even physical harassment. The families of both the guilty and the innocent share this fate. So do the children.
Bookshelves in libraries across the globe are groaning with accounts from both victims of abuse, activists who wish to publicise that abuse, experts detailing abuse – and a fair few from narcissistic exhibitionists with vivid imaginations. Such is the febrile atmosphere that there are but a handful of writers looking at the position of the accused – fearful of being labelled ‘paedo-apologists’ both academic writers and investigative journalists have declined to look at the reverse of the coin.
Richard Webster, Bob Woffenden, David Rose, Carolyn Hoyle, James Gillespie, Barbara Hewson, David Aaronovitch; only Richard Webster, who had the foresight to die before the Savile saga started, has managed to escape the tsunami of abuse that flows in the direction of anyone who dares to so much as think the unthinkable – that there might be such a thing as a wrongful allegation – and we might just show some sympathy towards those who are its victims.
So all credit to Dr Burnett for persuading so many experts to come forward and voice the unthinkable, to lay their reputations on the line in such an unfashionable cause.
The one thing this book isn’t, most emphatically isn’t, is a demolition of any particular claims of sexual abuse.
It is far, far, cleverer than that. It is a careful analysis, expert by expert, of the psychological pressures that might lead to a wrongful allegation; of the ways in which policing methods may contribute towards this; the economic pressures on therapists and personal injury lawyers; how judicial thinking is formulated – and best of all, several chapters on how we could move forward in the future, in the best interests of both complainants and defendants.
For instance. Although there have been endless large scale surveys on the incidence of child abuse – there has never been such a survey on the incidence of being wrongly accused of child abuse. Those who tell you that ‘false allegations’ are rare, are talking through their backsides every bit as much as those who tell you that ‘most’ allegations are merely driven by a desire for compensation. The truth is that no one knows, because no one has been keeping track – there isn’t even an agreed definition of what constitutes a ‘wrongful allegation’.
That is, in itself, a shocking state of affairs. How can we formulate policy when we don’t have the facts to base it on? I have no intention of reviewing the book chapter by chapter – it has taken me a day and a half to skim read it – every paragraph makes you stop and think. It will, assuredly, become a ‘bible’ for those working in this field.
I hope that people, particularly journalists and activists, from both sides of the ‘great divide’ as the issue of historic allegations of abuse has become, will read this book, cover to cover. If you are going to argue, debate, or be an activist on the subject – then you should be in possession of all the facts, not just the ones that reinforce your chosen viewpoint.
It will cost you £75.00 – there’s a shocker – the price of a decent education these days! Or free on loan from a library.
Worth every single penny. G’orn treat yourself. Know what you’re talking about for a change.
- Mrs Grimble
September 9, 2016 at 2:07 pm -
£75? Ouch indeed. And thanks to council cost-cutting, I now live 30 miles from the nearest library. However, I’ve clicked on the “I’d like to read this book on Kindle” link. Hope lots of you do the same!
- Nick Langford
September 9, 2016 at 5:03 pm -
You can buy this indispensable book – as I did -with a 20% discount from the OUP website. I haven’t had a chance to read it yet, but I anticipate a fascinating read when I do. And I agree with Anna – as someone who has been accused of being a paedophilia apologist for merely daring to query the current witch hunt, I applaud the courage of the contributors. The link is here; I hope it is still valid:
https://www.law.ox.ac.uk/sites/files/oxlaw/burnett_flyer_wrongful_allegations.pdf
- Nick Langford
- tdf
September 9, 2016 at 2:11 pm -
Anna,
When did you read this book if you don’t mind my asking?
- Bandini
September 9, 2016 at 2:22 pm -
Off-topic, but Bob Woffinden delivered his verdict on MW-T’s recent television spectacular (which I haven’t seen) here:
http://thejusticegap.com/2016/09/two-trials-three-jailhouse-snitches-four-part-documentary-no-evidence/ - tdf
September 9, 2016 at 2:39 pm -
Bandini, did you see where another blogger has named the people who, he claims, made complaints against DCI Settle to the IPCC?
- Bandini
September 9, 2016 at 2:54 pm -
Aye, and then corrected the mistake & apologised within 24-hours…
Remind me how long it took with the Fay/Godden/DHG rubbish he’d been pushing (the reluctant ‘correction’ that is; I’ve seen no apology to date).- tdf
September 9, 2016 at 9:11 pm -
I don’t recall. I can’t speak for Gojam, I am not he.
DHG does seem to have had a rather shady past. That of course does imply or mean that he was involved in child abuse.
- tdf
September 9, 2016 at 9:32 pm -
As for Woffinden, it seems that he got it badly wrong on the Bamber case.
Now, fair enough, he acknowledged that he did (which is certainly far better than sticking to one’s guns for the sake of personal pride, even against all evidence) but it does go to show that no-one should be regarded as infallible in all of this stuff – even those who put themselves forward as sceptical experts on false accusations and make media careers out of so doing!
It’s great, really, isn’t it, that all these nice English middle class journalist types of people are now being sceptical of false/wrongful accusations.
I must admit though, that I would like to know where they all were when my people were being falsely accused of crimes that they didn’t commit, back in the 1970s and 1980s!
- tdf
September 9, 2016 at 9:38 pm -
Oh b****x I’ve done it again. I really should proof-read my own comments before hitting ‘post’.
The second sentence in my above comment @9:11 pm should have read:
“That of course does NOT imply or mean that he was involved in child abuse.”
- Bandini
September 10, 2016 at 8:53 pm -
Publicly, the 12th of April 2015, TDF – although he lyingly claimed to have realised the error of his ways earlier: “I actually did make it clear to you about 18 months ago.” No, he did not.
Asked by a nonplussed commentator: “Why now Jon?”, the reply was: “It seemed unnecessary before.”
