the sir jimmy savile obe thread

[existentialist]

Almost 40% of the population experience poverty (officially described at the time of the Bulger murder as existing on less than 60% of the average household income). Roughly half of those people (or 20% of the population) at that time would have been classed as being in severe poverty, and yet only a vanishingly small number of children in those circumstances turn to violent crime, let alone murder. We can't pick out any single factor and say "it was that, that is what made them do it", because the reality is that Bulger was a victim of two boys who were themselves victims of a combination of circumstances, environmental factors and developmental issues that went far beyond poverty and its effects.

Not specifically in regard to sexual abuse, but one point I remember being made quite forcibly in my NSPCC training is that, while poverty is probably a factor in abuse, "middle class" abuse is a lot more prevalent that popular perception would have it.

As you move up the wealth spectrum, so the social capital and resources to be able to fend off suspicions of abusing increase, the logical conclusion being someone like Savile who was able to bring his celebrity, wealth (through threats of legal action - not something available to the typical family in poverty), and "connections" to bear to such an extent that his abusing could remain an open secret until his death.

I recall a case study from that training of a child who was taken to hospital from school with severe bruising to his lower back, buttocks, and legs. On examination, he was found to have been beaten to the point of causing quite serious injury. A child protection issue was raised, and it emerged that his father (ETA: who, it emerged, had dished out the beating) was a surgeon at the very same hospital, and enormous pressure was put on the hospital staff to drop the matter. Given that the NSPCC present it as a case study, he clearly wasn't successful, but there will be a lot of cases where, when a suspicion is raised, the reaction will be "What, Councillor Jones? Abusing his kids? Not him, he does so much wonderful work for charity!". And it does happen. It's one of the reasons John Owen (Clwych Inquiry) was able to abuse for so long - people could not face the idea that this charismatic, successful drama teacher would be abusing his pupils.

 

[Favelado]

Almost 40% of the population experience poverty (officially described at the time of the Bulger murder as existing on less than 60% of the average household income). Roughly half of those people (or 20% of the population) at that time would have been classed as being in severe poverty, and yet only a vanishingly small number of children in those circumstances turn to violent crime, let alone murder. We can't pick out any single factor and say "it was that, that is what made them do it", because the reality is that Bulger was a victim of two boys who were themselves victims of a combination of circumstances, environmental factors and developmental issues that went far beyond poverty and its effects.

I largely agree. However, as I said before take 100 families and stick them in extreme poverty and you increase the chances of the environments occuring where this type of crime might happen. We can't say it wa this or that, but we can look at the family backgrounds and economic circumstances of Bell, Thompson/Venables/ and the Edlington case brothers and say "there's a lot of common ground there". Walton and the West End of Newcastle are two of the most deprived places in two deprived cities. It's very likely that poverty was a factor in all three cases in my opinion. The stress it puts on people alone is enough to contribute to alcoholism, violent behaviour, mental health problems and so on. I'm not saying poor people are bad, I'm not saying rich people don't do naughty things. I'm saying make enough people poor and watch their problems stack up to a point where it is sometimes manifested in the ways we have seen there. It's not just poverty, it's not always poverty, it's never poverty alone, but it's a factor.

I don't think Mary Bell or Thompson and Venables are evil. I think they were normal kids who never stood much of a chance of having an ordinary life.

 

[toggle]

Or the prurient "white slave" myth was already so embedded that forming the story around that trope was easy to sell.



Absolutely. He used his subject abominably, manipulated the discourse and arguably created blocks of his narrative from no data whatsoever.



I'm only 50 pages into a biography of him, so I bow to your knowledge.

I haven't had the time to do so, but I've picked up a fair bit about him due to his involvement in stuff like the pro boer campaign. by that time, his reputation as well as his style was a reason for the inability of his organisation to achieve significant support.

 

[existentialist]

I'm glad the priests who abused hundreds of kids over 30 years are going to be in jail and away from kids for the rest of their lives.
Nothing to do with draconian outrage though. ....just very glad they'll never touch another kid.

At a price. A price which, as we discover just how prevalent child sexual abuse is, we may well find ourselves unwilling to pay, and be forced to look for more intelligent alternatives.

