the sir jimmy savile obe thread

[existentialist]

An experienced counsellor telling me my response to personal abuse was wrong ....is not the response of a counsellor.
I spoke about how I reacted and how I would react. I was told that I was wrong.

That is rubbish.

Also, unless you are paying me to counsel you, I am not your counsellor, and I can behave exactly as I wish - I am under no obligation to you.

 

[bubblesmcgrath]

That is not true, for example in the last page you have been repeatedly invited to talk more and link to this programme you keep talking about.

I gave as much as I could. It's run by educational psychologists working in special ed . I offered to pm him a contact psychologist in the HSE here.. but he decided to analyse my personality and that's really pissed me off so fuck him and his shite

 

[equationgirl]

I gave as much as I could. It's run by educational psychologists working in special ed . I offered to pm him a contact psychologist in the HSE here.. but he decided to analyse my personality and that's really pissed me off so fuck him and his shite

Oh grow up. You behave exactly the same way in every serious discussion you get involved in. You don't like it when we don't hang on your every word. His comments on you have been pretty accurate from what I have seen of your 'debating' style.

 

[equationgirl]

To move this discussion back on track, one thing that concerns me is the disclosure system (CRB or whatever it's called these days) - so many people are abusing but haven't been prosecuted, so their disclosure check/review comes back clean. Now I know no system will be perfect and catch everybody but can this system be improved? What else can be put in place?

 

[Belushi]

To move this discussion back on track, one thing that concerns me is the disclosure system (CRB or whatever it's called these days) - so many people are abusing but haven't been prosecuted, so their disclosure check/review comes back clean. Now I know no system will be perfect and catch everybody but can this system be improved? What else can be put in place?

DBS nowadays, and the Police can disclose information if they believe its relevant even if someone hasn't been convicted - for example if a number of allegations which haven't gone further have been made against an individual.

 

[equationgirl]

DBS nowadays, and the Police can disclose information if they believe its relevant even if someone hasn't been convicted - for example if a number of allegations which haven't gone further have been made against an individual.

Do you think that's enough though?

Look at all the allegations that were made about Savile that the police sat on or ignored - or were told to ignore. How do we know the same won't happen again?

 

[Belushi]

Do you think that's enough though?

Look at all the allegations that were made about Savile that the police sat on or ignored - or were told to ignore. How do we know the same won't happen again?

Not at all. There's all kinds of problems with dbs checks - too many people who don't need them are asked for them, they take too long, there are no centralised records and therefore no consistency in what's disclosed, and the Saville case and others show that predators with influence have just been protected anyway. And of course most offences aren't reported in the first place.

 

[Rural]

Do you think that's enough though?

Look at all the allegations that were made about Savile that the police sat on or ignored - or were told to ignore. How do we know the same won't happen again?

I don't think we can ever know this won't happen again. Ok maybe djs won't b given the keys to Broadmoor any more but abusers r adaptable & find ways of gaining access to what they want. The law is always a few steps behind. When it's bothering to tackle the issue. I think abuse is just so massively widespread, even the huge scale of Saville, Yew Tree etc is just the tip of the iceberg. I believe abuse is the norm, in this society, maybe in all of them, Idk. That's a sweeping statement I know but I'm simply basing it on the fact that many more of my friends, now & throughout my life, have been abused than haven't. I struggle to think of many who haven't.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

DBS nowadays, and the Police can disclose information if they believe its relevant even if someone hasn't been convicted - for example if a number of allegations which haven't gone further have been made against an individual.

That's a fucking disgrace. If you'd told me 20 years ago that this was going to happen, I would have found it hard to believe.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Not at all. There's all kinds of problems with dbs checks - too many people who don't need them are asked for them, they take too long, there are no centralised records and therefore no consistency in what's disclosed, and the Saville case and others show that predators with influence have just been protected anyway. And of course most offences aren't reported in the first place.

A lot of good people are prevented from doing good things by these checks.

 

[Belushi]

A lot of good people are prevented from doing good things by these checks.

The guidance isn't very clear and organisations often think 'better safe than sorry' and ask for checks for roles which really don't need them ime.

 

[bubblesmcgrath]

The only way that abuse is going to be prevented is by continually sending the message to everyone that it's OK to disclose abuse, and people will listen, and that when someone tells us they're being abused, we have to take it seriously. We are still a long way from that -

The first step is what we're already telling kids (and should be telling adults): "if someone touches you or does something to you that you don't like, TELL SOMEONE".

