Monday, 16 January 2012

"Historic" Abuse? A Guest Posting From Tom Perry.

For those readers who have not yet watched the BAFTA Award Winning Documentary "Chosen" you might not have heard the names Tom Perry, Mark Payge or Alistair Rolfe.


BAFTA for Chosen from True Vision on Vimeo.

These three men, with the help of multiple Award Winning "independent" Television Production Company "True Vision" and Director Brian Woods, brought the taboo subject of Paedophilia to the world of mainstream media thanks to the courage of Channel 4.......Notably not ITV or BBC.


Their story is humbling, heart wrenching, educational, emotional, frightening, graphic, sad, inspirational, courageous, and for those who have read "The Sharp Report" the private school talked about in their story could quite easily have been Jersey's very own Victoria College.


This is a story that cannot be covered in a single Blog posting and one we shall be returning to in the near future. The guest posting came about after we received an e-mail from Mr. Perry where he brought to our attention the (mis)used word "Historic." We subsequently replied and asked if he would consider a "Guest Posting" and thankfully he agreed.


From Tom:

I am writing to Voice for Children as someone who in 2001 filed a police complaint about the sexual abuse I experienced as a child. The Case was stayed in 2003 using a pre-trial "abuse of process hearing grounded on the Selwyn Bell precedent which was established just a few months earlier. It says - "as a result of the passage of time the defendant cannot receive a fair trial." This meant that the man I accused of abusing me did not have to answer the question in court, and no stayed criminal case has ever returned to court. Following the ruling I approached an independent television production company and four years later the BAFTA award winning documentary Chosen was broadcast.

When in adulthood I finally managed to face the abuse I’d experienced as a child, even I referred to it  as ‘historic abuse.’ The police did the same and media reports on similar cases were and continue to be  peppered with the adjective and just look at the Voice blog and others that do such sterling work on the Jersey child abuse cover up, all of them describe child abuse complaints made in adulthood as: ‘historic.’

People wishing to see truth and justice for abusees should cease using this offensive description. Why?
It is  prejudicial and serves to discount, denigrate and dismiss the crimes that abusees have experienced. “Oh that was all in the past, things are different now.” In reality little in safeguarding has changed since the 50’s. There is still no mandatory requirement in England, Wales or Scotland to report allegations of child abuse or actual rape to the police or social services.  Just in case you don’t believe 
it:http://www.nspcc.org.uk/inform/research/questions/child_protection_legislation_in_the_uk_pdf_wdf48953.pdf - see page 3 or search key word ‘mandatory.’ 

Regrettably the appalling description “historic abuse entered the lexicon sometime ago unnoticed and to the detriment of complainants.  It needs to cease.  The mainstream media on Jersey are addicted to this offensive description and here is just one example from the BBC with their latest effort. In England the recent conviction of Father Nick White for child abuse when he was teaching at Downside was reported by all parts of the media in the default ‘historic’ format despite the abuse on which the trial was predicated occurring only nineteen years ago.  Nineteen years!

Would Mrs Doreen Lawrence consider her son Stephen’s murder nineteen years ago ‘historic?’ For her, just like me and other abusees who have not had the benefit of having their cases heard in court, it is all too current. Yet the media do not use the historic word to describe Stephen’s murder. Why not?  Take a few other serious crimes such as aggravated burglary, grievous bodily harm,  drug smuggling, or assault,  and all are free of the dismissive adjective ‘historic.’ I have also never seen the crime of rape described as historic. So what is it about child abuse?  

For authorities, care homes, schools, young offenders institutes that knowingly and unknowingly employed pederasts to work with children and then concealed  discovered crimes, the use of the adjective ‘historic’ helps dismiss, discount, and consign to history a scandal they wish no one had noticed and which the employer does not  wish to address. The same authorities delight in this self-harming description being consistently applied to crime  they wish would  vanish, but which remain all too current for all Jersey’s abusees.

Its child abuse. 


 

44 comments:

  1. Brilliant post! It gives a different perspective to show the general public on how far the authorities and some of the press will go to denigrate the term and the abuse victims.

    Thanks to the very brave Tom Perry and his colleagues for giving their story and standing firm with fellow sufferers. There is strength in numbers.