He’d have had more of a point if he’d said: “It seemed pointless trying to correct my libelous error”, as once the lie is unleashed there’s really no way of putting it back in its box. (I saw Peter Tatchell being challenged – yet again – over the mad claim that he went on a march waving a P.I.E. banner about & the other day that old chestnut of Jimmy Savile driving around in his ‘I love the Conservative Party’ van popped up again; there’ll always be another ‘generation’ of nutjobs to come along & regurgitate the rubbish, it’ll never go away…)Still, I expect people to at least make the slightest of efforts to correct themselves in a timely manner!
I’m not sure what you mean by having a “rather shady past”. If you mean he was a director of pornographic films (that would hardly raise an eyebrow these days) then I think you might have unwittingly highlighted how a load of this ‘campaigning’ malarky works: a smug sense of moral superiority allows the ‘valiant truth seeker’ to smear & defame anyone they are not in total agreement with, as ‘even if it turns out he didn’t actually photograph Leon Brittan in Elm Guest House then he was still a dirty porno merchant!!!’Imagine, Zac Goldsmith giving creedence to the ravings of a lunatic ex-husband with his decades old vendetta, mentioning it in Parliament! There was never any other evidence. That’s how far a lie can travel, with a little help…
- tdf
September 10, 2016 at 9:30 pm -
“There was never any other evidence.”
If you mean about EGH in general, that does not seem correct. For one thing, EGH was advertised with ‘discount for Spartacus members’ on the advert.
- A Potted Plant
September 11, 2016 at 3:02 am -
@tdf – True, there was an EGH advertisment with ‘discount for Spartacus members’ on the ad. However, the idea that the words “‘discount for Spartacus members” constituted a “coded reference” that pedophiles and others would understand to indicate: “rent little boys for sex, here!”, is an unsupported theory concocted by Chris Fay and Exaro. It appears as a bald assertion with no documentation of any kind, on Exaro and The Mirror originally, and subsequently repeated on dozens of websites as though it were a proven fact. However, there has never been any independent verification for this idea and significantly no convicted child abuser has ever stated that they perceived such an advertisment to mean that child prostitutes would be made available by the proprieters.
The notorious associations of the original Spartacus guide and Spartacus club are undeniable – Stamford, Glencross, et.al. Nevertheless, the Spartacus guide WAS primarily marketed as a GAY travel guide in 1979-1982 period and many if not most Spartacus Club members would likely have been gay travelers and/or gay travel service providers rather than pederasts. I realize the club is described as a “pedophile ring” said to number 30,000 members, but these assertions similarly lack documentation.
Ultimately, however, all of this may be irrelevant either way, because…as far as I can tell, the notorious advertisement in question would have appeared in 1982, after the raid and the charges against the Kasirs – and any “support” EGH received from Glencross/Spartacus or associated persons seems to date from a similar time frame, when “gay community” supporters were attempting to prop EGH up and keep it in business despite what they perceived to be “police persecution”. By the following year however, EGH was defunct and the Kasirs were looking for buyers for the building.- tdf
September 11, 2016 at 4:08 am -
@APP
Ah ok. Thanks for this.
The existence of ‘Molly-houses’ in London has been traced back to the 1700s, I think – possibly a lot earlier, who knows.
I’ve recently read (or more accurately, re-read) a memoir which indicates that even in the dark days of the mid 1940s, there were gay pubs in central London.
I think it has also been well testified to that guardsmen sometimes supplemented their income by becoming rent-boys.
It’s very difficult to parse all this together at times and decide on the ethics and morality of it all and at what line the skin trade (the world’s oldest profession, as all non-naive people know) becomes evil and immoral.
“Ultimately, however, all of this may be irrelevant either way, because…as far as I can tell, the notorious advertisement in question would have appeared in 1982, after the raid and the charges against the Kasirs – and any “support” EGH received from Glencross/Spartacus or associated persons seems to date from a similar time frame, when “gay community” supporters were attempting to prop EGH up and keep it in business despite what they perceived to be “police persecution”. By the following year however, EGH was defunct and the Kasirs were looking for buyers for the building. ”
Is that timeline potentially suggestive of a crack-down ordered from high-up top brass type people? Possibly for national security reasons? Or am I reading between the lines too far and making 2+2=5?
- A Potted Plant
September 11, 2016 at 10:29 am -
I don’t know about the timeline implications. EGH opened in 1979, was raided in 1982. Many press accounts of the day trumpeted claims that seized client lists included the names of MPs, judges, celebrities and even Buckingham Palace staff, but Scotland Yard denied that any client lists had been seized and stated that the raid was a routine ‘brothel’ investigation. In the end, The Kasir’s and their teen ‘masseur’ – 16 year old Lee Towsey – were convicted of “keeping a disorderly house”, related specifically to Towsey’s “rub & tug” and other prostitution activity while employed by EGH, and public showings of “obscene” films. Between the date of their arrest in the summer of 1982 and the final disposition of their case in May of 1983, gay community ‘activists’ showed their support for the Kasir’s and EGH by soliciting travel advertising (Spartacus guide) and developing a plan for “revamping” the premises with promises of fresh investment/funding. Nothing came of this plan however, as the Kasirs were wiped out by legal fees and forced to sell the hotel to pay off their fines.
I have recently come across information which suggested to me, that Lee Towsey might be, and have been, much more ‘disturbed’ or ‘unbalanced’ than I had originally believed. He struck me as level-headed and objective, in news reports from the last few years, but I now have reason to believe that he could be a truly compulsive fantasist and liar.John Stamford did promote child sex tourism through Spartacus guide, but primarily involving the far east – Thailand, the Philippines, etc. I flipped through the guide a few times, not sure what years, being sold at a local LGBT booksellers. Listings for European and North American venues all seemed like typical gay clubs and associated businesses, to me. No overt boy brothels. Spartacus did provide info on where to find the local gay prostitute ‘strolls’ in major cities, which was unusual.