The logical conclusion of the argument you're deploying is what ended up with people being transported to Australia for stealing a loaf of bread.

 

[Ax^]

I don't think Mary Bell or Thompson and Venables are evil. I think they were normal kids who never stood much of a chance of having an ordinary life.

I don't think it's solely a working class problem..

it happens at all levels

 

[bubblesmcgrath]

i'm sure you would. and hanging and flogging no doubt. but wouldn't it be preferable to treat paedophiles so they didn't reoffend instead of filling cells with them for many years to come? is your understanding of justice retribution or rehabilitation?

My view would be that protecting a child from a paedophile abusing them is paramount. Sexual attraction to children is a part and parcel of a paedophiles make up.
How do you switch that off?
Maybe rehab can do that but the priests who were jailed were sent to rehab and received counseling and were then moved to another parish where they started abusing again. This was repeated over and over...until eventually someone went down the legal route and other victims started to follow suit.

 

[existentialist]

I largely agree. However, as I said before take 100 families and stick them in extreme poverty and you increase the chances of the environments occuring where this type of crime might happen. We can't say it wa this or that, but we can look at the family backgrounds and economic circumstances of Bell, Thompson/Venables/ and the Edlington case brothers and say "there's a lot of common ground there". Walton and the West End of Newcastle are two of the most deprived places in two deprived cities. It's very likely that poverty was a factor in all three cases in my opinion. The stress it puts on people alone is enough to contribute to alcoholism, violent behaviour, mental health problems and so on. I'm not saying poor people are bad, I'm not saying rich people don't do naughty things. I'm saying make enough people poor and watch their problems stack up to a point where it is sometimes manifested in the ways we have seen there. It's not just poverty, it's not always poverty, it's never poverty alone, but it's a factor.

I don't think Mary Bell or Thompson and Venables are evil. I think they were normal kids who never stood much of a chance of having an ordinary life.

And of course, if you stick those 100 families in poverty and come back 3 generations later, you will probably see some evidence of the problem being amplified as the intergenerational poverty kicks in.

 

[Favelado]

i don't think it's solely a working class problem..

Again, I'm worried about being misrepresented here. No-one's saying that. The Bell murders, Thompson/Venables and Edlington case were very similar and were directly influenced by a particular type of environment I believe.

 

[Pickman's model]

My view would be that protecting a child from a paedophile abusing them is paramount. Sexual attraction to children is a part and parcel of a paedophiles make up.
How do you switch that off?
Maybe rehab can do that but the priests who were jailed were sent to rehan and teceived vounsrlling and were then moved to another parish where they started abusing again. This was repeated over and over...until eventually someone went down the legal route and other victims started to follow suit.

it seems to me you're saying they're ill and therefore not necessarily criminally responsible - so a lengthy prison sentence would be cruel rather than curative. tell me, would you advocate the locking up of people with aids and hiv because some of them have infected other people?

 

[existentialist]

My view would be that protecting a child from a paedophile abusing them is paramount. Sexual attraction to children is a part and parcel of a paedophiles make up.
How do you switch that off?
Maybe rehab can do that but the priests who were jailed were sent to rehan and teceived vounsrlling and were then moved to another parish where they started abusing again. This was repeated over and over...until eventually someone went down the legal route and other victims started to follow suit.

The reoffending of the priests in the cases you describe was as much to do with the willingness of an organisation to cover up and, effectively, collude with the abusing priests to keep their activities secret and put more people at risk.

While I don't think that absolves the priests of any responsibility, a more constructive approach might be to go after an organisation which conspires in this way, rather than solely targeting the priests.

And I see precious little evidence of the RC church being held to account, particularly in Ireland, for their role in that conspiracy.

 

[Ax^]

Again, I'm worried about being misrepresented here. No-one's saying that. The Bell murders, Thompson/Venables and Edlington case were very similar and were directly influenced by a particular type of environment I believe.

victims becoming the abusers

occurs broadly across the social spectrum

 

[existentialist]

My view would be that protecting a child from a paedophile abusing them is paramount. Sexual attraction to children is a part and parcel of a paedophiles make up.

Also, beware. A lot of child sexual abuse is not necessarily about paedophilia. Many of those who abuse children are apparently-normal adults with apparently-normal sexual drives in other aspects of their sex life.