The next step, which I think we are still struggling with, is to LISTEN when people do tell us stuff. We still have a long way to go, there - let's not start patting ourselves on the back prematurely.

You speak as a counsellor who deals with the aftermath of abuse...that is your training ...
I operate as an educationalist working from both a position of prevention and child protection..... prevention in the form of education using a method that attempts to prevent a potentially abusive situation from progressing to actualisation.

You state above that the only way to prevent abuse is to get the message across that it's ok to tell about abuse. I am operating from a position of discussing a method that attempts to prevent it from happening in the first place.
I'm not saying this is a perfect system....and I'm sure you'll acknowledge that counselling is not always successful either. .. but both are big step forward from a time when kids were told to be quiet and had no clue about abuse or how to deal with the possibility of abuse.

The past few years have brought huge changes. It is important for children to know what they can do if they feel they are about to be abused. It is important that they have an awareness of situations that could become abusive . It is important that they understand that the majority of abusers are known to the victim. It is impirtant that they think about the various people in their lives whom they can trust.
From a position of prevention the three step method is good....and that's not me talking. That's the view of experts in the area....including psychologists.

 

[Rural]

Bubblesmcgrath, post: 13258027
"From a position of prevention the three step method is good...."

I know its probably too complex to summarise the whole programme here but could u pls give an idea what the 3 steps are? Id b really interested to know.

Edited 2 remove the huge quote i somehow managed to add in error!

 

[existentialist]

That's a fucking disgrace. If you'd told me 20 years ago that this was going to happen, I would have found it hard to believe.

I think that's only the case for enhanced disclosures, which form the minority of DBS disclosures.

 

[existentialist]

You speak as a counsellor who deals with the aftermath of abuse...that is your training ...
I operate as an educationalist working from both a position of prevention and child protection..... prevention in the form of education using a method that attempts to prevent a potentially abusive situation from progressing to actualisation.

You state above that the only way to prevent abuse is to get the message across that it's ok to tell about abuse. I am operating from a position of discussing a method that attempts to prevent it from happening in the first place.
I'm not saying this is a perfect system....and I'm sure you'll acknowledge that counselling is not always successful either. .. but both are big step forward from a time when kids were told to be quiet and had no clue about abuse or how to deal with the possibility of abuse.

The past few years have brought huge changes. It is important for children to know what they can do if they feel they are about to be abused. It is important that they have an awareness of situations that could become abusive . It is important that they understand that the majority of abusers are known to the victim. It is impirtant that they think about the various people in their lives whom they can trust.
From a position of prevention the three step method is good....and that's not me talking. That's the view of experts in the area....including psychologists.

I said earlier on that I was not going to derail the thread any more. Having seen the way you were posting last night, I have no desire to see that performance repeated, so you are going to have to find the answers to your questions elsewhere.

 

[Pickman's model]

I said earlier on that I was not going to derail the thread any more. Having seen the way you were posting last night, I have no desire to see that performance repeated, so you are going to have to find the answers to your questions elsewhere.

there are no questions in the post you quote

 

[existentialist]

thete are no wuestions in the post you quote

There were rather a lot of questions in the run up to it, though - I just happened to pick up that post to reply to.

 

[Pickman's model]

There were rather a lot of questions in the run up to it, though - I just happened to pick up that post to reply to.

the biggest q is, of course, why does bubbles bother.

 

[existentialist]

the biggest q is, of course, why does bubbles bother.

Lots of us want to be seen as clever and knowledgeable. The trick, I find, is to be clever enough to stick to pontificating on topics on which we ARE knowledgeable.

 

[Red Cat]

You speak as a counsellor who deals with the aftermath of abuse...that is your training ...
I operate as an educationalist working from both a position of prevention and child protection..... prevention in the form of education using a method that attempts to prevent a potentially abusive situation from progressing to actualisation.

You state above that the only way to prevent abuse is to get the message across that it's ok to tell about abuse. I am operating from a position of discussing a method that attempts to prevent it from happening in the first place.
I'm not saying this is a perfect system....and I'm sure you'll acknowledge that counselling is not always successful either. .. but both are big step forward from a time when kids were told to be quiet and had no clue about abuse or how to deal with the possibility of abuse.