- A Potted Plant
- tdf
- Bandini
September 11, 2016 at 12:46 pm -
I was referring specifically to DHG, TDF.
The only reason there exists the ‘certain belief’ (in the noggins of nutters) that there were pics of Leon Brittan at EGH is because the ex-husband (and his cohort Fay) dreamt it up. It’s a ridiculous fantasy – and fairly obviously so – which nevertheless has flourished and will never die. Those giving it a helping hand deserve a dose of their own medicine.Re EGH, we keep coming back to the age of consent – 21 for homosexuals at the time. I’m reminded of the argument against the criminalisation of marijuana: that the prospective buyer of the stuff is ‘forced’ to skulk around in dark alleys & purchase it from a criminal who might also offer them something far more potent & potentially damaging; I imagine something of the sort will have happened in the world of ‘gay tourism’. (When Elm opened, for example, homosexuality was still a crime in Scotland – incredible, really; if you’ve already been forced into the shadows you’ll likely find something lurking there.)
These days you can just fire up an app on your ‘phone (apparently) and you’re unlikely to be too far away from whatever it is you fancy. Most of the ‘filth’ being ‘investigated’ by the ‘campaigners’ may indeed have been illegal, career-wrecking and shocking at the time but nowadays is, for better or worse, acceptable behaviour. I think half of the ‘campaigners’ are using the past to attack the present – they’d like to turn back the clock.
- A Potted Plant
September 11, 2016 at 5:16 pm -
@Bandini – can you tell me…did Simon Danczuk do something, which offended the cabal of victim claimants who went on 60 Minutes australia or their buddy the Westminster pedo gang fantasist, other than general perverted sleazebag behaviour? Did he do something that worked against their interests somehow, something I might have missed?
- tdf
September 11, 2016 at 9:26 pm -
@APP
With Danczuk, my sense was it was a series of incidents of odd, and ‘general sleazy behaviour’ that just made the optics of it unsustainable. I understand one specific campaigner has a perfectly valid grievance as she was given assurances that a donation would be made to a certain charity in return for use of her testimony/anecdotal evidence in a Daily Mail piece he (or his assistant) wrote but apparently this has still not taken place.
The sleazy texts to the 17 year old potential job applicant, while perfectly legal (as indeed would be a relationship between a 49 year old and 17 year old) can’t be a good look for an MP building a reputation as an anti-CSA crusader. I am a few years younger than SD but I if told my friends I had taken up with a girl of 17 they would be somewhat taken aback, to put it mildly.
- Bandini
September 12, 2016 at 10:28 am -
APP, as TDF mentions there is that ‘campaigner’ (well-meaning, I think, but, er, a bit batty…); she also has another understandable gripe against Danczuk:
“As we sat taking coffee in a hotel bar in Altrincham, Julie, a widow in her 60s, pointed at the old and fading photographs in an album… … ‘We wouldn’t take a penny,’ she told me, the disgust still there in her voice.”
They had neither met nor spoken to one another. He claimed otherwise for another bumper payout from the press.
So, a gradual wading-through-cement awakening to his true character & principle concern: himself & his wallet.
As I suggested to dear ol’ Owen here a while back, the wilful blindness of the ‘campaigners’ towards the lies and misdeeds of those who they feel can be useful to ‘the campaign’ is really no different to the ‘turning of a blind eye’ they moan about ‘the Establishment’ doing.Danczuk’s long history – from local party members expelled for ‘bullying’ him in 2009 after they tried to have him investigated over claims of domestic violence to his recent smarming up to Vaz (a man the ‘campaigners’ are quite convinced is guilty of very serious crimes) – all coupled to a total disregard for the well-being of his children (even the ones he actually sees from time to time!)… it’s too much for ’em to stomach, it would seem.
(They don’t seem too bothered about the fiction of the book to which he put his name, the money/time wasted investigating his baseless gossip, nor his claim that a still-living Janner had “violated, raped and tortured [children], some in the very building [Parliament] in which we sit.” They lap THIS up…)
Quite why anyone would cast their vote in favour of either Danczuk or Vaz is a mystery to me. But those who did so did so knowing the character they were electing; shame on them all. They can’t blame THAT on ‘the Establishment’.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3025076/EXPOSED-Liberals-offered-hush-money-hide-Cyril-Smith-s-abuse-MP-SIMON-DANCZUK-reveals-devastating-new-evidence-raises-deeply-troubling-questions-David-Steel-Nick-Clegg.html
- tdf
- tdf
September 11, 2016 at 7:44 pm -
“Re EGH, we keep coming back to the age of consent – 21 for homosexuals at the time.”
The differing ages of consent was of course absurd. I think most of the MP’s that voted it through would admit that now.
“When Elm opened, for example, homosexuality was still a crime in Scotland”
Was still a crime in Ireland (meaning Eire/ROI) also. And continued to be until 1993.
“I think half of the ‘campaigners’ are using the past to attack the present – they’d like to turn back the clock.”
That aspect to it is interesting. Most ‘campaigners’ seem to be on the left – at least in a generally anti-establishment kind of way – but with some, scratch the surface and some old-fashioned social attitudes quickly become apparent.
- A Potted Plant
- A Potted Plant
- tdf
September 10, 2016 at 11:06 pm -
“I saw Peter Tatchell being challenged – yet again – over the mad claim that he went on a march waving a P.I.E. banner about”
As far I’m aware that claim stemed from a photoshop which is punted around Twitter every so often.
