I am frankly quite amazed that Abney Garsden McDonald are in the finals of the Law Society Excellence Awards 2011 - see this link - http://services.lawsociety.org.uk/events/awards/excellence/shortlist-2011. We have been shortlisted for Client Service, Innovation, and Environmental Responsibility in the firm awards, and I have been shortlisted for Solicitor of the Year (Private Client). You can also read our press release.
When you think that there are 118,000 solicitors with practising certificates, it is an unbelievable achievement and makes me feel quite proud. Whether or not we actually win anything, is another thing all together. If I were a cynic, and I am, then all these awards are simply methods of selling tickets for a big bun fight on 18th October at a hall called Old Billingsgate in London. At £225 + VAT each they are not cheap. Mind you it does include a free glass of champagne and half a bottle of wine each, so no complaints there.
When you think about it though, everyone wins don't they? The 3rd parties who are trying to sell to us ,sponsor awards, and get publicity. If you are shortlisted, as we are, it is good publicity even if you don't win, and if you win, well the world is your lobster as the saying doesn't go. If you work for a firm who are shortlisted, it is nice day out in London, and a free day away from work. So who is complaining? I am because it will cost me about £2,500, but there again, I probably should be on "Grumpy Old Men"
Why did we get shortlisted? Well we went paperless in September 2010 and are saving trees, which is where the Environment bit comes in. We do child abuse compensation cases, which require a very special approach to the client, who need very careful handling, which is the client service bit. I designed a special case management system to deal with our abuse cases, and run group actions, which is where the innovation comes in.
Why am I nominated for Solicitor of the Year? Good question. Well probably for the same reason that I am still sitting here after the office has closed writing this blog, when I should be at home with my family. But there again, they are used to it by now. I get it from my grandfather, who used to drum into me when I was a little boy. "Peter, if a job is worth doing, it is worth doing properly." May you rest in peace Grandad. I just wish, I could make a balls of things sometimes.
So, we are all trooping down to London on 18th October, so wish us luck. If we don't have to buy lots of bubbly, then we didn't do well. If I get sozzled then it was a successful evening. Shame I am not really a drinker, but that is probably my father's fault, because Grandad did like his whiskey......
Peter Garsden is the head of the Abuse department at Simpson Millar LLP. He is also President of the Association of Child Abuse Lawyers. Call 0845 604 7075
Monday, 26 September 2011
Saturday, 17 September 2011
How horrible is the "Little Shop of Horrors"?
The simple answer to the question in the title is "not horrible at all". Why? Because it is not a horror musical, but a rather charming story of a boy/girl relationship looking good until the second Act when horror begins to strike. It was performed by my daughter when she was doing stage school at Upstage Macclesfield, one week in the summer of 2006, where the age range was 7 to 16. So, if it's good enough for kids, it's good enough for me and thee.
Why am I writing about this famous off Broadway musical? Because I am in it of course. Macclesfield Majestic Theatre Group present "Little Shop of Horrors" at MADS Theatre, Lord Street, Macclesfield between 3rd and 8th October 2011 with shows at 7.30pm Monday to Saturday with 2pm matinee on the Saturday. Be there, or sit at home and watch the goggle box, until your backside takes over the settee. Your choice of course, but I know what I would do, if I were you. To book tickets, go to their website www.mmtg.co.uk You can also see some fabulous promotional pictures taken by our secretary's brother, which were so brilliant, they got us a full page article in the Macc Express on the Your Life page. Success.
What is it about? You have to undertand that I would love to tell you, but the plot is a surprise known to only the select few. If I tell all, then you won't come, because you will know, and resort to the couch bottom spreading activity that we all indulge in most of the time. Also, if I told you, I would have to kill you of course, and who knows a good solicitor these days? Not me by jove.
OK then, just a sneaky peak. To quote my press release, "The show is about an orphaned shop assistant (Seymour), who, one day, discovers a “strange and interesting plant”. He calls it Audrey II after his shop assistant work mate, with whom he is in love. The owner of the shop, Mr. Mushnik (played by me) is doleful, mean and distrustful of the new plant until customers show an interest, and his flower shop starts making money. The plant needs feeding, Seymour discovers, unusual food. The plant grows, and grows, until it becomes a national sensation. The rest has to be a surprise for the audience who will be enthralled with the fabulous music, which is a mixture of rock and roll, ballads, and catchy melodies."