    Thanks also to True Vision and Channel 4 for biting the bullit and for thier determination in getting the program aired.

    Ahimsa

    ReplyDelete
  2. It's a licence to abuse, isn't it? Make sure your victim is too frightened to speak out until they're all grown up, and then it's too late for justice.

    Makes you proud to be a human, doesn't it?

    ReplyDelete
  3. WELL SAID!

    The abuse I suffered 40 years ago while in Local Authority care is not historic either. It knackered up my life. I was a Grammer School student and because of the zeal of the people who wanted to gloss over the abusive way I was treated in "care", they blackened my name and muddied the water for me so much that they made me unemployable. I could never get over the hurdle of having been in a psychiatric hospital (as a Place of Safety) as a child - no-one wanted me after that, and I thought of myself as useless, my self esteem was shattered.

    Its not historic abuse if it has blighted your life, and no-one has even had the common decency to apologise or make any attempt to right any of the wrongs. God knows I have tried to help myself, but having deliberate defamatory lies and newspaper clippings inserted into your medical notes in a deliberate attempt to blacken your character tends to make things very difficult for anyone trying to "get over" the past.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Joined Up Sinking16 January 2012 at 10:27

    Ben Query wrote a piece in Saturday's filthy rag (14-1-12) running down Jersey politicians in general - headline "No one likes or trusts you"

    While I could largely agree with it, towards the end I found this steaming lump of ***** :

    "By the way, you're about to pay out milions upons millions of pounds to child abuse victims in civil compensation claims. That'll do wonders for the Island's image, right?"

    Once again, the island - no, Island with a capital I because Jersey is all that matters, not the people in it - and its reputation is far more important than the failings of those who run the place.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I absolutely agree with Tom's dislike of the term 'historic abuse' and I wrote about the use of that term by the JEP and others when they started using it.

    Its use by them is strategic and tendentious - it is designed to reduce the importance of the crimes that occurred.

    Let us use it in a different context: imagine your child had been murdered twenty years ago but the murderer was never found. Would you accept the epithet 'historic' as a description of that crime?

    Your child remains murdered and her murderer walks free. A crime is a crime forever. The perpetrators should be brought to justice.

    Every crime we investigate happened in the past but we do not say to the judge, 'These parking ticket offences are historic and therefore do not matter.'

    The use of that term is therefore a deliberate attempt to mitigate the seriousness of the allegations and we should rightly suspect the motives of anybody who uses it.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Well, I for one am sick to death of this "golddigger" rubbish that we institutional abuse survivors are always accused of.

    I have never asked for a single penny of compensation, what I have asked for is a simple apology and a chance to get my life back.

    I wrote a book, and had it self published. I got my name and face plastered all over our local press, a lovely full page article they did of me, holding my book aloft, in full colour.

    But the local libraries, they were telling people that they were unable to obtain my book, so I went to my library and handed over 4 copies of it, so that the people who couldnt afford to buy it but wanted very much to read it could do so. A week later I was told by a lady who tried to borrow my book that she had been told they had not got it and couldnt get it! Also, I was blocked from the literary festival in my home town, which the Poet Lauriate Carol Ann Duffy attended. I had expressed a wish to be part of this festival, but was told that as my book is not a children's book it was unsuitable. "What about Carol Ann Duffy's work" I said, because that isn't exactly children's reading material either! I also pointed out that I attended the same school as Carol Ann Duffy, and was there while she was there.

    So I have tried my best to help myself, and been blocked and treated like a nuicience, and I am fed up of it. No-one is sorry, they won't blet anyone "get over" it if they can help it, the institutional abuse victims are treated in a different way to the isolated family abuse victims. It is a deliberate cover up.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I think the words cover-up can be repeated forever but if it is un-provable in legal terms then it’s meaningless. The problem with the historic abuse investigations was the historic part because DNA or any tangible evidence was non-existent to back up any story. Seeing as that left a simple situation of one person’s word against another there was never enough to go on.

    ReplyDelete
  8. "because DNA or any tangible evidence was non-existent to back up any story."

    WRONG.


    JAR/30: 3-4; 1940s to 1980s. Two fragments of burnt bone one is fragment of longbone? Tibia. Submitted to University of Sheffield with KSH/158. Origin confirmed as human. Submitted for dating awaiting results.