I’ve read – and I agree with – his piece on Vaz:
http://www.writeyou.co.uk/keith-vaz-conflict-of-interest
- tdf
September 10, 2016 at 11:13 pm -
^ On a side note, Tatchell was mentioned on the Hoaxstead research blog a few weeks’ back.
It was claimed that he had been asked to speak out in defence of Proctor, but wasn’t interested.
I suggested that Tatchell’s reluctance might have been because of Proctor’s hypocrisy on gay rights when he was an MP. I think Tatchell has been consistent in that approach over the years, it’s the hypocrisy of certain public (or formerly public) figures that grates with him.
- Bandini
September 11, 2016 at 11:53 am -
The Savile photo is also a fake, but who cares about that? Certainly not the writer here:
http://voxpoliticalonline.com/2016/02/27/it-seems-the-tories-are-trying-to-rewrite-their-own-history-again-so-please-share-savile/- Bandini
September 11, 2016 at 12:53 pm -
“A source close to the star [Cliff Richard] said:
“He has stopped eating and can’t sleep. He’s totally consumed by this and at breaking point with frustration. He thought the whole thing was over. Those close to him are really worried. Cliff is incandescent with rage. In more despondent moments he threatens to give up everything. He claims he can’t see how this will ever end or how things could go back to normal.””
These things never end. Poor devil.
- tdf
September 15, 2016 at 1:52 am -
I do know that certain social media ‘campaigners’ had decided that Cliff had moved to Barbados a few years ago because, they claimed, he was seeking to run away from a brewing scandal.
In fact, as I pointed out to them, it takes 3 seconds on Google to ascertain that Barbados has an extradition treaty with the UK.
I have never been a fan of his music, but Richards’ actions do not seem to me to be suggestive of those of a guilty man, as seemingly he has made himself available to the police in England at every opportunity, even though he could probably have made life difficult for them, should he have chosen to do.
- tdf
- tdf
September 15, 2016 at 1:32 am -
@Bandini
The fact is that Savile knew Thatcher and other high profile Tories well. He also fraternised with various members of the Saxe-Coburg-Gotha-Windsors. All proven and on the record.
In the Dame Smith report, which I’ve recently been digging into, it is recorded that at least one witness said that she ‘disliked the way he [Savile] was always talking about Thatcher and the Royal Family’.
That particular photo might be a fake, but one wonders who would benefit from exposing it as such. You’re a smart guy, you don’t need me to spell it out for you.
- tdf
September 15, 2016 at 1:36 am -
By which I mean, if that particular photo is a fake, the question arises who faked it and for what purpose.
If it is a fake – and I’d like to see the evidence for this assertion – qui bono?
- Bandini
September 15, 2016 at 10:28 am -
Bloody hell, TDF, make an effort man!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/12177987/Jimmy-Savile-Vote-Conservative-hoax-spreads-on-social-media.htmlYes, Savile knew Thatcher (well?) and other Tories. He also knew Blair. And other ‘high profile Laborites’. Point being?
I wonder why Savile offended someone by talking about “Thatcher and the Royal Family” – presumably because the listener was no fan of either. Perhaps Savile should have entertained those ‘little people’ around him with tales of the bloke who he helped push trollies around a hospital, Stan Smith, or that unglamourous Billy Bland who he kept in touch with after they’d met thirty years previously on a hospital ward…
Or maybe even those now complaining about his mentioning Thatcher actually quite enjoyed hearing names being dropped? Have a listen to Savile’s last recorded interview – it’s hilarious. Frank Sinatra (or plain ‘Frank’ to Jimmy) and Elvis Presley, inventing the ‘John Lennon glasses’ look (and putting an end to the Beatles touring with some sage advice)… giving people what they wanted.
I suggest you check out Moor Larkin’s work, a good place to start being how Savile more or less single-handedly ‘saved’ Stoke Mandeville from PFI. ‘Fraternising’? Getting stuff done, away from the cameras & microphones.
- Bandini
September 15, 2016 at 10:34 am -
Every waking moment planning his next ‘attack’?
http://jimcannotfixthis.blogspot.com.es/2015/03/smoke-of-war.html
- Bandini
- Bandini
- tdf
- Bandini
- tdf
- tdf
- tdf
- tdf
- Bandini
- Bill Sticker
September 9, 2016 at 3:33 pm -
“…The truth is that no one knows…”
And it’s so hard to tell the difference without a great expenditure of time and public money. I’ll try and source a Kindle version. This sounds interesting.
- David
September 9, 2016 at 4:19 pm - David
September 9, 2016 at 4:33 pm -
Chapter 9: The Compensations of Being a Victim, Barbara Hewson
Not sure about Barbara Hewson chapter 9. She definitely has an axe to grind.Chapter 8: Why and How False Allegations of Abuse Occur: An Overview, Felicity Goodyear-Smith
Felicity Goodyear-Smith is married to Bert Potter’s son John, above, who was jailed for four months for indecent assault on an underage girl
http://www.stuff.co.nz/sunday-star-times/features/4069062/Conflicting-interestshaven’t had time to check out the other authors in this book yet.
- The Blocked Dwarf
September 9, 2016 at 4:38 pm -
RB has ‘form’ on this. The Carolyn Hoyle, Naomi-Ellen Speechley, and Ros Burnett study on the “Impact of Being Wrongly Accused” .http://bfms.org.uk/the-impact-of-being-wrongly-accused/
From the summary this ‘spoke’ to me. My italics. Seems those wrongly accused tend to be far more Christian than I would be under the circumstances.
“In the majority of accounts, an overwhelming sense of anger and betrayal emerged. More often this was not directed at their accusers, but at employers who were thought to have encouraged the allegations, at the police for what our participants saw as treating them as guilty from the outset, and at a ‘victim-centred’ criminal justice system, with its provisions for complainants on one hand, and what they felt was a failure to recognize rights or due process of the accused on the other. Indeed, almost all of our participants had lost faith in the criminal justice system though only one had been convicted and half of the cases did not even go to trial.”