I have taken the show so seriously, that I have grown a special moutache for the part. The last time I had a moustache was just before playing "Widow Twankey" in Aladdin at Cheadle Hulme School about 14 years ago....er..um...so that would be 1997? Sadly moustaches are no longer trendy, and imply other overtones that certainly are not applicable to me, not even in the 1950's sense of gayness. It has been ridiculed to death, by comparing me to "Super Mario" or "Ned Flanders" out of the Simpsons. Not one person has said I look like Tom Selleck out of Magnum PI, but that is probably because I don't.
I think it is a sign of dedication to my art, that in the last 3 years I have grown mutton chops (2008 Oliver as "Mr. Bumble"), shaved my head completely (2009 "Copacabana" as Sam Silva), and grown an enormous beard which nearly took over the world (2010 "Oklahoma" as Andrew Carnes). My wife is thoroughly sick of facial hair, or the lack of it. I suppose next year I will have to grow an extra leg (cue for song).
So what should you do then to show an interest? Well my advice would be to book a ticket before they all sell out. No point waiting until the last minute then finding that there is only room for a small one at the end of a row. Get on th' t'internet now and ger it booked. You never know. If you don't, the plant might come round and eat you! Dah...shouldn't have said that.......Oh and the booking line (when Sue comes back from holiday) is 07875 149943
Saturday, 13 August 2011
Are the rioters thugs, or a true political voice?
It is odd that whenever something really bad happens, the media always react to the culprit in a neo-primitive, quasi religious sort of a way. When Brady and Hindly became the Moors Murderers many years ago, they were demonised as "beasts". Peter Sutcliffe aka "Jack the Ripper", was similarly treated. It seems to be an instinctive reaction of the press to a senseless evil crime, to demonise in an almost religious way, the person to blame. In this way we can detach ourselves from what has happened, and put it "out there" away from the sort of lives that we lead.
In just the same way the youth rioters have been isolated, and put in a different category to the rest of us, so that we can alienate them. They are "mindless thugs" who are different from us. "We could not do that sort of thing." I heard one interviewee say, that it is likely, that one of the reasons they have gone out to commit motiveless mindless vandalism, is because, as a group of gang members, they have already been alienated, and isolated from society. Because they are so isolated, it is easier for them to do something so wrong, because they are away from the norms and mores of the rest of society. Ironically, by treating them as scanalously criminalistic thugs, we isolate them even further, which makes it more likely that they will go onto commit similar offences in the future.
What creates such a mindset? It is said that, in London alone there are several hundred gangs already. When the riots took place, they all called a truce, and all worked together in a co-ordinated way with the ultimate goal of riotting. The other gangs in different parts of the country then engaged in copy cat type behaviour.
So that is the gangs. What of the other non-gang members, who apparently came from decent backgrounds, and were in full time employment. One of the rioters was a primary school teacher, another a pensioner of 60. Well, what we don't know is what sort of backgrounds they have experienced in the past. Victims of abuse, whom I deal with daily, have a very chaotic and disorganised type of existence. They have low self esteem and resent any sort of authority. Indeed they find it hard to understand why anyone can be kind to them and give them anything valuable, for the simple reason that they regard themselves as undeserving of affection and love.They constantly fight authority. The first person they trusted in childhood abused that trust, and abused them. For this reason they never accept authority, particularly when they feel out of control.
So how deeply politicial were the riots? Were they really the product of the alienation of the youth of the inner cities, or the pure wanton vandalism of youngsters engaging in speculative acquisitive behaviour, arising out of the cynical greed of kids who have nothing.
I believe the riots were a pressure valve. It is likely that beneath the surface of the psyche of the individual rioters lies much anger and resentment, whether that be against their parents, former abuser, teacher, police, or life in general. They live in subcultures where the role model to look up to is the wealthy drug baron, who has a fancy car, and lots of bling. This is what he wants, so what a good idea it would be to go into the city where looting is taking place. He is told through his mobile phone that one can find plasma TV's, and designer clothes free of charge. All one has to do is walk into shops and help yourself.