The past few years have brought huge changes. It is important for children to know what they can do if they feel they are about to be abused. It is important that they have an awareness of situations that could become abusive . It is important that they understand that the majority of abusers are known to the victim. It is impirtant that they think about the various people in their lives whom they can trust.
From a position of prevention the three step method is good....and that's not me talking. That's the view of experts in the area....including psychologists.

You have an extraordinary reverence for psychologists!

There is the programme I linked to (I've no idea how many there are) that includes the 3 steps you talked about. If you're saying that it, or something similar, is used as a basis for a bespoke training for your school, then why not just say it? People don't believe you know what you're talking about because you can't or don't say that.

It may well be that a programme like this is a step forward. I don't have a problem with comic sans used as a font for a website aimed at schools or thoughtful programmes that raise awareness. But I do think the limits of such a programme need to be acknowledged, the limits of any educational programme. The head fuck that it is when the person you trust and love is the same person who is doing the abusing is not something that can be solved by learning.

 

[existentialist]

You have an extraordinary reverence for psychologists!

This is not uncommon amongst educationalists. One of the things that I found most surprising when I started doing this work was the almost religious belief in behaviouralism that exists in the education establishment - pretty much everything is predicated on reward/punishment, for example.

And it's not that the people working in this field are narrow-minded: many (probably most) of them, when introduced to, for example, some of the Adlerian ideas about child development and core developmental needs are quite astonished by the "fit" between the theory and their own experiences of life, let alone that of the children they work with.

It's the same with child protection - the whole thing is reductively condensed down to soundbite instructions to kids on what to do, regardless of their practicality. Very little is talked about feelings, which is usually the first clue for most of us that something is wrong: instead, these prescriptive approaches tend to say "if this happens, then do that". Which actually makes them more at risk of abuse, because all any abuser has to do to foil the system is make sure that "this" doesn't happen, or at least not in the same way the child has been told to recognise it.

There is the programme I linked to (I've no idea how many there are) that includes the 3 steps you talked about. If you're saying that it, or something similar, is used as a basis for a bespoke training for your school, then why not just say it? People don't believe you know what you're talking about because you can't or don't say that.

One of the comments bubblesetc. made that stuck out for me was something about "using some of" that programme you linked to. That programme, as I said, is so much of a basic, core part of child protection that it would be impossible for any child protection strategy NOT to be based on it. All of it - there's simply nothing you could really leave out. The problem with that strategy, apart from its reductiveness, is simply that it is far too basic and simplistic, and doesn't go nearly far enough.

It may well be that a programme like this is a step forward. I don't have a problem with comic sans used as a font for a website aimed at schools or thoughtful programmes that raise awareness.

Well, yes, I was taking the piss a bit with the Comic Sans thing, though it has become something of a cliche in educational materials!

But I do think the limits of such a programme need to be acknowledged, the limits of any educational programme. The head fuck that it is when the person you trust and love is the same person who is doing the abusing is not something that can be solved by learning.

I couldn't agree more. We have to come at it from a different direction: you only have to see how so many people - and not just children - were tricked and conned by the likes of Savile and Harris to see that a prescriptive model simply isn't going to work.

I think, though, that bubbles' coyness on the nature of the approach she's claiming in support of her views is telling. If it is an approach with any validity whatsoever, it will be likely to be based on referenced sources and have some kind of academic credibility. When I'm told that such-and-such psychologist will tell me all about it (information which, conveniently, was then suddenly withheld), I suspect we're looking at exactly one of these schemes that someone's cooked up by themselves, not really bothered to validate, and shoved out to schools or wherever. And because, as another poster pointed out, this kind of training isn't "sexy" or remunerative, it often ends up being the case that shoddy, amateurish - and, quite frankly, dangerous - nonsense like that ends up being the only game in town.

We talk a lot of talk - especially at the moment - about protecting children from abuse. We express outrage at what has happened, and how it could happen. But, when we're asked to put our hands in our pockets and pay for the kind of stuff that would help prevent it, there's suddenly a lot of shuffling of feet and close inspection of fingernails: we want a Rolls-Royce child protection system for our children, but we only want to pay Skoda prices for it.

Until that changes, children will continue to be at more risk than necessary from predators and abusers.

 

[elbows]

Do kids still learn, at home but mostly at school, that our society has a massive contradiction or three when it comes to 'grassing'? Because for me thats a big factor that undermines some aspects of protection against child abuse and justice for victims.