- Ted Treen
September 9, 2016 at 10:41 pm -
“Bookshelves in libraries across the globe are groaning with accounts from both victims of abuse, activists who wish to publicise that abuse, experts detailing abuse – and a fair few from narcissistic exhibitionists with vivid imaginations.”
If only the librarians were honest and kept most of them in the Fiction section.
- tdf
September 9, 2016 at 10:54 pm -
@ Ted Treen
If they are required to be consistent, then they should also keep autobiographies of certain ‘great and good’ persons in the fiction section.
- tdf
- Alexander Baron
September 10, 2016 at 1:29 am -
I’ve just added another ten entries to the International False Rape Timeline – a shade over 2250 now and rising. It includes an entry for a book by Felicity Goodyear-Smith about a child rape and murder that wasn’t.
- tdf
September 10, 2016 at 2:59 pm -
A perspective you will be unlikely to find in the “Wrongful Allegations” book:
[quote]Then there’s Peter Tyrrell who reported – in the 1950s – that he’d been abused in Letterfrack in the 1930s. He confronted the people whom the abusers belonged to and they called the Gardai stating Peter was probably ‘playing the blackmail ticket’. No official response was ever given to Peter either by the Gardai or the christian brothers.
The Christian Brothers knew that the principal culprit named by Peter , Br Perryn, had a history of serious physical and sexual abuse of boys, as recorded in the Congregation’s documents.
Another named abuser: Br Piperel had, to the Congregation’s knowledge as recorded in their documents, a history of sexually improper and suggestive behaviour which had necessitated his urgent removal from a day school. Notwithstanding this information, the Congregation maintained complete silence in the face of Peter’s information. Peter also wrote to to the Archbishop of Dublin, Dr McQuaid, and Dr Browne Bishop of Galway, as well as President de Valera about his abuse in Lettefrack and never received any reply.
Br Piperel had been the subject of a serious allegation of sexual abuse in Letterfrack that was documented in the Congregation’s records, which also implied that he had a previous history of interference with boys. He worked in industrial schools until the 1950s and then moved to a day school. He was removed from a day school in Cork for sexually inappropriate behaviour towards a young girl just a few months prior to Peter’s first letter.
Br Perryn – according to internal documents held by the christian brothers – was abusing children in Letterfrack in 1917, 1918, 1919, 1920, 1921, 1922, 1923, 1924, 1925, 1926, 1927, 1928, 1929, 1930, 1931, 1932, 1933, 1934, 1935, 1936, 1937, 1938, 1939, 1940, 1941 ….. in 1941 Perryn was removed because of abuses that are:
‘….so shockingly obscene, revolting and abominable that it is hard to believe them’.
According to internal christian brother documents.Peter immolated himself on Hampstead Heath in 1967 … it took a year to identify his remains and only then because of on-going correspondence he was having with an Irish Senator.[/quote]
Source: http://www.politics.ie/forum/united-kingdom/235556-uk-child-abuse-industrial-scale-116.html
- Sean Coleman
September 10, 2016 at 4:48 pm -
‘A perspective you will be unlikely to find in the “Wrongful Allegations” book’
This is an assumption if you haven’t read the book.
You lifted this story (as you acknowledge) out of Politics.ie.
It may be completely true, exaggerated, or made up.
So your point is?
- tdf
September 10, 2016 at 4:58 pm -
“This is an assumption if you haven’t read the book.”
An assumption it may be but likely a correct one.
Have you read the Ryan Commission report?
- Sean Coleman
September 10, 2016 at 8:34 pm -
I haven’t read the Ryan Report. Have you read the report itself, or just a summary of it, or just press articles interpreting the summary?
Given what most of us here have learnt about witch hunts, in particular the Jimmy Savile witch hunt, and given the even stronger hysteria in Ireland (where it was and is anti-clerical), I will make the assumption (likely a correct one) that the press articles cannot be believed at all and that the summary and the report itself cannot be relied upon as being accurate, or anything near accurate. It is possible they are but my assumption (likely a correct one) is that they are a many leagues wide of what did or did not happen in Irish institutions in a recent past which, on the evidence of the public understanding of it, may well have happened a billion (British version with twelve noughts) years ago.
In this article
http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/a-lone-voice-against-the-axis-of-state-and-church-1.787664
journalist (possibly now former journalist, following his treatment after the ‘Ms Panti’ case) John Waters refers to the Ryan Report having been appropriated ‘by actors intent on burying Irish Christianity’. (He makes an uncharacteristic slip here as the word is ‘Catholicism’.) He has been something of a lone voice and I am loathe to criticize him but I have reached the stage where I have doubts about the actual existence (beyond the status as *alleged existence*) of whatever abuses the Ryan Report claimed to have uncovered to be appropriated by anyone in the first place. To speak plainly, I doubt its accuracy to say the least.
But I have quite a bit of the Smith Report. This was early in the year, as I recall, when I had just started looking at the Jimmy Savile case following an, er, exchange of views on Facebook with my sister and one of her Face-friends when I had said that it was likely that all, or very nearly all, of it would be false because that is simply what happens in witch hunts. Of course the subtleties which were spotted by the established readers of this weblog went over my head, and I didn’t see the Womble stories and the other bits of surrealism. However, I had followed up a few of the claims in my own slapdash way before I ever came here but even that was enough to confirm my expectations because for most of the accusations you don’t have to dig down more than half an inch: the evidence is lying around the place in heaps, in plain sight. So when I started reading the Smith Report the impression I got (because she kept repeating it herself) was that this and that piece of trivia and hearsay had now acquired a sinister character ‘in the light of what we all now know about Savile’.