    JAR/33: 3-4; 1940s to 1980’s.
    Calcined fragment of bone. ?human.

    JAR/53: 183. Cellar 3 Dark char rich deposit equivalent to 169.
    4 / 5: 1960s to present date.
    5 fragments of calcined long bone ?human.

    JAR/54: 183. Cellar 3 Dark char rich deposit equivalent to 169.
    4 / 5: 1960s to present date.
    4 fragments of calcined bone ?human.

    JAR/55: 183. Cellar 3 Dark char rich deposit equivalent to 169.
    4 / 5: 1960s to present date.
    1 fragment of calcined bone ?human.

    JAR/57:183. Cellar 3 Dark char rich deposit equivalent to 169.
    4 / 5: 1960s to present date.
    2 fragments of bone of unknown origin.

    JAR/56: 183. Cellar 3 Dark char rich deposit equivalent to 169.
    4 / 5: 1960s to present date.
    1 fragment of bone ?human.

    JAR/67: 183. Zone 3 East Cellar 3.
    4 / 5: 1960s to present date.
    Human Tooth: deciduous left maxillary first molar, age 9 yrs ± 3 yrs. Could have been shed naturally (Anthro exam).
    Submitted to odontologist, see report.

    JAR/69: 183. Zone 3 East Cellar 3.
    4 / 5: 1960s to present date.
    Fragments x 3 of possible human cortical bone.

    JAR/61: 183 Zone 4 East Cellar 3.
    4 / 5: 1960s to present date.
    23 Fragments of bone:
    1 Burnt fragment which closely resembles a human juvenile mastoid process.
    2. Burnt fragment of ?human mandible.
    3. Fragments of burnt long bone x 3 measuring between 11.3 and 16.3 mm.
    4. Fragments of unidentified burnt cortical and trabecular bone x 7.
    5. Fragment of slightly burnt long bone measuring 33 mm. The cortex of the
    bone resembles human but it is quite thick and the trabeculae can not be seen because it requires cleaning. It appears to have been cut at one end.
    6. Fragments of unburnt unidentified long bone. x 3 The appearance and texture of the cortex of the fragments appears more animal than human but it is advised that further examination should be undertaken in order to confirm this.
    7. Fragments of unidentified long bone x 7. 5 have been burnt and 2 haven’t. Species
    uncertain although two of the burnt fragments could possibly be human

    JAR/90: 183 Cellar 3 Zone 3 East.
    4 / 5: 1960s to present date.
    Fragments of unidentified bone of unknown species. One which is calcined is possibly human bone.

    Cellar 4 Context 169 (redeposited char material from fire elsewhere. Unsealed)

    JAR/36: 169. Cellar 4 E. Charred material at southern end of Zone 4. Equivalent to 127.
    4 / 5: 1960s to present date.
    Fragment of bone ?human.

    JAR/37: 169. Cellar 4 E. Charred material at southern end of Zone 4. Equivalent to 127.
    4 / 5: 1960s to present date.
    Fragment of burnt bone. ?human mastoid process

    JAR/39: 169. Cellar 4 E. Charred material at southern end of Zone 4. Equivalent to 127.
    4 / 5: 1960s to present date.
    Fragment of burnt bone ?human.

    JAR/40: 169. Cellar 4 E. Charred material at southern end of Zone 4. Equivalent to 127.
    4 / 5: 1960s to present date.
    Fragment of bone ?human.

    GMK/18: 169. Cellar 4 E. Charred material at southern end of Zone 4. Equivalent to 127.
    4 / 5: 1960s to present date.
    Human tooth. Anthro exam – deciduous left maxillary lateral incisor. Age range 6 yrs ± 2yrs

    ReplyDelete
  9. There is much more evidence there than that which convicted the murderers of Stephen Lawrence!

    ReplyDelete
  10. I am talking about the historic abuse side and the evidence to prove it not the items found that could have come from anywhere like land fill. Believe it or not but whenever they lay a new drain it is not unusal to find historic human remains.

    ReplyDelete
  11. "Karl Harrison’s archaeological theory of the burnt debris including human bone fragments and teeth being deposited in the east wing cellars from the west wing is contained within this report. This theory is suggestive that the solid fuel furnace in operation in the west wing around the time of 1960 – 1970 may have been used to dispose of human remains.