 

[existentialist]

Do kids still learn, at home but mostly at school, that our society has a massive contradiction or three when it comes to 'grassing'? Because for me thats a big factor that undermines some aspects of protection against child abuse and justice for victims.

I think attempts are made to explain to kids that telling someone that you've been abused is different from telling tales. But it is asking a lot of most kids to make that kind of distinction, especially when part of the grooming process is usually about redefining those boundaries, anyway.

Most people who have been abused and haven't disclosed will talk about "not wanting to get into trouble" (or "not wanting <someone else> to get into trouble"). And we don't help that with our publicly aggressive societal views on the subject of abuse - I've seen teachers explaining to young children in quite angry terms that "bad touching" is WRONG and that it MUST NOT HAPPEN - all the same kind of language that they're used to hearing about their own behaviours. So is it any wonder, then, that they frame abuse towards them, and their responses to it, in exactly the same way?

It's the sort of concept that gets right up the noses of the "Just say no" (or "just twat 'em") crowd, but actually the conversations we should be having with children about abuse cannot be the ranty RIGHT/WRONG/GOOD/BAD kind. I believe that what we should be doing is lowering the ante, and making this into a matter-of-fact discussion, no matter how strongly we might feel about it. I think it is really important that we decrease the emotional charge, not increase it, while at the same time quietly insisting to children that they have the right to decide who does what to their bodies, and that it is OK for them to talk to someone else about it if someone does something that makes them feel uncomfortable. It has to feel like part of a dialogue, not some big "sound the trumpet and the cavalry will come" deal.

 

[bubblesmcgrath]

You have an extraordinary reverence for psychologists!

There is the programme I linked to (I've no idea how many there are) that includes the 3 steps you talked about. If you're saying that it, or something similar, is used as a basis for a bespoke training for your school, then why not just say it? People don't believe you know what you're talking about because you can't or don't say that.

It may well be that a programme like this is a step forward. I don't have a problem with comic sans used as a font for a website aimed at schools or thoughtful programmes that raise awareness. But I do think the limits of such a programme need to be acknowledged, the limits of any educational programme. The head fuck that it is when the person you trust and love is the same person who is doing the abusing is not something that can be solved by learning.

Why don't you read my last post again ? And reinterpret it again.
I was very clear what was being offered over here in a special ed setting.

I was also very clear about the distinction between preventative work and post abuse work.

I think we would all like to see a day where counselling for victims is not the answer to abuse. Think about it. Existentialist states that getting victims to talk is the way forward in the fight against abuse. This is a typical counsellors view because they work at listening to victims....There is another approach you know that involves prevention. And educating young people about abuse is very important in the fight against abuse.

 

[bubblesmcgrath]

I think attempts are made to explain to kids that telling someone that you've been abused is different from telling tales. But it is asking a lot of most kids to make that kind of distinction, especially when part of the grooming process is usually about redefining those boundaries, anyway.

Most people who have been abused and haven't disclosed will talk about "not wanting to get into trouble" (or "not wanting <someone else> to get into trouble"). And we don't help that with our publicly aggressive societal views on the subject of abuse - I've seen teachers explaining to young children in quite angry terms that "bad touching" is WRONG and that it MUST NOT HAPPEN - all the same kind of language that they're used to hearing about their own behaviours. So is it any wonder, then, that they frame abuse towards them, and their responses to it, in exactly the same way?

It's the sort of concept that gets right up the noses of the "Just say no" (or "just twat 'em") crowd, but actually the conversations we should be having with children about abuse cannot be the ranty RIGHT/WRONG/GOOD/BAD kind. I believe that what we should be doing is lowering the ante, and making this into a matter-of-fact discussion, no matter how strongly we might feel about it. I think it is really important that we decrease the emotional charge, not increase it, while at the same time quietly insisting to children that they have the right to decide who does what to their bodies, and that it is OK for them to talk to someone else about it if someone does something that makes them feel uncomfortable. It has to feel like part of a dialogue, not some big "sound the trumpet and the cavalry will come" deal.

I think attempts are made to explain to kids that telling someone that you've been abused is different from telling tales. But it is asking a lot of most kids to make that kind of distinction, especially when part of the grooming process is usually about redefining those boundaries, anyway.