It is very likely that, as is the case with rape (or male rape in prisons), it's less about the sexuality of the offender than their desire to exercise some kind of power, sexual behaviour being a particularly potent pathway for that to happen.

To assume that paedophilia == child sexual abuse is to oversimplify the problem to an extent where, again, we end up tackling the problem from the wrong end, and looking in completely the wrong direction a lot of the time.

It's also worth pointing out that the opposite is also true, and that "paedophilia" is no more than the sexual attraction towards children. For obvious reasons, we are not ever going to know about those who find themselves afflicted with that particular paraphilia, and who have found ways to avoid acting on it, but we do know that such people exist.

There are even people who have recognised this tendency in themselves, and have sought help for it to avoid the risk of them offending; such help is, at least last time I checked, unavailable to anyone who has not been convicted of a serious sexual offence.

This is not nearly as clear-cut as we would like to think it is.

 

[bubblesmcgrath]

The logical conclusion of the argument you're deploying is what ended up with people being transported to Australia for stealing a loaf of bread.

Why inflict them on the Aussies?

it seems to me you're saying they're ill and therefore not necessarily criminally responsible -

I said they were sexually attracted to children. Sexual attraction is not an illness.

 

[existentialist]

victims becoming the abusers

occurs broadly across the social spectrum

The "cycle of abuse": most abusers were abused in their earlier lives.

Of course, not all those abused go on to abuse: it's a tiny proportion.

 

[Favelado]

victims becoming the abusers

occurs broadly across the social spectrum

Yes I know.

I'm talking about children murdering other children, or attempting to. I'm only making reference to those three cases and the specifics involved in them.

 

[Pickman's model]

I said they were sexually attracted to children. Sexual attraction is not an illness.

so are you jailing them for their unfortunate sexual attraction or for their inability to withstand that sexual attraction?

 

[ViolentPanda]

It's the endless - and understandable - cry: we want to show our outrage by making the sentences as draconian as possible.

But there's a drawback. Several, in fact.

First, as is probably becoming fairly obvious by now, most abuse is perpetrated by someone known to the victim - quite possibly someone the victim cares about, or part of the victim's (extended) family. Really draconian sentences increase the pressure on the victim - or those around the victim - not to disclose, as the perceived punishment may seem to them to be out of all proportion to the crime: there is a real risk that, as the severity of punishment goes up, so the likelihood of disclosure goes down.

Not merely a "real risk", but a quantified phenomena, at least in Australia, that has broadly-similar laws and sentencing.

Secondly, as the severity of the sentence goes up, so the differential between the sentence for child sexual offences and, say, murder narrows. There is a real risk that very heavy sentences actually create the potential for far more harm to be done to victims than otherwise.

Something that has been illustrated over about 40 years in the US, where some sex offenders killed their victims as a matter of course, because the differential between a sentence for, for example, forcible rape and sodomy of a female child was on a par with a sentence for murder. When legislation makes it advantageous for a criminal to murder their victim(s), then we know that "the system" isn't working properly, just as when we have politicians obsessing about looking "tough on crime", we know that all that will happen will be window-dressing.

Thirdly, as will be evident from the statements of so many victims in recent court cases, most people who have been sexually abused are not looking for revenge, or the harshest punishments to be inflicted on their abusers. What they tend to focus on is, firstly, being believed and taken seriously, and secondly, making sure that the abuser is not able to abuse others.

Taken together, those reasons - and I am sure there are others - seem to me to present a good argument for not just going for the tough knee-jerk response, but taking a little more care about things. I would far rather, for example, see sex offenders serve sentences that involved some assertive work on getting them to see the consequences of what they have done, and on helping them to find ways of controlling and managing their behaviours than simply warehousing them indefinitely.

And this is what I'd prefer too, which is why I get so fucked off that despite the great work establishments like Grendon do with our worst sex offenders (general recidivism runs at 70-75%, sex offender recidivism at 40-45%, recidivism for Grendon "graduates" at less than 25%), our posturing politicians won't fund a roll-out of Grendon's methods across the prisons estate, because a) it makes them look "soft on perverts", and b) the estimated cost per abuse incident prevented would be too high.
Welcome to neoliberal economics!