It is rather like normal middle class people receiving a text saying they are handing out £50 notes in Marks and Spencer in the city centre. You will have to go now, because they might run out. How many people would go for it? Obviously riotting is another thing altogether, but I am not sure that they saw it in this way.
Now, every media channel is doing their best to explain away the riots as the youth's way of protesting against government cuts, something illustrating a deep malaise in the discipline of our young people, parents are not allowed to use corporal punishment, children can sue parents etc etc. It is even being suggested, supported by Ian Duncan Smith, I just saw on Channel 4, that people who riot should lose benefit or even their council houses as a way of punishment. How knee jerk and reactionary is that? If you take away all forms of support from an angry alienated person, what is going to happen? He is not going to take the punishment like a man, turn round his life and deeply analyse his motivation. No, he is going to go out and commit more crime in order to survive, eat, and find somewhere to sleep. What a stupid idea, that at least 100,000 people signed up to, apparently, on the Number 10 Downing Street opinion poll.
I think that the riots are a product of the way in which young people have become empowered to exercise their rights over the last 10 years. Without doubt, the events which took place are a product, also, of the power of social networks, and Blackberry Messenger. Undoubtedly there will be many who have inner anger generated by abuse in childhood, in the same way as others are angry about racial abuse, and alienation from the police. Many will have been grossly influenced by their peers, and the social influence of gangs. I really don't think many of them will have been motivated by thoughts of the way in which David Cameron is decimating the Legal Aid system, and removing the right to free legal advice, or even cutbacks in school building programs, or the funding of child support groups. Many are simply taking advantage of an opportunity for a free lunch. We are all generated by greed. This is what drives the consumerist, capitalist society we all live in. We are all sinners, but some sin, without thought of the consequences, more than others.
In just the same way the youth rioters have been isolated, and put in a different category to the rest of us, so that we can alienate them. They are "mindless thugs" who are different from us. "We could not do that sort of thing." I heard one interviewee say, that it is likely, that one of the reasons they have gone out to commit motiveless mindless vandalism, is because, as a group of gang members, they have already been alienated, and isolated from society. Because they are so isolated, it is easier for them to do something so wrong, because they are away from the norms and mores of the rest of society. Ironically, by treating them as scanalously criminalistic thugs, we isolate them even further, which makes it more likely that they will go onto commit similar offences in the future.
What creates such a mindset? It is said that, in London alone there are several hundred gangs already. When the riots took place, they all called a truce, and all worked together in a co-ordinated way with the ultimate goal of riotting. The other gangs in different parts of the country then engaged in copy cat type behaviour.
So that is the gangs. What of the other non-gang members, who apparently came from decent backgrounds, and were in full time employment. One of the rioters was a primary school teacher, another a pensioner of 60. Well, what we don't know is what sort of backgrounds they have experienced in the past. Victims of abuse, whom I deal with daily, have a very chaotic and disorganised type of existence. They have low self esteem and resent any sort of authority. Indeed they find it hard to understand why anyone can be kind to them and give them anything valuable, for the simple reason that they regard themselves as undeserving of affection and love.They constantly fight authority. The first person they trusted in childhood abused that trust, and abused them. For this reason they never accept authority, particularly when they feel out of control.
So how deeply politicial were the riots? Were they really the product of the alienation of the youth of the inner cities, or the pure wanton vandalism of youngsters engaging in speculative acquisitive behaviour, arising out of the cynical greed of kids who have nothing.
I believe the riots were a pressure valve. It is likely that beneath the surface of the psyche of the individual rioters lies much anger and resentment, whether that be against their parents, former abuser, teacher, police, or life in general. They live in subcultures where the role model to look up to is the wealthy drug baron, who has a fancy car, and lots of bling. This is what he wants, so what a good idea it would be to go into the city where looting is taking place. He is told through his mobile phone that one can find plasma TV's, and designer clothes free of charge. All one has to do is walk into shops and help yourself.
It is rather like normal middle class people receiving a text saying they are handing out £50 notes in Marks and Spencer in the city centre. You will have to go now, because they might run out. How many people would go for it? Obviously riotting is another thing altogether, but I am not sure that they saw it in this way.