    Enquiries to date are showing that the original solid fuel central heating and hot water supply furnace in the west wing was replaced in the late 60’s early 70’s with oil fired furnaces. This may have coincided with the floor in cellars 3, 4 & 5 being removed. This would explain the deposition of the bone fragments and teeth with ash deposits as being the

    waste from the furnace upon decommissioning. It would also suggest some element of ‘guilty knowledge’.


    The tests clearly indicated the presence of human remains decomposition scent."

    ReplyDelete
  12. "I am talking about the historic abuse side and the evidence to prove it not the items found that could have come from anywhere like land fill. Believe it or not but whenever they lay a new drain it is not unusal to find historic human remains"

    This is where the Police and the Law Officers dept comes in. This can be a very grey are and is. This comes down to who is giving the evidence, is there any corroborating evidence and so on. The law office will then make a decision once the files are handed over.

    There were many dropped cases in Jersey.

    The Committee of Enquiry is so important.

    Thank you so much Mr Perry for this guest posting.

    rs

    ReplyDelete
  13. "By the way, you're about to pay out milions upons millions of pounds to child abuse victims in civil compensation claims. That'll do wonders for the Island's image, right?"

    Jerseys own State Media. Bringing you news they want you to hear.

    Subliminal message, Nah blatant propoganda

    ReplyDelete
  14. "There were many dropped cases in Jersey"

    Why have so many cases been dropped, with no explaination given? Sometimes, not even a letter or formal comminication to inform the victim that the case has been dropped?

    I found out my case had been dropped by my local bobby in the street. He was very apologetic. He should not have been given that task, its an absolute disgrace!

    ReplyDelete
  15. Voiceforchildren

    Have you addressed the issue State Media use against you about ''damaging the Islands reputation''

    Now is the time to turn this back on the politicians and credited media of Jersey.

    Do you love your Island? Give it to them.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Our government and its State Media have trashed the reputation of this, once beautiful island. They have peddled out that much unbelievable codswallop about Tooth Fairies, teeth falling through gaps in floorboards skull containing 1.6% collagen (only found in Mammals) turning into coconut. The State Media have peddled this gumph out in the face of all the “evidence” exposed by us Bloggers (Jersey’s only independent media).

    Jersey is a naturally beautiful island but it will continue to be darkened by a big black cloud until the government and State Media face up to, and address, the atrocities that were inflicted on its children for decades.

    ReplyDelete
  17. "Anonymous said...

    I am talking about the historic abuse side and the evidence to prove it not the items found that could have come from anywhere like land fill. Believe it or not but whenever they lay a new drain it is not unusal to find historic human remains."


    Would you care to give some examples to back up that claim?

    The surface of Jersey seems to be permanently undergoing holing by one form of roadwork or another.

    What seems like every 6 months there's a different utility company digging up a length road around the corner from me. I can't ever remember having driven around the island without seeing at least one roadwork being dug.

    But with this constant unearthing and laying of drains, gas and electricty pipework I can't once in my entire 35 years on this earth remember hearing of human remains being discovered.

    So as you claim "it is not unusal to find historic human remains" when digging drains, maybe you would do me the favour of jogging my memory with a few examples of that happening IN JERSEY.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Is Ben Queerie trying to get out of covering political stories or something? How can he face States Members after what he wrote - slagging them all down completely?

    Or will he be two-facedly saying to each of them "Oh I didn't mean you, of course" -?

    ReplyDelete
  19. I recall a striking post by Tom on Stuart Syvret’s site some while back and here it is.

    Its a simple message. Conceal child abuse; refrain from taking action against alleged perpetrators; and instead of doing the institution (island) favours you hang a ‘paedophiles welcome’ sign over the islands crest.

    Robust child protection procedures including a commitment to report all allegations of abuse to a ‘Designated Officer,’ and a willingness to prosecute cases will sends a very powerful message to perpetrators – there are easier places to be!

    BTW anyone wanting to find something on a blogsite should consider using the following command in Google “key phrase" site:nameofsite.blogspot.com - and ‘Paedophiles welcome’ was hard to forget.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Re "Believe it or not but whenever they lay a new drain it is not unusal to find historic human remains."

