Is the Ted Heath allegation a one off?

Arundels - former home of Ted Heath

It is reported by the Guardian that:-

“Metropolitan police detectives have spoken to a man who came forward more than two years ago and claims he was a victim of Heath when he was a teenager. Police have launched a public appeal for victims to come forward after allegations emerged of child sexual abuse by the late former prime minister, Sir Edward Heath. The appeal was made as the police watchdog announced that it was investigating claims that officers dropped a prosecution against a man in the 1990s after he threatened to name Heath as a child abuser. The Guardian has also learned that detectives have spoken to a man, now middle-aged, who says he was abused as a child by Heath on several occasions.”

To read more see my blog on our Abuselaw Website

Why did the government cover up child abuse by Ministers and Members of Government?

The recent revelation of papers found in a box marked “Cabinet Secretary Miscellaneous Papers” which shows that there was a cover up of allegations of child abuse is not surprising to me, not only because I have been hearing anecdotal allegations against senior public figures since at least 1997

To read more see my blog on our Abuselaw Website

Did Jimmy Savile abuse children in Manchester children's homes?

 A report was published yesterday into the abuse carried out by the late Jimmy Savile in NHS hospitals, the main focus being Stoke Mandeville Hospital. Kate Lampard, the barrister tasked with the job of providing independent oversight by the Secretary of State for Health, has come under fire for not addressing how mandatory reporting could have served to prevent much of the abuse from happening. 

I look at the main findings of the report and discuss my aim of being granted another group action allowing me to further represent victims of abuse in Manchester children's homes.

View this blog at www.abuselaw.co.uk

Should Woolf resign from the National Historic Abuse Inquiry?

Fiona Woolf

I was on LBC Radio the other day giving my opinion on whether Fiona Woolf should resign from the Historical Abuse Inquiry set up by the Home Secretary in response to the many scandals linking Central Government with a cover up of abuse allegations in days gone by. They asked me whether or not she should resign because of the recent revelations that she had had dinner with Leon Brittain  4 or 5 times and had supported one of Lady Brittain's charities. I said:-

1. I was surprised that the government chose Fiona Woolf to lead this enquiry as she does not have a history of representing the rights of the poor and oppressed members of Society, quite the reverse in fact because she has quite a history as a company and commercial lawyer. That is the wrong background for the head of an enquiry which is forseen as attacking the establishment and upturning stones under which we expect to find scandals.
2. I was expecting someone like Keir Starmer or Michael Meacher QC. For all I know they were both approached and refused. After the disaster which followed the appointment of Lady Butler Schloss, one would have thought that more care would be taken this time.
3. The point is that, although Fiona Woolf may be very capable, she does not have the respect and trust of the survivor community, hence the enquiry is doomed from the start. Whilst there are some very good other panel members who have collectively come from the former abusees and survivors of abuse, Ms. Woolf will be in charge of tactics and direction. So it will be up to her to decide whether
1. It should be turned into a public enquiry.
2. What documents should be demanded from government - that is crucial to uncovering the truth.
4. The survivors obviously think that someone weak and lack lustre has been appointed so that the inquiry will never get to the truth because it will not adopt an aggressive and "won't take No for an answer" type of approach.
5. I find it hard to believe that Teresa May has made a hash of this for a second time. Wouldn't you have thought she and the department would have done their homework first, as it has obviously led to an embarrassing appearance before the Home Affairs Select Committee.
6. There should be a former judge, or at least someone who has chaired enquiries in charge.
7. So what format should the enquiry take?
1. It should be a Royal Commission along the lines of the Australian model which is a resounding success, which does have the respect of the survivor community. One can read about the enquiry here - http://www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/
2. They should look at the Irish Redress Board as a good model of an inquiry, which , despite some controversy, worked well for the victims. They had two arms - Commission of Inquiry, which heard allegations, some of which resulted in criminal prosecutions, and a Redress Board which heard applications for Compensation from Survivors. It was very victim focused and enabled the victim, who was at the centre of it all, to give live evidence, which was recorded. To read more, follow this link...http://www.rirb.ie
8. Quite frankly I am glad I am not on the panel, because membership of the panel almost guarantees being pilloried by survivors whose vitriol and mistrust, which is quite understandable, will not assist it being a successful form of process.
9. How long will Ms Woolf last - it looks as though she is here to stay with the full backing of government. She is also being supported by her fellow panel members, who have gone public to say that because there is such a broad spread of panel members with all the right characteristics, it doesn't really matter.
10. I think that the Leon Brittain's allegations are really very secondary to the main issue which is the support and trust of the survivors, which, sadly is very lacking

Who's being lined up to replace Butler-Sloss in the abuse inquiry?

