DENIAL AND RETRIBUTION

Since the Jimmy Savile situation opened the floodgates, we're going through a phase where child abusers are being caught on a regular basis.

These are historic examples which in most cases happened several years ago.

There have been the (mainly Catholic) priests who abused children in their care and also numerous celebrities. The common feature here is the abuse of power. It's not too dissimilar to the war crimes scenario where officers and soldiers who used their power to rape and torture are later held to account for their crimes against humanity.

There has been much discussion about these cases but my own interest is in other people's opinions on the matter. 

I have found in the case of elderly celebrities being accused of abuse decades earlier, that many take the view that one should 'let sleeping dogs lie'. Frequently female, thus often demonstrating a lack of sisterhood, they argue that the celebrity is too old and infirm to be hounded with abuse claims. A further suggestion that the claims may be spurious come in the form of 'why did they wait until now to come out of the woodwork?' 

If Savile had lived, I cannot imagine many people would have said 'let bygones be bygones'. If Hitler had escaped and been caught thirty years later would anyone have let him off because of his age?

I would imagine that being abused is not something you want aired in public and to do so is a brave thing. We have seen celebrities vehemently protest their innocence and then later confess their crimes. They need to be named  when accused so that others who may have been abused by them might come forward. Until they are found guilty, they are innocent in my eyes but if guilty they deserve the full weight of the law.

Equally, anyone found guilty of making false claims of abuse should be dealt with just as firmly.   

THE ABUSE OF POWER

It was John Emerich Edward Dalberg Acton, first Baron Acton (just call him John) who famously wrote 

"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men."

The avenues of history are littered with them.

There were cuddly types like Nero Claudius Caesar Augustus Germanicus, Roman Emperor from 54 to 68 C.E who was guilty of many murders, including his wife’s. 

Or everyone's favourite Francisco Pizarro who, along with his brothers, personify the very worst manifestation of the “Conquistadors.” Their pillage and rape of the west coast of South America destroyed the indigenous culture and looted it of its vast wealth.

Lest you think that these lovelies were all male we have Countess Elizabeth Báthory de Ecsed who has been labelled the most prolific female serial killer in history and is remembered as the "Blood Countess."

Now we can add as a footnote to the list, the name of Jimmy Savile, who although he didn't murder anyone as far as we know, used his celebrity status as a power to procure and molest young girls and women.

The chilling thought is that in the case of each of these people, others either assisted or turned a blind eye to their wicked deeds.

CHANGING TIMES

I was recently on a Child Protection course and we were asked to consider various scenarios and state whether or not we considered them to be child abuse. One example was of a father undressing his 14 year-old daughter. We all agreed that this was inappropriate and therefore abusive. We were then told that the father was a single parent and his daughter had cerebral palsy.

The point, which was well made, was that we shouldn't rush to make judgements until we have all the facts.

This got me thinking how society's views on things have changed during my many years. In the 1970's when I started out as a fledging special needs teacher, it was not only accepted that a male would change a teenage girl's nappy, it was expected. I did so, in a totally open situation. The changing area had three tables and the three staff busy changing, would commonly exchange banter as they removed soiled nappies, wiped the children clean and put on fresh incontinence pads etc.

I recall one occasion when I had them 'rolling in the aisles' when one teenage girl I was changing, had an exceptionally large bowel motion during the process. For the benefit of my two colleagues, I provided her with verbal encouragement with 'Keep going Susan, I can see the head!'

I remember that sometime in the 1980's, it was decided that each changing table should have screens 'to preserve the children's dignity'. The problem was, that in preserving their dignity, staff were then screened from view as they provided what is now called 'intimate personal care'. A debate ensued and I began to ask a female member of my team to assist me when I changed a girl (but not when I changed a boy). A few years later, it was formally agreed that it was not appropriate, for males to change females - something I had been doing for many years. However, females could continue to change males.

Given the recent case of the female nursery school worker who abused the children in her care, it seems to me that the only solution is to stipulate that two staff must always be present during intimate care situations but sadly, even this arrangement would be open to abuse.