So I’ll repeat my question. Have you read the Ryan Report yourself? I think it is a long document and I doubt you have, but if you have, do you believe it, and why?
- Sean Coleman
September 10, 2016 at 8:42 pm -
‘In the light of what we all now know about Savile’
This is the concept which convicted Carlos Cruz and the other defendants in the Casa Pia *witch hunt*: ‘a resonancia de verdade’. A loose translation: ‘the paedo bastard is guilty because everybody says so’. If you look at the comments by the Portuguese manic depressives on YouTube you will learn that Cruz was a powerful Untouchable, protected by a corrupt Establishment which was equally guilty itself.
Now, what was it you were saying about Ryan again?
- tdf
September 10, 2016 at 9:52 pm -
I’ve read all of it, from beginning to end.
Given your admission that you have already made up your mind about that commission’s report without reading it, you are guilty of precisely the same sin you have accused others of. I can only recommend that you obtain the sacrament of confession as soon as possible. (I’m thinking of your immortal soul here, you see.)
Anyway, it’s rather a pity that you haven’t the report, as if you had, you would be aware, that among other things, it contains testimony of an ex-Brother ADMITTING that in a fit of temper with a child who had been bed-wetting, he forced the child to (and I’m afraid there is no polite way to put this) eat his own excrement.
It would be rather odd, wouldn’t you agree, if both accuser and accused imagined the same event in precisely the same way? Even believers in ‘false memory syndrome’ (and I’m certainly not one) would have to concede that a case of ‘FMS’ inflicting both accuser and accused in a manner that indicts the accused seems rather unlikely!
- tdf
September 10, 2016 at 10:11 pm -
“(He makes an uncharacteristic slip here as the word is ‘Catholicism’.) ”
In correcting him, you’ve made a slip yourself. The word, or rather phrase, is Roman Catholicism.
- Sean Coleman
September 11, 2016 at 12:30 am -
tdf
Five posts in a row: you are approaching the hyperactivity levels of the Brexit vote where you were popping in every five minutes to deplore the result (and yet you later claimed, or seemed to – it’s so hard to keep up – that you were against Europe after all).
I say Catholic. As John Banville once said: ‘Summoned, one trudges guiltily into the Department of Trivia.’
I’m not as surprised as you think to learn you read it all as it seems you really need to believe. How critically you read it is another matter. It would be surprising if they couldn’t find at least one crime because why would priests be any different to everyone else? (Actually, that’s a question I’d like to hear your answer to – no on second thoughts don’t go there.) However you choose as your example an occurrence that does not ring true. Life is short, but I suppose I’ll have to look it up.
Once again you miss the point. It is a long report and I’m not going to spend hours reading a document which, for reasons already stated (and ignored by you). Clue: I’m not talking about FMS but about mass hysteria and how this affects people’s objectivity, including those who contribute to, write and report on official reports.
You also didn’t answer my question about when the pendulum had swung in the other direction. (I don’t believe there is such a pendulum.)
I might have asked you this already, but I’d be very interested to know if you regularly edit Wikipedia entries.
- tdf
September 11, 2016 at 1:10 am -
“Five posts in a row: you are approaching the hyperactivity levels of the Brexit vote where you were popping in every five minutes to deplore the result (and yet you later claimed, or seemed to – it’s so hard to keep up – that you were against Europe after all).”
I most certainly never claimed I was ‘against Europe’. Accuracy is important.
“I say Catholic. As John Banville once said: ‘Summoned, one trudges guiltily into the Department of Trivia.’”
Well, then you are wrong, and while Banville might be an interesting writer of fiction, he is of no relevance to this.
Again, accuracy is important. There is the Roman Catholic denomination. There is the Anglo-Catholic trend within the Anglican communion. It’s important to distinguish. (There are also Sedevecantists and so on that claim to be Catholic). Did you know, incidentally, that there are denominations which are in full communion with Rome that allow married priests and that have done for centuries? I must admit, I was only informed of this around three years ago. An elderly acquaintance who was pursuing (as he puts it, ‘in his dotage’) an MPhil in Theology at Maynooth imparted the information to me, and when I researched it for myself, it stacked up. Now, be honest, you didn’t know, that did you?
“It would be surprising if they couldn’t find at least one crime because why would priests be any different to everyone else? (Actually, that’s a question I’d like to hear your answer to – no on second thoughts don’t go there.) ”
I’m quite happy to go there. In relate to abuses the church was blamed for, I’d personally allocate far more blame to the Irish state than to the church authorities. I have no personal grudge against the Roman Catholic church (or any other). You would be mistaken to assume that I do.
“Once again you miss the point. ”
If you please, I won’t be told by you (or anyone) what ‘the point’ is.
“It is a long report and I’m not going to spend hours reading a document which, for reasons already stated (and ignored by you).”
Some might call that laziness.
“Clue: I’m not talking about FMS but about mass hysteria and how this affects people’s objectivity, including those who contribute to, write and report on official reports.”
Would you consider the ‘visions’ of Medjugorge, Fatima, etc to be examples of mass hysteria?
“I might have asked you this already, but I’d be very interested to know if you regularly edit Wikipedia entries.”
Your interest in me is becoming mildly obsessive.
- Sean Coleman
September 11, 2016 at 3:01 pm -
tdf
“Well, then you are wrong.”
If you please [see below] it’s you who is wrong, as usual. Catholic is the common term. I have found that those who put the ‘Roman’ in front usually either aren’t Catholics or don’t like the Catholic Church. I know some Anglicans use the word but I don’t care. I’d be just as happy if I didn’t know this. Do you know what, tdf, I couldn’t care less.
“Now, be honest, you didn’t know that, did you?”