Now, every media channel is doing their best to explain away the riots as the youth's way of protesting against government cuts, something illustrating a deep malaise in the discipline of our young people, parents are not allowed to use corporal punishment, children can sue parents etc etc. It is even being suggested, supported by Ian Duncan Smith, I just saw on Channel 4, that people who riot should lose benefit or even their council houses as a way of punishment. How knee jerk and reactionary is that? If you take away all forms of support from an angry alienated person, what is going to happen? He is not going to take the punishment like a man, turn round his life and deeply analyse his motivation. No, he is going to go out and commit more crime in order to survive, eat, and find somewhere to sleep. What a stupid idea, that at least 100,000 people signed up to, apparently, on the Number 10 Downing Street opinion poll.
I think that the riots are a product of the way in which young people have become empowered to exercise their rights over the last 10 years. Without doubt, the events which took place are a product, also, of the power of social networks, and Blackberry Messenger. Undoubtedly there will be many who have inner anger generated by abuse in childhood, in the same way as others are angry about racial abuse, and alienation from the police. Many will have been grossly influenced by their peers, and the social influence of gangs. I really don't think many of them will have been motivated by thoughts of the way in which David Cameron is decimating the Legal Aid system, and removing the right to free legal advice, or even cutbacks in school building programs, or the funding of child support groups. Many are simply taking advantage of an opportunity for a free lunch. We are all generated by greed. This is what drives the consumerist, capitalist society we all live in. We are all sinners, but some sin, without thought of the consequences, more than others.
Tuesday, 2 August 2011
Was the Norwegian Child Killer an abuse victim?
I was deeply troubled by the story about the killing of youth socialists in Norway by Anders Behring Breivik. I found it very hard to believe, that anyone could think, that the slaughter of young people was necessary - "a necessary act... a war against the rule by Muslims".The idea was misconceived, and did not make much sense. I began to give the point some thought.
This individual will inevitably be treated by the media as a very bad person. Usually, when something so awful happens, the culprit is tagged with pseudo religious names like "devil monster", or "demon", "beast", or the like, at least in England if you read the News of the World, or the Sun. It is somehow easier for us to accept that someone, who is inhuman, could commit such a crime. They become different from the rest of us humans, who, of course, could not do anything remotely similar. The criminal almost becomes a savage weerwolf, who is only fit to be chained up, stoned, then burned alive. We seem to behave almost like primitive beings. We, thankfully, stop a little short of witch burning.
The psychiatric theories I know of, do not include "bestial disorder" as one of the recognised conditions that can be treated at Broadmoor. Although electric shock treatment, when I last looked, is still used in certain situations, it is somewhat shocking that we still use it in the National Health Service. The media will want to demonise the Norwegian killer so as to appease the understandable anger felt by the public.
In mental health terms, no killer is ever diagnosed at just "bad". The mind is a complex web of different influences, memories, thoughts, and complicated processes. It just does not fit into the mold of a two dimensional disease that has existed from birth. The debate of nature against nurture has waged for many years to and fro. We are currently in a more nature orientated phase, but moving back towards nurture. The point is that when beasts commit serious crimes, they are usually labelled by both the forensic psychiatrists, and the media as guilty of an unnatural condition rather than the product of their upbringing.
If one looks at sex offenders, over 95% of them are the victims of some type of abuse in childhood. A very low percentage of the victims of abuse, however, go on to become sex offenders. Most of the serial killers over history have had a very disturbed childhood. After all, our personality is usually formed before the age of 3. Whilst the rest of life obviously has an influence, and modifies our behaviour, our inate personality does not change very much. So if something really bad happens in those first few years, then it is bound to have an influence on us for the rest of our lives.
So back to the story - Breivik is reported by his lawyer to be "insane". This is because he believes he has started a war which will go on for the next 60 years against democracy, has attempted to destroy the headquarters of the Norwegian government, and slaughtered around 80 young people partaking in a Youth camp on Utoeya island. He is said to be on the far right of the far right, and to want to exterminate the Muslims. For what reason is not clear. His thoughts are apparently over involved, and misconstrued. It is a lot easier for us to label this man insane, and claim that he is acting alone, than to link him with existing far right organisations, of which there are several.