Resigned - Lady Butler-Sloss

I have been speaking on BBC Radio Manchester and BBC News 24 about Lady Butler-Sloss’s resignation as appointed Chair of the abuse inquiry panel.  The panel was appointed last week to examine the extent to which public institutions failed to investigate allegations of child abuse.  Her resignation came after she faced tremendous pressure from victims’ groups because of a conflict of interest due to the fact that her brother, the late Sir Michael Havers  was Attorney General during the 1980’s which was the period due to be examined by the panel.

I think:- 

• The decision to appoint a person to lead the enquiry was too hurried, yet had been proposed for at least 18 months. Not enough research was done by the government.
• Lady Butler Schloss has much experience of leading enquiries but is now 80 - whilst she has a razor sharp mind this enquiry would have taken several years. Would it be expecting too much of her?
• She has led the Cleveland enquiry which was somewhat controversial in its outcome. Children who allegedly had been abused were returned to their allegedly abusive parents. The process of evidence collection was found to be flawed and Social Services were heavily criticised. The outcome of the Princess Diana inquest was also controversial. She was criticised for holding an inquest without a jury.
• Whilst her competence and ability is undoubted, however, the perception of the survivor group is more important than anything.
• The one thing which survivors of abuse hate is the abuse of power of the state or indeed any public authority. Any suspicion publicly aired makes Lady Butler Schloss's role untenable, sadly, as I am sure she would have done a good job.
• Victims of abuse have witnessed at a young age the abuse of power of an adult whom they trusted. Thus it becomes a typical feature of their personality that they distrust authority intensely. She are also, usually, over protective of their children, and tend to over risk assess situations.

The former judge issued a statement announcing that she would withdraw from the post.  She said that she had been honoured to be invited to chair the inquiry but commented: "It has become apparent over the last few days, however, that there is a widespread perception, particularly among victim and survivor groups, that I am not the right person to chair the inquiry. It has also become clear to me that I did not sufficiently consider whether my background and the fact my brother had been attorney general would cause difficulties."

Theresa May, who had appointed Butler-Sloss last week has strongly defended her against criticism, she said: "I am deeply saddened by Baroness Butler-Sloss's decision to withdraw but understand and respect her reasons. Baroness Butler-Sloss is a woman of the highest integrity and compassion and continues to have an enormous contribution to make to public life.

"As she has said herself, the work of this inquiry is more important than any individual and an announcement will be made on who will take over the chairmanship and membership of the panel as soon as possible so this important work can move forward."

Asked about her successor, Mrs May said she still favoured appointing a single individual to head the over-arching inquiry rather than a panel of experts urged by Labour and some abuse victims.

She said she hoped to name a new candidate "within a reasonable amount of time" but said whoever was approached would need to "think carefully" about the nature of the role.

My choice would be Keir Starmer - why:-

• He has led a drive to change the way the Crown Prosecution Service investigate historical abuse.
• He is in favour of Mandatory Reporting (a change in the law to make it illegal to ignore and not report signs of abuse)
• He is an eminent lawyer and QC.
• He appears to be well balanced.
• He is now independent in that he is back to being a practising barrister, having resigned from the CPS.

Abuse Enquiry announced in Northern Ireland

Sir Anthony Hart

Today's announcement that there will be an enquiry into abuse at care homes in Northern Ireland does not surprise me, in that I have been aware of its intentions for many months.

The enquiry is an opportunity for the victims of abuse ate Northern Irish Care Homes to be heard. It is fundamentally important that the many years of silence is broken and that the victims are listened to.

In his opening remarks, the chairman of the inquiry, Sir Anthony Hart, said it would try to establish if abuse in children's homes was systemic.

He said he hoped those who had given evidence to the inquiry "will have the satisfaction of knowing that their experiences are being listened to and investigated".

Sir Anthony said many of the witnesses had told the inquiry that when they made complaints in the past they had been ignored.

He said where the inquiry believes criminal offences have taken place it will pass the evidence onto the police.

At the office, QualitySolicitors Abney Garsden have dealt with several complaints of abuse at Northern Irish Care Homes, which have proceeded independently of the enquiry through the civil courts.