I always try to be honest in debate as winning an argument through deceit is worthless. You are dishonest in debate in that you ignore the points made to you if they are inconvenient, and you fail to answer simple direct questions. That is why you ignored my points and instead wet yourself because you had read the Ryan Report and this somehow proved something. As for this latest piece of trivia all I can say is that I have a basic knowledge of the field. For example, I understand that some married Anglican priests in Britain were accepted into the Catholic Church a few years ago. A basic knowledge of this stuff is enough unless you have a special reason to dig into it.
‘If you please, I won’t be told by you (or anyone) what ‘the point’ is.’
If I make a point, which is relevant, and you miss it (whether by intention or because it has just gone straight over your head) then it pleases me to tell you. Whether it pleases others so to do is up to them. If that doesn’t please you then all the better.
‘Would you consider the visions of Medugorje, Fatima etc to be examples of mass hysteria?’
Possibly, but not necessarily. John Cornwell wrote an interesting book about this. He talks about a thing he calls ‘the religions imagination’. More to the point, do you think the Irish hysteria I referred to isn’t hysteria? How would you then account for the Nora Wall case for example?
“Some might call that laziness.”
Who? You? Again, as with the rule made by an internet bore that I must say ‘Roman Catholic’, it pleases me to ignore it. I am going to dip into it how you have reminded me in order to get an idea but I have other priorities for my time. I think it will be like the Smith Report. I accept your general point that one should try to do one’s own research as far as possible; so far it has confirmed that the received opinion is wrong.
‘Your interest is becoming mildly obsessive.’
That means I must have asked it before. Here’s an idea: if you answer it then I’ll stop asking.
- tdf
September 11, 2016 at 11:59 pm -
^ My previous post is awaiting moderation as it contains two links, but the above article that recently appeared in the Irish independent may be of interest. The piece records, inter alia, that two ‘rent boys’ were investigated, and cleared, of involvement in the (still unsolved) murder of an RTE set designer in Dublin in 1982 as they both had alibis.
Now a lot of ‘campaigners’ get on their high horses whenever the term ‘rentboy’ is used, but in fact most (though not necessarily all) ‘rentboys’ were adults, and indeed, it is claimed that the two referred to in the piece above were both 19. But of course ANY form of gay sex was illegal at the time in Eire. And EVEN in the comparatively socially liberal Britain of 1982 (well, at least compared to Eire), due to the differing age of consent issue that Bandini reminds us of above, having gay sex at 19 (paid or otherwise) would also have been illegal.
Now, for the benefit of those not familiar with Dublin, which I assume is the majority of commenters on here, the districts the two male prostitutes were allegedly from were, and are, working class areas. (And frankly, in Dublin in 1982, even most ‘middle-class’ people hadn’t a proverbial pot to piss in – due to high taxation, and the state of the economy generally.) So there were, and still are in some countries, issues around economic exploitation of prostitutes and young men and of course young women from working class areas having to sell their bodies just to make the rent or feed themselves (the ‘campaigners’ have a point, but it’s not necessarily the one they think it is. ‘Rentboys’ very probably were being exploited in the economic sense, but not always by child abusers/paedophiles – in fact, I’d guess, usually not.)
All part of the reason why I think working one’s away around all these issues is a bit of a moral and ethical quagmire!
- tdf
- Sean Coleman
- tdf
September 11, 2016 at 1:24 am -
“However you choose as your example an occurrence that does not ring true. Life is short, but I suppose I’ll have to look it up.”
I didn’t choose that example to create shock. In fact, I didn’t ‘choose’ it at all, as per se. Frankly, it was one of those moments when I ploughed my way through the Ryan Commission reports around five years ago, that just shocked me. How could it not? Had I merely read a media report of the sensationalist variety, I would have doubted it myself. My reaction would have been, similarly to yours, that it didn’t ‘ring true’. But the accused admitted to it. That’s why I say there is no substitute for detailed reading and research.
- tdf
September 11, 2016 at 1:32 am -
@Sean Coleman
“Life is short, but I suppose I’ll have to look it up.”
At the risk of being accused of further hyperactivity, I finish with some poetry:
“Life is short /
But it’s the longest thing we’ll ever do /
The worst of the curse /
Was that our dreams came true /
God is a mirror in which each man sees himself /
Hell is a place where we don’t need any help”
- tdf
- Sean Coleman
- tdf
September 10, 2016 at 11:47 pm -
@Sean
I do not wish to come across rude – I will acknowledge I have not read the Smith report. I have read a few extracts Moor Larkin has put up on his blog.
Ultimately, as the landlady quite rightly reminds us, there is no substitute for doing the heavy graft of one’s own research and reading.
- Sean Coleman
September 11, 2016 at 3:12 pm -
That’s quite all right, tdf. Be as rude as you like. I have been rude to you quite often but I don’t think you even noticed. As Christie Moore once said, you have a neck like a jockey’s bollocks.
I enjoy our little exchanges but unfortunately my time is not without limit. While I sometimes have suspicions about David, that he might be doing an Arthur Root, there is no doubt in my mind about your own authenticity. But if it’s all an act then I lift my hat to you and you have a terrifyingly good imagination.
Keep ’em coming!
- Sean Coleman
- Sean Coleman
- Sean Coleman
- tdf
- A Potted Plant
September 10, 2016 at 5:06 pm -
@tdf- terribly sad and tragic, that immolated accuser case. I’m familiar with several others, similar scenarios, victim claimants whose quest for justice (or simply acknowledgement and validation) seems repeatedly thwarted and who ultimately self-destruct.
But also, of course, cases of tragic self-destruction by wrongfully convicted, wrongfully accused, or wrongfully slandered through gossip and rumor.