If we can distinguish him from ourselves, then we can remain smugly different from him, in a distant, not understanding, sort of a way. The media will help us in this route by not reporting much about his past, I wager. In the same way as John Venables was demonised for killing poor Jamie Bolger in an unprovoked sort of a way, so will Breivik be labelled as a devil. There was a sexual element to the Bolger killing that we never got to hear about. I will say no more than that.
What is a better explanation for his behaviour? All the psychiatrists I have spoken to have said that in the vast majority of the mental health conditions they have treated, child abuse, whether emotional, physical, or sexual, lies somewhere in the background, as an influence on thinking and behaviour.
Monday, 1 August 2011
Anglia Regional News | Anglia Tonight - ITV Local
Anglia Regional News Anglia Tonight - ITV Local
Watch Peter's interview on Anglia Tonight regarding the former pupils of the paedophile Derek Slade in the 1970s and 80s who have launched legal action for compensation.
Watch Peter's interview on Anglia Tonight regarding the former pupils of the paedophile Derek Slade in the 1970s and 80s who have launched legal action for compensation.
Sunday, 10 July 2011
Should we beat the poor with a stick?
The government are threatening, at a stroke, to demolish the legal aid system that has been in existence since 1947 by taking away, more or less completely, the right to free legal advice for the poor, save in exceptionally needy situations such as the victims of domestic violence, and child abuse. We are going back to Victorian times when, if you could afford it, you could have the best lawyer, whereas if you were poor, you might live in a workhouse and eat gruel. Grind them into the mire, why don’t we? After all they are disadvantaged, lacking in confidence, have poor self esteem, and are unlikely to fight back. I wonder if free legal aid remains for anyone enslaved by a feudal landlord, who objects to working 18 hours a day? Not sure about that. Will have to consult the Legal Aid Manual.
What arguments does the very warm and empathetic Ken Clarke postulate to justify his position?
What arguments does the very warm and empathetic Ken Clarke postulate to justify his position?
- We spend more on our legal aid system than anywhere else in the world. Isn’t that awful? At one time our legal system was the envy of the world, not the shame thereof. Our national health system is also the envy of the world. I am sure foreign governments do not compare themselves with us and snigger at our welfare state. It is something to be proud of not to demolish.
- We waste countless hours and pounds sterling on court battles that benefit no one other than the fat greedy lawyers who simply wage litigation to line their own pockets. It is not exactly clear, but he is probably referring to Human Rights cases, where such fundamental principles as the right to family life, privacy, freedom, education, expression etc are involved. His boss Cameron is always complaining about how Human Rights cases are simply ridiculous, particularly when such worthless individuals such as prisoners are trying to get the right to vote, or, in human rights terms, “the right to participate in free elections”. If you look at the Direct Gov website under this topic, it mentions mediation, citizen’s advice bureaux and law centres, not solicitors – a significant omission.
- The government are intending to take away free legal aid for clinical negligence cases where you are poor, and cannot afford it. The case being used as a good example of where justice would not have been achieved without legal aid is, a father who waged a battle for his son who was the victim of medical negligence, and won compensation from the NHS in the sum of £8 million. Now if you look carefully, there is a theme here. Why should the government help the poor to bring proceedings against itself? Far better to prevent lawyers from making money out of the government, and grind the poor into the dirt where they belong. What will the outcome be? Less litigation against the government so that they can cut back on health standards without fear of being embarrassed by critical court judgments.
- Use mediation instead of going to court. This proposal is meant to be a catch all to save the cost of litigation. It is eye wash and displays incredible naivety. Why?
- Mediation has been tried for years in matrimonial cases, indeed it is compulsory in some situations. It works in some cases where the parties are willing. If they aren’t, because of the nature of the dispute, then, as the saying goes, “you can take a horse to water, but you can’t make it drink.”
- There aren’t enough trained mediators to cope with all the litigation that exists.
- If the parties do not accept the result of the mediation then they are back to going to court anyway.
- Use “no win no fee agreements”, instead. Again a very naïve remark. Why?
- Lawyers will refuse to deal with anything but the most straightforward of cases.
- The difficult cases that often creative important legal precedent and advance the law will be abandoned.
- Lawyers will simply not be prepared to take the risk of losing tens of thousands of pounds.