There will be those whom you cannot release - the Sidney Cookes of this world, for example. It may be that Savile would have been a similarly incorrigible offender whose behaviour would not have been changed by any amount of rehabilitation work, and I am not suggesting that NOBODY convicted of sex offences against children should serve a long sentence.

It just seems to me a bit sad that the response, so often, to these things is simply to go for the gut desire to avenge ourselves on these people - it might feel good, but it doesn't do much good.

Sentences should be indeterminate, with duration decided on response to treatment, and release predicated on the fact that, as a (former) sex offender, the person will be subject to surveillance.

 

[bubblesmcgrath]

Also, beware. A lot of child sexual abuse is not necessarily about paedophilia. Many of those who abuse children are apparently-normal adults with apparently-normal sexual drives in other aspects of their sex life.

It is very likely that, as is the case with rape (or male rape in prisons), it's less about the sexuality of the offender than their desire to exercise some kind of power, sexual behaviour being a particularly potent pathway for that to happen.

To assume that paedophilia == child sexual abuse is to oversimplify the problem to an extent where, again, we end up tackling the problem from the wrong end, and looking in completely the wrong direction a lot of the time.

It's also worth pointing out that the opposite is also true, and that "paedophilia" is no more than the sexual attraction towards children. For obvious reasons, we are not ever going to know about those who find themselves afflicted with that particular paraphilia, and who have found ways to avoid acting on it, but we do know that such people exist.

There are even people who have recognised this tendency in themselves, and have sought help for it to avoid the risk of them offending; such help is, at least last time I checked, unavailable to anyone who has not been convicted of a serious sexual offence.

This is not nearly as clear-cut as we would like to think it is.

In the case of a repeat offender what do you suggest is the best practical way to protect children from the offender?

 

[existentialist]

Why inflict them on the Aussies?

You've completely missed my point. Quel surprise.

I said they were sexually attracted to children. Sexual attraction is not an illness.

Getting into dangerous philosophical/moral waters here, but there is an argument that sexual attraction to children is an illness. Or, to be more precise, a paraphilia.

Mind you, I think you've also missed Pickman's model's metaphorical point, too.

 

[existentialist]

In the case of a repeat offender what do you suggest is the best practical way to protect children from the offender?

Work as hard as possible to make them not become a repeat offender.

ETA: per ViolentPanda's post at http://www.urban75.net/forums/threads/the-sir-jimmy-savile-obe-thread.300406/page-127#post-13267846

 

[existentialist]

Not merely a "real risk", but a quantified phenomena, at least in Australia, that has broadly-similar laws and sentencing.



Something that has been illustrated over about 40 years in the US, where some sex offenders killed their victims as a matter of course, because the differential between a sentence for, for example, forcible rape and sodomy of a female child was on a par with a sentence for murder. When legislation makes it advantageous for a criminal to murder their victim(s), then we know that "the system" isn't working properly, just as when we have politicians obsessing about looking "tough on crime", we know that all that will happen will be window-dressing.



And this is what I'd prefer too, which is why I get so fucked off that despite the great work establishments like Grendon do with our worst sex offenders (general recidivism runs at 70-75%, sex offender recidivism at 40-45%, recidivism for Grendon "graduates" at less than 25%), our posturing politicians won't fund a roll-out of Grendon's methods across the prisons estate, because a) it makes them look "soft on perverts", and b) the estimated cost per abuse incident prevented would be too high.
Welcome to neoliberal economics!



Sentences should be indeterminate, with duration decided on response to treatment, and release predicated on the fact that, as a (former) sex offender, the person will be subject to surveillance.

*many likes*

 

[Rural]

Spot on..
I was quoting department of education guidelines but a few here decided to rip me a new one on the strength that they felt I was advising that everyone who was abused should react the same way....despite my subsequent posts.

I'm sure misunderstandings/miscommunication happen all the time. Then ppl take up positions, pals back them up, ppl who may have not liked them much in the past then join the opposite side etc etc. Hopefully this is not upsetting anyone now that everyone has had their say. I had a horrible row on Twitter once, feel gutted when I think of how silly I must've looked. But i still i was right mind

 

[bubblesmcgrath]

so are you jailing them for their unfortunate sexual attraction or for their inability to withstand that sexual attraction?