Most people who have been abused and haven't disclosed will talk about "not wanting to get into trouble" (or "not wanting <someone else> to get into trouble"). And we don't help that with our publicly aggressive societal views on the subject of abuse - I've seen teachers explaining to young children in quite angry terms that "bad touching" is WRONG and that it MUST NOT HAPPEN - all the same kind of language that they're used to hearing about their own behaviours. So is it any wonder, then, that they frame abuse towards them, and their responses to it, in exactly the same way?

It's the sort of concept that gets right up the noses of the "Just say no" (or "just twat 'em") crowd, but actually the conversations we should be having with children about abuse cannot be the ranty RIGHT/WRONG/GOOD/BAD kind. I believe that what we should be doing is lowering the ante, and making this into a matter-of-fact discussion, no matter how strongly we might feel about it. I think it is really important that we decrease the emotional charge, not increase it, while at the same time quietly insisting to children that they have the right to decide who does what to their bodies, and that it is OK for them to talk to someone else about it if someone does something that makes them feel uncomfortable. It has to feel like part of a dialogue, not some big "sound the trumpet and the cavalry will come" deal.

This is not uncommon amongst educationalists. One of the things that I found most surprising when I started doing this work was the almost religious belief in behaviouralism that exists in the education establishment - pretty much everything is predicated on reward/punishment, for example.

And it's not that the people working in this field are narrow-minded: many (probably most) of them, when introduced to, for example, some of the Adlerian ideas about child development and core developmental needs are quite astonished by the "fit" between the theory and their own experiences of life, let alone that of the children they work with.

It's the same with child protection - the whole thing is reductively condensed down to soundbite instructions to kids on what to do, regardless of their practicality. Very little is talked about feelings, which is usually the first clue for most of us that something is wrong: instead, these prescriptive approaches tend to say "if this happens, then do that". Which actually makes them more at risk of abuse, because all any abuser has to do to foil the system is make sure that "this" doesn't happen, or at least not in the same way the child has been told to recognise it.


One of the comments bubblesetc. made that stuck out for me was something about "using some of" that programme you linked to. That programme, as I said, is so much of a basic, core part of child protection that it would be impossible for any child protection strategy NOT to be based on it. All of it - there's simply nothing you could really leave out. The problem with that strategy, apart from its reductiveness, is simply that it is far too basic and simplistic, and doesn't go nearly far enough.


Well, yes, I was taking the piss a bit with the Comic Sans thing, though it has become something of a cliche in educational materials!


I couldn't agree more. We have to come at it from a different direction: you only have to see how so many people - and not just children - were tricked and conned by the likes of Savile and Harris to see that a prescriptive model simply isn't going to work.

I think, though, that bubbles' coyness on the nature of the approach she's claiming in support of her views is telling. If it is an approach with any validity whatsoever, it will be likely to be based on referenced sources and have some kind of academic credibility. When I'm told that such-and-such psychologist will tell me all about it (information which, conveniently, was then suddenly withheld), I suspect we're looking at exactly one of these schemes that someone's cooked up by themselves, not really bothered to validate, and shoved out to schools or wherever. And because, as another poster pointed out, this kind of training isn't "sexy" or remunerative, it often ends up being the case that shoddy, amateurish - and, quite frankly, dangerous - nonsense like that ends up being the only game in town.

We talk a lot of talk - especially at the moment - about protecting children from abuse. We express outrage at what has happened, and how it could happen. But, when we're asked to put our hands in our pockets and pay for the kind of stuff that would help prevent it, there's suddenly a lot of shuffling of feet and close inspection of fingernails: we want a Rolls-Royce child protection system for our children, but we only want to pay Skoda prices for it.

Until that changes, children will continue to be at more risk than necessary from predators and abusers.

Sorry but I'll leave you to your world where you believe counselling is the prerogative of counsellors and that educational psychologists are In some way lacking because you think they aren't capable of counselling and your view is based on your personal observation of a couple of teachers......

I've 16 years in working with teens with special needs. The work being done with them in the area of relationship and sexuality is groud breaking. I will send you the name of someone you can contact. But quite honestly I really think that you are more interested in counselling.......after the event. It's a pity you can't see that education has a place in all of this. It's also a pity that you view your opinions as expert and the work of educational psychologists as inferior to yours. Your views are by your own admission based on your work experience. So are mine....