- Whilst the government, thankfully, are intending to keep legal aid for abuse cases, the law would not be in the advanced and favourable state it is without the backing of legal aid. Cynically, I think that legal aid would have been removed for abuse also if they thought they could get away with it politically. It would, however, have been a step too far.
- I work in the area of child abuse. If one is faced with a case costing between £30,000 and £50,000, at least, to take to trial on a no win no fee basis, then it takes a very brave lawyer with private wealth to do so.
So where are we up to? This coalition government, which is basically conservative in thinking, are intending to take away the rights of the poor, more or less completely in the area of civil law. In anything but a severe financial climate, they would simply not be able to get away with it. In the few remaining areas, funding will become so pinched, and income so diminished, that all but lawyers with separate private incomes (how many of those are there around today?), will be unable to survive.
Despite all the government propaganda about “fat cat lawyers” over the last few years hourly rates of pay have not gone up since 1991. How many businesses could survive without a price rise for 20 years? Indeed rates are coming down. One of the proposals in the legal aid consultation that will be implemented in October 2011 is to reduce all hourly rates by 10%. I do not have an accurate record, but I think this means that rates will go back to what they were in or around 1985.
I really don’t think I am being cynical when I say that the government are entirely fed up of being challenged by intelligent lawyers, who can use the court system to prevent misuses of power, and extract government funds, they would rather spend on other things. The process of obtaining compensation for negligence has been turned into a social evil, which is attempted only by the greedy rather than the needy. What is more, lawyers are like pariahs at the altar of Dickensian extortion.
So should we beat the poor with a stick? No we shouldn’t, and neither should the government be allowed to get away with it. Even that bastion of social equality Mr. Ken Clarke…….
Despite all the government propaganda about “fat cat lawyers” over the last few years hourly rates of pay have not gone up since 1991. How many businesses could survive without a price rise for 20 years? Indeed rates are coming down. One of the proposals in the legal aid consultation that will be implemented in October 2011 is to reduce all hourly rates by 10%. I do not have an accurate record, but I think this means that rates will go back to what they were in or around 1985.
I really don’t think I am being cynical when I say that the government are entirely fed up of being challenged by intelligent lawyers, who can use the court system to prevent misuses of power, and extract government funds, they would rather spend on other things. The process of obtaining compensation for negligence has been turned into a social evil, which is attempted only by the greedy rather than the needy. What is more, lawyers are like pariahs at the altar of Dickensian extortion.
So should we beat the poor with a stick? No we shouldn’t, and neither should the government be allowed to get away with it. Even that bastion of social equality Mr. Ken Clarke…….
Thursday, 23 June 2011
Are abuse victims only in it for the money?
If you saw the television programme "Abused:Breaking the Silence" on BBC1, then you would have come to the conclusion that victims are not in it for the money at all, but that if the confession and apology system breaks down and fails, then compensation is all that the victims are left with.
The program was a fascinating insight into abuse by various priests at two preparatory schools in England and South Africa, owned and run by the Rosminian order of Catholic priests to which various boys from all over the world - Australia, South Africa, England - were sent. They were the Grace Dieu school in Leicestershire and St Michael’s school in Soni, in what is now Tanzania. Each one of them, unknown to the others, was abused by various priests, both sexually and physically. Their lives were each ruined by depression, and psychological distress. Even though they lived at different corners of the world, many years later, due to the wonders of the internet, they managed to reconnect with each other, and started talking again. Gradually the subject of their school experiences came up, leading to the mention of one of the abusive priests. This then led to them all doing their own statements of complaint, and sending them to the leader of the Rosmanian order in London.
It is important to emphasise that at this stage they were not after compensation at all, but rather an explanation as to why, instead of being sent to school to learn and be cared for, they were subjected to abuse by their carers. The reaction of the head of the Rosminians was genuine revulsion and sorrow for what had happened. It was obvious at that stage, that he hadn't been advised by lawyers, because he arranged for each of the now elderley abusive priests to write confessions addressed to the boys after he had read the detailed statements of allegations of abuse. Sadly the confessions were not frank and genuine enough for the victims. The letters from the priests were also carefully worded not to actually confess to anything directly, but were full of religious sounding platitudes.