Justice for victims, and justice for wrongfully accused/ convicted, are not mutually exclusive. They are two sides of the same coin.
- tdf
September 10, 2016 at 5:10 pm -
“But also, of course, cases of tragic self-destruction by wrongfully convicted, wrongfully accused, or wrongfully slandered through gossip and rumor.”
Granted, certainly. A case of tragic-self destruction by a wrongfully convicted (or even of a rightly convicted) person, is also a failure of society.
- David
September 10, 2016 at 5:22 pm -
Having never believed in punishment, or prison, since I was ten years old, I think there should be other ways to deal with this type of crime.Sending people to prison in their 80s or 90s does not really achieve anything. far more important is to find out exactly what happened, and this is never really achieved using an adversarial system.
- tdf
September 10, 2016 at 5:28 pm -
“Sending people to prison in their 80s or 90s does not really achieve anything. far more important is to find out exactly what happened, and this is never really achieved using an adversarial system.”
Agreed on that certainly, for the most part. Might make exceptions for war criminals.
- tdf
- David
- tdf
- Sean Coleman
- Alex
September 11, 2016 at 2:46 pm -
Hi Anna
Dominic Lawson writes about ‘Wrongful Allegations’ in today’s Sunday Times. He appears to share the mindset of you and others on this site. Maybe the media tide is turning (slightly).
- Jimmy
September 11, 2016 at 5:13 pm -
I worked for 3 years in a gay bookshop and an adult sex shop, both owned by the same person. He also printed gay and adult magazines (nothing illegal). We had a lot to do with Spartacus and the owner who was also a partner with my boss in his adult magazine publishing. Spartacus was a Gay Guide nothing more, nothing less. The only “members” were subscribers who got a discount for signing up as the guide had to be updated very 2 years. Clubs, bars , beats etc came and went. There were no secret signals apart form initials with a guide that gave an indication as to what the clientele ie: “M” would mean a more mature crowd, “Y” would mean younger and so on but the guide never listed any illegal club and it’s quite ludicrous the fallacies that have built up around it. It listed gay beats and even “cottages” but cottaging was men looking for other men, nit as some seem to have now decided, schoolboys.
Of course illegal things may have gone in in nightclubs as they do all over the world and in some countries the police may have been paid to turn a blind eye but that was normal at the time and nothing to do with Spartacus which I used to have to deliver the English laid out copy to the UK printer. Of course there were many adverts for hotels , bars,restaurants and so on but how accurate were they?. Once I went to Paris with a friend and we booked into a ‘gay friendly’ hotel as recommended in Spartacus.
Coming in late the first night, my friend who had picked up a hustler in the street . We were confronted by the hotel owner who abused and shouted at us in French and when my pal said we were staying there because it was recommended by Spartacus he went even crazier yelling in french :”this is NOT a homo hotel and I’ve been writing to that book to get that listing removed and I never hear from them, they just keep listing the hotel”
Spartacus was for sale in all adult bookshops and in fact many newsagents around places like the West end. - tdf
September 11, 2016 at 10:52 pm -
@Jimmy
Always interesting to have anecdotal evidence from people who were actually there at the time, particularly gay people who lived through that era of changing social mores and changing legislation and so on.
As I mentioned in a post above, homosexuality was only decriminalised in Eire until as recently as 1993.
An unsolved murder case dating from the same era (1982) as the events around EGH came up in the Irish media recently:
- Greg Tingey
September 12, 2016 at 8:39 am -
No-one seems to have mentioned the case that, if it didn’t start this hysteria, certainly raised the profile of Child Abuse …
When there was no evidence at all.
Orkney / “Satanic”Any comments on that?
- tdf
September 12, 2016 at 5:11 pm -
^ Orkney was the first of the SRA cases in the UK, but I think there were earlier cases in the US if I’m not mistaken.
- tdf
- Eric
September 15, 2016 at 8:21 pm -
Actually most allegations are driven by compensation, for this reason.
Prior to Savile, most of the victims of these complaints were working in some form of Residential Care or Education. The Police would trawl the pupils for complaints, and dredge out what they could. This is a mixture of truth, revenge, compo etc, which may lead to a court case maybe only involving 3 or 4 complaints.
However, following this there is a colossal industry organised by Compo Solicitors, who basically attempt to get in touch with as many former pupils/residents as possible offering to “help” them “remember” for Compo (they either get a slice or claim expenses). It is effectively free money with zero risk. Most, virtually all of these are compensation driven.
Go and have a look at the pre-Savile historical abuse, and compare the number of complaints who went to court with the number of complaints (that never go to court, usually) in the follow ups – the usual mob *boast* of the size of these follow up allegations.
- Gildas The Monk
September 21, 2016 at 8:46 am -
My sincere congratulations on this important and scholarly work. G the M
- Alexander Baron
September 27, 2016 at 4:03 pm -
At last! There is of course no chance of either of these damned liars facing any sort of charge themselves:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-37484677contrast:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-37484900
whatever the outcome of this case, we know a crime was committed. - Bandini
September 15, 2016 at 11:21 am -
Agreed. and I particularly admire the PFI/Stoke Mandeville article as it torpedos (‘torpaedos’?) the dopey myth that has been attached to the Savile saga of the man with only one thing on his mind, being so desperate to maintain access to his ‘sweetshop’ that he’d engage in a long-running battle with the management class to do so…
The way the report suggests that Savile was referring to a car being parked by a NHS boss when he exploded with “You can get your fucking tanks off my fucking lawn, Sunshine…” is almost comical. He clearly wasn’t, but the report writers couldn’t let on that the ‘evil paedo’ was actually concerned about the well being of the establishment he’d helped set up (and, God forbid, maybe even the wellbeing of the patients who’d pass through it).
{ 76 comments… read them below or add one }