bluescreen
tofu eating wokerati
The time when child abuse wasn't dealt with properly
By Sanchia Berg BBC Radio 4's Today programme
OK, the title begs the question that it's dealt with properly now, but these cases from the 50s and 60s display scant regard for the victims, even suggesting in one case that the abuser "might himself be in one sense the victim of boys who had already been corrupted." In another case mentioned in the article: "The other men denied the charges - no adult witnesses were called in the trial and the boys were easy to undermine. The men were found not guilty." Rules on evidence have vastly improved since then, and the evidence of children is taken more seriously.
On a separate note, today's the day that Mark Sidwell is due to deliver to the Home Affairs Select Committee the answers to the questions he couldn't answer at the hearing: (from memory) the full report (with names redacted if necessary), the titles of the files, whether adjacently numbered files were also missing, or what proportion of missing files these represent (ie, had they been targeted or were the missing files part of a general pattern of carelessness) and various other uncomfortable questions... Anyone know whether Vaz is going to make these answers public?
By Sanchia Berg BBC Radio 4's Today programme
OK, the title begs the question that it's dealt with properly now, but these cases from the 50s and 60s display scant regard for the victims, even suggesting in one case that the abuser "might himself be in one sense the victim of boys who had already been corrupted." In another case mentioned in the article: "The other men denied the charges - no adult witnesses were called in the trial and the boys were easy to undermine. The men were found not guilty." Rules on evidence have vastly improved since then, and the evidence of children is taken more seriously.
On a separate note, today's the day that Mark Sidwell is due to deliver to the Home Affairs Select Committee the answers to the questions he couldn't answer at the hearing: (from memory) the full report (with names redacted if necessary), the titles of the files, whether adjacently numbered files were also missing, or what proportion of missing files these represent (ie, had they been targeted or were the missing files part of a general pattern of carelessness) and various other uncomfortable questions... Anyone know whether Vaz is going to make these answers public?