You have a very weird habit of "suspecting" things. I find it really odd....
In this thread every post you have written in answer to mine has pulled the "I'm superior and I suspect bubbles is not true"....
You have suspected all sorts of shit about me...I'm coy...I'm not telling the truth....I wasn't abused......

You say you are a counsellor...I suspect you are not so good and my opinion of you is based on the fact that you personalise discussions by trying to put down or call out a poster.
You say you're an experienced counsellor of seven years but you have a very antiquated view of educational psychology.
You say the only way to deal with abuse is to make sure abused feel they can tell someone about it. But you refuse to respect the work thst is being done to try to prevent it. You also cannot see that they are both equally important and both equallyvnecessary.
Counselling is about listening without judgement. Counselling is about believing what is told to you in confidence. I told you something in confidence by pm at the very beginning of this thread. You proceeded to write shite afterwards that you suspected that if you called me out on a post that I'd probably come up with a personal history of abuse. Wow... that was pretty shit thing to do in my opinion. And for someone who is using their counsellors hat to comment on abuse it was veru telling.

I'll pm you again .....
And you can make contact with the HSE over here.

 

[Blagsta]

Why don't you read my last post again ? And reinterpret it again.
I was very clear what was being offered over here in a special ed setting.

I was also very clear about the distinction between preventative work and post abuse work.

I think we would all like to see a day where counselling for victims is not the answer to abuse. Think about it. Existentialist states that getting victims to talk is the way forward in the fight against abuse. This is a typical counsellors view because they work at listening to victims....There is another approach you know that involves prevention. And educating young people about abuse is very important in the fight against abuse.

I think the point being made here is that no amount of education will deal with the head fuck and emotional conflict of being abused by people you love and depend on

 

[bubblesmcgrath]

I think the point being made here is that no amount of education will deal with the head fuck and emotional conflict of being abused by people you love and depend on

I think the point being made here is that no amount of education will deal with the head fuck and emotional conflict of being abused by people you love and depend on

Of course not.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Existentialist did not ask about my experience. Indeed he wasn't interested in my experiences. He was extremely critical of them....even my personal experience of abuse.

Wrong.
He was critical of your attempts to claim that your own reaction (a "fight" reaction) was the usual reaction of a child being abused. As he (and I) made clear, the more usual reactions are either dissociation or "flight".

 

[Rural]

IMynk attempts are made to explain to kids that telling someone that you've been abused is different from telling tales. But it is asking a lot of most kids to make that kind of distinction, especially when part of the grooming process is usually about redefining those boundaries, anyway.

Most people who have been abused and haven't disclosed will talk about "not wanting to get into trouble" (or "not wanting <someone else> to get into trouble"). And we don't help that with our publicly aggressive societal views on the subject of abuse - I've seen teachers explaining to young children in quite angry terms that "bad touching" is WRONG and that it MUST NOT HAPPEN - all the same kind of language that they're used to hearing about their own behaviours. So is it any wonder, then, that they frame abuse towards them, and their responses to it, in exactly the same way?

It's the sort of concept that gets right up the noses of the "Just say no" (or "just twat 'em") crowd, but actually the conversations we should be having with children about abuse cannot be the ranty RIGHT/WRONG/GOOD/BAD kind. I believe that what we should be doing is lowering the ante, and making this into a matter-of-fact discussion, no matter how strongly we might feel about it. I think it is really important that we decrease the emotional charge, not increase it, while at the same time quietly insisting to children that they have the right to decide who does what to their bodies, and that it is OK for them to talk to someone else about it if someone does something that makes them feel uncomfortable. It has to feel like part of a dialogue, not some big "sound the trumpet and the cavalry will come" deal.

Kids get such mixed messages from well-meaning adults. A 6 year old I know came home from school saying she knew what a paedophile was. When her mum asked her what she thought it was she said "someone who likes children" :

 

[ViolentPanda]

An experienced counsellor telling me my response to personal abuse was wrong ....is not the response of a counsellor.
I spoke about how I reacted and how I would react. I was told that I was wrong.

How about a psychologist (one of the hats I wear) telling you that
a) You're misrepresenting what the counsellor said to you, and
b) You weren't told your reaction was wrong, you were told that your claim that your personal reaction was the "right" or "natural" reaction, was wrong.

And frankly, your claim that a "fight" reaction was or is right or natural, shits all over the experience of the majority of abusees, where a fight reaction wasn't available to them.