Sexual exploitation in Cheshire gets more attention from the police.

Chief Constable of Cheshire, Simon Byrne

I was interviewed on BBC Merseyside this morning about the Cheshire Police announcement of a new initiative to take a more protective and proactive approach to the possibility of sexual exploitation in Cheshire by announcing that each Children's Home will have its own designated officer.

I hasten to add that there is no suggestion in the police press release that exploitation is going on right now. It is more a case of prevention rather than cure, which has to be prudent and insightful bearing in mind what we have heard in Rochdale and Rotherham.

At QualitySolicitors Abney Garsden we have, in the past, dealt with large scale Cheshire Police enquiries into children's homes which are now closed such as Danesford in Congleton, Greystone Heath in Warrington, St. Aidan's in Widnes, St. Joseph's in Nantwich, Newton Hall in Frodsham, and Kilrie in Knutsford. They all involved abuse by care workers many years ago. I think I am right in thinking that most of the homes were closed by the Thatcher government in the 1990's, if not before, for various reasons including cost.

Now we notice that Cheshire Police, after consultation with young people and relevant organisations about what their requirements are have assigned a special officer to each children's home so that young people can talk about anything they want to in safety, which has to be a good thing. It is a shame that the same thing didn't happen many years ago at the homes where abuse took place.

A similar initiative was attempted at Danesford in Congleton many years ago by a child advocacy organisation called NYAS on the Wirral. The idea was that the children should have their own independent voice and means of support outside the home. It was planned that they should have their own telephone number to ring. The move failed, of course, because the care workers within were, at that time, abusing the boys. The last thing they wanted was an outside body coming in to discover what was going on.

If there are any potential sexual exploitation incidents of children being taken out of the homes for sex, then the police force will be able to show that they have done anything they can to prevent issues before they start happening, or take root.

The big difference between sexual exploitation and other crimes, is the difficulty of the police force to bring prosecutions because the victims are:-

1. Young and vulnerable
2. Threatened in a most aggressive way by the abusive gangs.
3. Unwilling to give evidence out of fear and intimidation.
4. In need of intensive witness protection.

Thus the police have to go out looking for crimes rather than waiting for the victims come forward to them. It is therefore resource intensive and difficult to detect. Most forces are advised to have a specialised unit assigned to this crime. It is against the grain for the police to go out looking for crime. They are taught to believe that they should be reactive to complaints and investigate rather than "trawl".

It is the Jimmy Savile scandal that has brought about a whole new attitude to the investigation of allegations of sexual abuse, and long overdue it has been. Historical abuse has now a higher priority than it used to, and hurray for that.

Will the sentence of Max Clifford send out a good message?

Max Clifford with his daughter

With the failure of the prosecutions of several recent high profile celebrities for abusing young girls, the media and the allegedly falsely accused were starting to question whether mounting multi claimant cases of abuse from many years ago was a sensible way to spend public money.

The recent conviction, and sentence today of Max Clifford justifies all the hard work put in by Operation Yewtree at the Met Police.

I just hope that the prison sentence is long enough to make the victims think they have got justice. Despite his protestations at trial his victims will be after acceptance that they are telling the truth. They want to be believed and have the satisfaction of feeling valued rather than guilty for what happened, which is so often the case.

The word is that the sentence may be as low as 2 years because the judge is bound by guidelines which were in force at the time the offences were committed ie the 70's and 80's rather than the present day.

The point is that most victims of abuse keep their experiences a secret because of fear and shame until much later in life, so a ban on prosecutions of events taking place years ago, would be catastrophic for victims. It would also have a very wide impact upon not only celebrity cases but also the vast majority of "normal" abuse cases of family members, professionals etc.

It has emerged in the press that earlier this year ago Clifford took out an unexplained £3.5m mortgage on his Surrey mansion with the suggestion being he wanted to put his money out of reach of victims looking for compensation. The civil courts have power to reverse transaction designed to avoid the payment of debts where it was done with that sole intention. It does seem to be the sort of thing someone expected to pay large amounts of compensation to do, but borders upon dishonesty. After all, aren't the victims entitled to be compensated for the suffering they have endured?

It is also said that a divorce is likely, and if so, the victims will be competing with his estranged wife for a slice of the pie. The question is, what has happened to the money raised by the mortgage? Some, no doubt was used to pay legal fees.

Let us hope that the victims obtain some sort of closure after today.

Hopefully I can give my views on BBC News 24 this afternoon.

Is the conviction of Max Clifford good news?

Max Clifford

Apart from Max Clifford and his family, the conviction of the former publicist must be good news for the CPS, the Police, but in particular the victims, who have had the courage to stand up and be counted against massive media interest in view of the celebrity status of the now convicted accused.

I gave interviews yesterday as President of the Association of Child Abuse Lawyers, but principally as someone over the last 20 year has acted for thousands of victims of abuse at QualitySolicitors Abney Garsden I have seen the hardest thugs of men cry like babies as they recount their sorry tale of woe from the past when they were overcome by a manipulative paedophile who has groomed them, then abused the power they have and claimed their prize - anal sex, oral sex, or masturbation.

I thus know first hand how difficult it is to disclose a shameful and embarrassing incident which has remained deeply embedded in the back of the brain, only to be resurrected by some trigger or other.

I was beginning to think that the media would turn against the prosecutions of celebrities from so many years ago after the acquittal of the recent soap opera and radio stars, who were, of course, found not guilty, rather than innocent.

I was concerned that the witnesses would be pilloried, and would not have the courage to make disclosure of their truths from the past.

Thankfully, the CPS, when attacked, stood up to the media onslaught and pointed out that it was their job to prosecute cases which had good chances of success, not decide on guilt and innocence, which is, of course the function of judge and jury.

It will be interesting to see what the sentence will be in due course.