The court system decides who goes to jail.
If they are criminally responsible for abusing children to satisfy their sexual orientation then they should see jail. It is illegal to abuse a child....dont forget that .

 

[existentialist]

The court system decides who goes to jail.
If they are criminally responsible for abusing children to satisfy their sexual orientation then they should see jail. It is illegal to abuse a child....dont forget that .

Do be serious. I don't think anyone on this thread is in the remotest danger of "forgetting" that it's illegal to abuse a child.

 

[Dr_Herbz]

Work as hard as possible to make them not become a repeat offender.

What if they continue noncing? At what point do the victims and potential victims become more important?

 

[Rural]

Not specifically in regard to sexual abuse, but one point I remember being made quite forcibly in my NSPCC training is that, while poverty is probably a factor in abuse, "middle class" abuse is a lot more prevalent that popular perception would have it.

As you move up the wealth spectrum, so the social capital and resources to be able to fend off suspicions of abusing increase, the logical conclusion being someone like Savile who was able to bring his celebrity, wealth (through threats of legal action - not something available to the typical family in poverty), and "connections" to bear to such an extent that his abusing could remain an open secret until his death.

I recall a case study from that training of a child who was taken to hospital from school with severe bruising to his lower back, buttocks, and legs. On examination, he was found to have been beaten to the point of causing quite serious injury. A child protection issue was raised, and it emerged that his father was a surgeon at the very same hospital, and enormous pressure was put on the hospital staff to drop the matter. Given that the NSPCC present it as a case study, he clearly wasn't successful, but there will be a lot of cases where, when a suspicion is raised, the reaction will be "What, Councillor Jones? Abusing his kids? Not him, he does so much wonderful work for charity!". And it does happen. It's one of the reasons John Owen (Clwych Inquiry) was able to abuse for so long - people could not face the idea that this charismatic, successful drama teacher would be abusing his pupils.

I know a woman who was beaten by her husband for years. He was a councillor & told her if she dropped charges against him he'd make sure the hostel for abused women & chn got its funding. She dropped the charges & yes the hostel was funded. She still left him & Idk whether he had that much power to veto funding but I guess he had influence.

 

[bubblesmcgrath]

You've completely missed my point. Quel surprise.

Getting into dangerous philosophical/moral waters here, but there is an argument that sexual attraction to children is an illness. Or, to be more precise, a paraphilia.

Mind you, I think you've also missed Pickman's model's metaphorical point, too.

No..I got your point. I just was being sarcastic.

Can you point me in the direction of the research on paedophilia that states it's a curable illness? I'd be interested in reading that.

 

[Pickman's model]

The court system decides who goes to jail.
If they are criminally responsible for abusing children to satisfy their sexual orientation then they should see jail. It is illegal to abuse a child....dont forget that .

t seems to me you're very ready to say you'd like to see the key thrown away but not so keen to acknowledge the obviousconclusion to your analysis that they"re suffering from an affliction

 

[ViolentPanda]

At a price. A price which, as we discover just how prevalent child sexual abuse is, we may well find ourselves unwilling to pay, and be forced to look for more intelligent alternatives.

We also have a concomitant issue, in that acknowledging prevalence means (for our politicians and media, anyway, not particularly for health and welfare professionals or academe) acknowledging decades of - at the very least - wilful ignorance, and at worst the deliberate blind eye that has (eminently-arguably) been turned to matters of child abuse (whether sexual, physical or psychological).

The logical conclusion of the argument you're deploying is what ended up with people being transported to Australia for stealing a loaf of bread.

Or thoughtcrime.

 

[existentialist]

What if they continue noncing? At what point do the victims and potential victims become more important?

The victims are always the most important aspect. I am not suggesting some kind of "soft on pervs" policy here - quite the contrary, what I would like to see is a system that (like Grendon, which VP referred to) puts offenders in the position of having to directly confront the consequences of their crimes, with (again, as VP points out, the consequent reductions in recidivism).

I cannot see how an intelligent approach to rehabilitation and sentencing puts potential victims at any greater risk, unless the suggestion is seriously being made that the only protection available is to indefinitely incarcerate anyone remotely at risk of abusing someone.