The enquiry has clearly been announced after vociferous efforts have been rightfully made by victims of abuse, but more importantly as a direct reaction to the enquiries in Southern Ireland, where there were two types of enquiry explained in more detail on our Irish Survivor's site

1. The Irish Commission - this sat in Dublin and heard evidence from victim - much like the Northern Irish enquiry just announced. It had no power to prosecute or punish anyone, but could refer criminal allegations to the police.
2. The Irish Redress Board ("RIRB") now closed - was opened in 2002 and closed in 2005. It was set up to pay compensation and legal costs to the victims of abuse by institutions connected with the Irish State - the entire care and school system was set up in partnership with the Church and various voluntary bodies. This followed an apology by the Taoiseach of Ireland for the abuse committed by the state upon its children whilst in its care.
   The RIRB used a point scoring system in order to determine the amount of compensation offered.

It has been announced by BBC online that various homes will be investigated by the Commission

Institutions under investigation

Local authority homes:

• Lissue Children's Unit, Lisburn
• Kincora Boys' Home, Belfast
• Bawnmore Children's Home, Newtownabbey

Juvenile justice institutions:

• St Patrick's Training School, Belfast
• Lisnevin Training School, County Down
• Rathgael Training School, Bangor

Secular voluntary homes:

•  Barnardo's Sharonmore Project, Newtownabbey
• Barnardo's Macedon, Newtownabbey

Catholic Church-run homes:

• St Joseph's Home, Termonbacca, Londonderry
• Nazareth House Children's Home, Derry
• Nazareth House Children's Home, Belfast
• Nazareth Lodge Children's Home, Belfast
• De La Salle Boys' Home, Kircubbin, County Down

Whilst the Commission will hear and investigate valuable evidence, it remains to be seen what further powers the body will have.

It was said that the Redress Board was set up in the Southern Ireland as a more efficient alternative to the Courts. If the victims were expected to take all their cases through the Eire Courts system, it would have taken many years to process their claims, as the Court would become clogged up with all the allegations.

The institutions were approached, and agreed to part with considerable sums of money by way of a contribution to the cost of setting up and running the Irish Redress Board.

It is regrettable than no alternative to the court system appears, to date, to have been set up in Northern Ireland, laudable though the Commission obviously is.

The Police interview of Jimmy Savile shows what a manipulative paedophile he was

Savile with OBE

When you read the recently released interview by Surrey Police in 2009 of Jimmy Savile with the hindsight we have now, it is almost a textbook exercise in the manipulative powers of the paedophile. At the time, he was Sir Jimmy Savile OBE who gave heaps of cash to charity, and did benedictory work for the disadvantaged with friends in high places and influence with media and politicians alike. So how could anybody possibly believe that throughout his life, he abused under age girls, and boys?

Well, what are the necessary tools which a paedophile needs to hoodwink, groom and then abuse a child?
Fundamentally, child abuse is an opportunity and desire by a sex offender to abuse whatever power he has to entrap a victim.

1. Charm - no child will go off with a dirty old man in a mack.
2. Persuasion - but not in a dominant or bombastic way - with guile and intrigue, possibly some humour.
3. Manipulative - he has to have this in spades. Not only does he manipulate his victim, but also all those around the child who might protect him/her from harm. So how does the manipulation work?

Now let us go back to the Savile interview. How does "Sir" Jimmy manipulate his interviewer at the police force who were interviewing him?

1. Savile had persuaded them not to interview him at the police station, which presumably was in Surrey, but rather on his home turf at Stoke Mandeville Hospital, where he was more in control of the situation than he would have been if he had been interviewed at a police station in Surrey. The HMIC said it was wrong to allow Savile to choose where and when his ‘ineffective’ interview took place.
2. He quickly takes over the conversation, in order to avoid having to answer difficult questions by simply making a speech, which was nothing more than a self image boasting rant, designed to convince his interviewers that all the serious allegations of sexual abuse did not amount to anything they should even investigate.
3. His tone is overtly casual, relaxed and fluent, but has an undercurrent of malevolence and threats, which are intended to hint at how much power he has to make life difficult for the police if they misguidedly decided to prosecute him. 
4. He says he has friends in high places not only with the police in Leeds whom he shares his threatening letters. He implies they share his view that these girls are just after some money by making false allegations against him.
5. He refers to the girls as midges who chase him, and  "you can brush them away like midges and it's not much of a price to pay for the lifestyle." What greater image of ultimate power is there than a large human swatting a midge. This just makes him sound more powerful.
6. He refers in the interview to being able to sue newspapers who cross him, or indeed anyone who gets in his way. He even suggests that they police could end up taken by Savile to the Old Bailey if they are not careful.
7. Ironically he emphasises his power, belittles his victims saying they are like flies who buzz around him for attention, whom he can pick and choose at will by virtue of his incredibly powerful celebrity status.
8. In typical paedophile fashion, he blames the victims for lieing and simply being interested in his celebrity status and money, which they need for "Christmas". He says his blackmail and threats do get worse at the season of "goodwill".