The victims received different sounding letters from different priests. One decided that he wanted to meet the priest who abused him. His travel costs from Australia were paid by the church. Amazingly he found the meeting, although somewhat bizarre and other worldly, quite satisfying, as the reaction he got was one of genuine sorrow and remorse. He said that it had brought him some closure, and that for the first time he could sleep easily at night when he realised that never again would he be depressed.
Other victims, however, got letters suggesting they remembered nothing but were none the less objectively sorry. These victims wanted a meeting, but decided to seek out their abusers rather than wait for an invitation. Amazingly, one of them took in a secret camera to record the meeting. The priest decided to deny everything, which had the not suprising effect of causing abject rage in the victim, who had travelled all the way from South Africa.
Right up to this point in time there had been no talk of compensation. All the victims wanted was a genuine apology, and a reassurance that something would be done to ensure that the same sort of thing would never happen again. Because they didn't get what the head of the Rosminians had genuinely planned for them, they decided to form a Group Action, and seek compensation. Once the lawyers got hold of the Rosminians, all those early genuine platitudes and wishes for apologies disappeared, and were replaced with denials, and words of no comment. The TV company's request for an interview was not surprisingly denied.
Our experience of litigation at Abney Garsden McDonald solicitors, against the Catholic church is that, whilst they make grand gestures about offering counselling, and helping the victims, according to their new policies on child abuse, the process is somewhat contrived, as evidenced here. Once lawyers come on the scene, and litigation is in the offing, platitudes are replaced with hard fought contested court proceedings, pushed to the bitter end, on the basis that the victims will be so worn out by the process, that they will accept an offer of a pittance. One of our group actions, for instance, has been dragged out for 14 years.
So, fascinately, and uniquely, we had, in this programme, good evidence, that all victims are interested in are psychological closure, a genuine apology, and some recognition by the abusers and their employers that what happened in the past was not the fault of the victims, which is what they all think. and will not happen again. Sadly, although in this case they got close, this ideal was not achieved. We don't know what will happen, but in all likelihood what they will be left with is the empty gesture of mean amounts of compensation.
The victims received different sounding letters from different priests. One decided that he wanted to meet the priest who abused him. His travel costs from Australia were paid by the church. Amazingly he found the meeting, although somewhat bizarre and other worldly, quite satisfying, as the reaction he got was one of genuine sorrow and remorse. He said that it had brought him some closure, and that for the first time he could sleep easily at night when he realised that never again would he be depressed.
Other victims, however, got letters suggesting they remembered nothing but were none the less objectively sorry. These victims wanted a meeting, but decided to seek out their abusers rather than wait for an invitation. Amazingly, one of them took in a secret camera to record the meeting. The priest decided to deny everything, which had the not suprising effect of causing abject rage in the victim, who had travelled all the way from South Africa.
Right up to this point in time there had been no talk of compensation. All the victims wanted was a genuine apology, and a reassurance that something would be done to ensure that the same sort of thing would never happen again. Because they didn't get what the head of the Rosminians had genuinely planned for them, they decided to form a Group Action, and seek compensation. Once the lawyers got hold of the Rosminians, all those early genuine platitudes and wishes for apologies disappeared, and were replaced with denials, and words of no comment. The TV company's request for an interview was not surprisingly denied.
Our experience of litigation at Abney Garsden McDonald solicitors, against the Catholic church is that, whilst they make grand gestures about offering counselling, and helping the victims, according to their new policies on child abuse, the process is somewhat contrived, as evidenced here. Once lawyers come on the scene, and litigation is in the offing, platitudes are replaced with hard fought contested court proceedings, pushed to the bitter end, on the basis that the victims will be so worn out by the process, that they will accept an offer of a pittance. One of our group actions, for instance, has been dragged out for 14 years.
So, fascinately, and uniquely, we had, in this programme, good evidence, that all victims are interested in are psychological closure, a genuine apology, and some recognition by the abusers and their employers that what happened in the past was not the fault of the victims, which is what they all think. and will not happen again. Sadly, although in this case they got close, this ideal was not achieved. We don't know what will happen, but in all likelihood what they will be left with is the empty gesture of mean amounts of compensation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)