If one were to write a textbook on how to be a successful paedophile in complete control of everything around you, to enable you to abuse children at will, then the life of Savile and this police interview are a good but frightening example of how to go about it.

Abuse of power is a very dangerous thing. Countries have been dictated and fallen because of its evil side effects. It is like any quality. In extremis it is frightening.

The case of Keanu Williams makes Mandatory Reporting more important

Keanu Williams was found dead with 37 injuries including bite marks, a fractured skull and a fist-sized tear in his stomach in January 2011. He was left for dead by his mother Rebecca Shuttleworth for over 18 hours because the injuries she had inflicted upon him could not be explained away.

On 25th June 2013 she was given a life sentence by Birmingham Crown Court and ordered to serve a minimum of 18 years. Her partner Luke Southerton was convicted of cruelty but cleared of murder.

The serious case review will be published at 11am today but is embargoed until 11am to a locked room of journalists in order to make sure it is not leaked.

I am about to go on BBC News 24 & Radio 5 to get the message across. Hopefully we can divert the media to dealing with the point, and encourage politicians to change the law.

From reports of the criminal trial it is likely that it will be said that a lot of opportunities will be missed by the services to:-

1. Take him into care and away from his parents by Social Services.
2. Report obvious signs of abuse so as to avoid the death which occurred.
3. Police, Social Services, his school, and the NHS apparently all had contact with him, but only saw pieces of the jigsaw. The bits were never joined up until his mother finally exploded and beat him to death.

Mandatory Reporting is the obvious answer

1. Make failure to report actual or suspected abuse a criminal offence
2. Limit it to professionals carrying out a regulated activity ie. looking after children.
3. Bring England into line with the USA where it has been the law since 1963, Australia, Sweden, Denmark, Australia, Northern & Southern Ireland, and many other countries.

We have a petition you can sign -  http://www.change.org/en-GB/petitions/educationgovuk-introduce-law-requiring-adults-working-with-children-to-report-alleged-abuse-mandatenow

Little Stars Nursery case shows how Mandatory Reporting could prevent child abuse.

Paul Wilson - life sentence

The story of the Little Stars Nursery touches every heart string - no pun intended that this story appeared on the Heart FM page after they, together with thousands of other media outlets featured it yesterday - you can read the whole story here.

If Mandatory Reporting was introduced then the chances of this abuser remaining unreported and unchecked would have been much less likely. In simple terms it is not, and has never been, a criminal offence in this country for a professional to witness or suspect that abuse is taking place, yet fail to report it to either the police or the LADO (Local Authority Designated Officer). We are way behind our Commonwealth partners, America, and many other countries round the world, where it is an offence punishable through the criminal courts. I have repeatedly blogged about this already.

The abuse of toddlers is particularly shocking, particularly during a nursery session. How must parents feel, when they know that the very person entrusted to look after their children abused them.

The abuser in this case was quite young - only 23 - one wonders what sort of upbringing he must have had, if he has chosen to abuse children. The statistics show that 95% of child abusers were abused in childhood. I am sure that the criminal court which gave him a life sentence, will have had the benefit of expert psychiatric or psychological evidence to help it.

Locking him up for life without some sort of investigation into his past will keep him away from the public, but we will not, as a society, find out why he did such an appalling thing, unless money is invested into a proper investigation. We need to find out why, so that we can detect the warning signs in others before it is too late.

Obviously the media are focusing on the victim rather than the perpetrator, who does not appear to have been demonised in this case.

The report in the media, however, focuses on the serious case review which has uncovered repeated failings by not only the nursery staff, but also Birmingham City Council, and Offsted. The obvious sanction is a criminal prosecution, but the police are powerless and toothless.

To quote the article,

"The inquiry's found council workers, Ofsted and staff at the nursery in Birmingham all failed to act...knowing he had a 'special relationship' with the child

In a statement, a spokesman for Birmingham City Council said the authority was sorry that it had failed to properly respond to concerns about Wilson.

Wilson is known to have raped the toddler on separate occasions about six months apart during his employment at Little Stars, which began in October 2009."

So what is the answer - change the law to make Mandatory Reporting a criminal offence. Join our petition, now, and invite all your Facebook friends to sign it also. Go to our petition by following this link.

Is the North Wales recent report into abuse a surprise?

North Wales Police warned sex offenders

The recent report into North Wales Children's Homes from Operation Pallial does not surprise me at all. I was involved with North Wales way back in the late 1990's. It was clear then that resources prevented the police from conducting as thorough an investigation as they would have liked.

It was thus no surprise that the victims thought there had been a cover up, when they maintained that abuse outside the children's home in a pub in Wrexham by visiting paedophiles had been ignored by the Waterhouse enquiry. The fact was that the enquiry did not have the budget to be as wide spread as it would have liked. They thus set the boundaries as abuse in children's homes rather than outside of the homes. This angered the victims and led them to believe that there was a definite attempt to cover up the abuse of well known individuals. The leakage of a name was fatal to the BBC as we all heard.

I am sitting in the Green Room at the BBC in Salford, having just done an interview as the President of the Association of Child Abuse Lawyers. The interviewer was concerned that the victims are unlikely to get prosecutions and thus justice due to lack of resources. Will the message get through to the victims? I doubt it to be honest. Will they be angry? Definitely. They have had the courage to come forward, yet they will not be successful in getting justice before the criminal courts.

It is made clear in the BBC report that the enquiry led to "140 allegations of historical abuse between 1963 and 1992.

Seventy six new complainants have also come forward.

The claims centre on 18 homes involving offences against boys and girls aged between seven and 19.

A total of 84 suspected offenders have been named - 75 male and nine female. Of these, 16 have been named by more than one complainant.

It is believed that 10 of the 16 may be deceased."

The problem is of course that the abuse happened many years ago - like Savile - the alleged abuser is dead. Thus there is no possibility of a prosecution and no justice for the victims.

Unless they go to civil lawyers to claim compensation. It is common for Claimants to come forward because the police cannot prosecute. Their burden of proof is different to ours -

The Police - "Beyond reasonable doubt"
Civil Claims - "On the balance of probabilities"

We have brought many claims against the employers of abusers who are themselves dead. It all depends upon the preponderance of the evidence - and strength in numbers. The longer ago it is the more difficult the task.

Never say never. We specialise in winning the un-winable.

We have a specialised helpline for the victims of abuse  0845 604 7075

Sadly and understandably, many victims will have had enough and retreat back into their caves of inner contemplation that they have been living in ever since the abuse took place. Lonely and dank though the cave is, it is safer than the outside world of disclosure and pain.

Should the British Government behave like the Irish did towards Magdalene Laundries?

The Film - Magdalene Laundries

For some reason, the Irish Government get it, when it comes to their attitude towards abuse and the protection of children, whereas the British Government don't get it in the same way. You may have noticed the recent apology from the Irish Prime Minister in relation to the Magdalene Laundries scandal. The BBC News Site stated:-

"The Irish Prime Minister (Taoiseach), Enda Kenny, has formally apologised on behalf of the state for its role in the Magdalene laundries.

Some 10,000 women and girls were made to do unpaid manual labour in laundries run by Roman Catholic nuns in Ireland between 1922 and 1996."

Would we have seen a British Prime Minister apologising in the same way? I leave you to answer that question. No doubt we would have seen multiple enquiries set up and a promise of "transparency", but not an apology.

The Irish government have also announced the setting up of a compensation scheme for the victims of the laundries. It is in its early stages but according to the BBC " victims are being urged to register with the Republic of Ireland's Department of Justice in preparation for the provision of compensation and support services"

"People may contact the Department of Justice on 01-476 8649 or by writing to: Magdalene Laundry Fund, c/o Department of Justice and Equality, Montague Court, Montague Street, Dublin 2."

Some of the background facts about Magdalene Laundries:-

• Originally termed Magdalene Asylums the first in Ireland was opened in Dublin in 1765, for Protestant girls
• First Catholic home was founded in Cork in 1809
• Envisaged as short-term refuges for 'fallen women' they became long-term institutions and penitents were required to work, mostly in laundries on the premises
• They extended to take in unmarried mothers, women with learning difficulties and girls who had been abused
• The facilities were self-supporting and the money generated by the laundries paid for them
• Between 1922 and 1996 there were 10 such laundries in the Republic of Ireland
• Many Irish institutions, such as the army, government departments, hotels and even Guinness had contracts with Magdalene laundries
• The women toiled behind locked doors unable to leave after being admitted and while the laundries were paid, they received no wages
• The congregations which ran them were the Sisters of Our Lady of Charity, the Congregation of the Sisters of Mercy, the Religious Sisters of Charity and the Sisters of the Good Shepherd

The Irish deputy Prime Minister (Tanaiste), Eamon Gilmore, said he wanted to tell the survivors that "we have heard you, we believe you, and we are profoundly sorry for what was done to you". The atmosphere in the Irish Parliament was emotional, and the survivors in the public gallery received a standing ovation - how refreshing - we can learn lessons in England from this display of emotion.

An inquiry chaired by Senator Martin McAleese found more than 2,000 women and girls were sent to the laundries by the state authorities, and many Irish institutions, such as the army and some government departments, had contracts with the laundries.

Women were forced into Magdalene laundries for a crime as minor as not paying for a train ticket, the McAleese report found.

The report also confirmed that a police officer could arrest a girl or a woman without warrant if she was being recalled to the laundry or if she had run away.

This is not the first time that the Irish government has done the right thing by the victims of abuse - in 2001 there was a similar apology by the Taoiseach in relation to abuse in Irish Institutions where widespread abuse took place for many years in the past. A list of homes was compiled, with the noticeable omission of the Magdalene Laundries. The government then set up the Irish Redress Board, which closed its doors again, after making many compensation awards in 2005

We at Abney Garsden acted for about 80 claimants to the Board who were successful in their cases. Whilst it is a shame that the Laundries were not included in the former Redress Board remit, at least the Irish Government have rectified the earlier omission.

The exact terms of the scheme have not yet been published, and are awaited with interest. It is likely to be of interest to many Irish emigrants who fled the homeland to escape not only memories of their experiences but also a lack of opportunity. The authors of the McAleese Report estimated that over 800 former residents are still alive.

Many energetic women have campaigned tirelessly. There will be, however, many others, who have never come forward, and should consider doing so.

Was William Roche right to criticise the victims of abuse?

William Roache apologises for his remarks.

If you have not seen the headlines, William Roache (Ken in Coronation Street) has been slammed for making insenstive remarks to a New Zealand TV interviewer about the victims of abuser celebrities. He more or less said that young girls are drawn to celebrities, and then complain of abuse when it all goes wrong.

He is no doubt influenced by the pending prosecution of  Michael Le Vell from Coronation Street who faces 19 charges of abusing young girls and is facing trial at Preston Court, or Stuart Hall, or indeed Andrew Lancel who played Frank Foster in Corrie

He said ""Paedophilia is absolutely horrendous. Paedophiles should be sought out, rooted out and dealt with.

But there's a fringe of people who, particularly pop singers, they have these groupies, these girls, who come, they're sexually active, sexually mature, they don't ask for their birth certificate, they don't know what age they may be.

But they're certainly not grooming them and exploiting them, but they can be caught in this trap.

These people are instantly stigmatised, some will be innocent, some will not, but until such time as it's proven there should be anonymity for both."

Roache has since apologised deeply for his remarks after the child abuse charities rightfully blasted him for his remarks which suggested that victims "brought these thing on themselves".

It is not surprising that abuse has remained a secret for so many years. It is very common. It is much easier to believe that someone whom you know and like - most paedophiles are likable, as otherwise they would not be able to get close to children - is innocent rather than guilty. Whether or not those charged are innocent or guilty, is of course a matter for the courts not the media.

Generally speaking, however the problem in the country has not been the profundity of allegations, but the suppression of allegations by those in a position of power, until the victim has the courage to speak out many years later.

We must encourage those who have been abused to speak out, not silence them with suggestions that they are to blame. Generally speaking, what causes the most damage in a victim of abuse is not the abuse itself, which indeed is manifestly harmful, but the guilt surrounding the crime, and the thought that they are to blame.

Most victims think that they must have encouraged the crime by the way they were as a child, or the way they behaved, which of course cannot be true, particularly where there is a huge age difference, and the abuser is in a position of trust.

Should there by anonymity for the abuser like the victim? I don't believe so. If the abuser's name is broadcast, it often provokes other complaints against the same person, as paedophiles rarely operate in isolation. Usually they have been caught doing something that has been repeated on many occasions in the past, but never been discovered.

As an abuse lawyer I know NAPAC personally, and agree with what they say. This comment is an insult to the victims of abuse, and should be the subject of an apology. It is welcome to hear Roache apologise for what he said, and rightfully so.