    That is not true, in Jersey or mainland UK. Whenever it happens, work is stopped and forensic police are called in. It is in fact very rare, unless they are digging on the site of a graveyard.

    At no time in our 'historic' past have bodies been randomly buried for other than nefarious reasons, especially on a small island like Jersey.

    ReplyDelete
  21. So no adult remains were descovered, just the burnt bones and teath of children, and by chance they were all descovered in the same area within the same former childrens home. Is there a rational expaination do you think?

    ReplyDelete
  22. On the flip side of this, when do you draw the line when alleged abuse victims become nuisances to others with their claims?

    In Jersey there seems to be people who want to shove this story down other people’s throats every day and maybe, just maybe they don't want to know?

    ReplyDelete
  23. 16.21 should Stephen Lawrence's parents have packed up and shoved off for the reasons you outline?

    ReplyDelete
  24. I for one will now be dropping the term 'historic;'

    Thank you for pointing this out Mr Perry. I had dropped it a while back when Mr Kent first pointed it out but it snuck back into my posts.

    Thank you also for taking a keen interest in the Jersey Abuse Scandal. You will be no doubt aware of the fights we are having in getting the real truth out.

    The internet and broadband has been our weapon. It has been the biggest development this Island has seen. Its probably going to be one of the biggest challenges our Feudal barons have faced in 800 yrs

    http://ricosorda.blogspot.com/

    rs

    ReplyDelete
  25. Reply to comment at 13.44

    Ben Query wrote a piece in Saturday's filthy rag (14-1-12) running down Jersey politicians in general - headline "No one likes or trusts you"

    The game State media play.

    Rag effort to address fair and balanced impartial media in the same way they gave us the story on their attempt to ''investigate'' golden handshakes.

    Politians play the game, The articles are so transparent, sadly not to the sheeple they are aimed at. The gullible public

    ReplyDelete
  26. Rico Sorda, some would argue that blogs have destroyed some potential abuse cases even getting to Court.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Sharrock J Scrotum16 January 2012 at 18:33

    A great interview and a brave man. This idea that we need people to wise up to not saying 'historic' is an eye-opener to me and is very well worth pushing to make the point by all. I noticed Deputy Pitman making the same point in his latest post too. Good to see that we have some politicians with their finger on the pulse.

    Keep up the good work guys. Incidentally no doubt the troll will be visiting you big time to attack this brave man. Don't bow to him. If anyone wants a laugh they should go on to Channel on line and see the troll who's brain must be near to blowing a gasket under the strain, obsessively attacking Trevor Pitman with a dozen differnt fake names!

    Incredible. Hasn't this sad person got a life? All readers let's help wind the troll up. Go on to the establishment sites like Channel and This is Jersey (JEP) and post in support of the handful of politicians who do stand up for us! Say no Ballsache. Say no to Le Marquand. Say no to cover-ups! Bob Hill for the electoral commission!

    Best of luck and well done.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Thank you Mr Perry for your courage and for posting to VFC. I will no longer use the term historic when referring to child abuse.

    ReplyDelete
  29. The comparison between Stephen Lawrence and the putative victims of abuse is not a valid one.

    The case of Stephen Lawrence begins and ends with the most tangible evidence possible that a crime has been committed: a dead body in a place where a dead body should not be.

    The whole problem with abuse is that the evidence for a crime is simply not that tangible. Either the body is not there in a form that is easily identified - bone fragments are highly suggestive but not conclusive evidence in themselves - or it has simply disappeared altogether, or the crime exists not as a dead body or even a visible scar but in the memories of those who were victims.

    Patching that together to prove beyond reasonable doubt to any jury that a crime has been committed - let alone prove who committed it - is a huge task, and the net result is that a great many people who were and/or are abusers get off scot free.

    But that apart, Tom is quite right to question the use of "historic" abuse.

    ReplyDelete
  30. James.

    The point being made by Mr. Perry is that the Stephen Lawrence case is never reported as “historic” his murder and the loss of their child is not historic to his parents, friends and family nor will it ever be. The same goes for the victims/survivors of Abuse it will never be historic to them the memories live with them for every day of their lives but the media refer to the Abuse as historic and seemingly nothing else.

    ReplyDelete
  31. There are witness statements given to the police that the law officers have decided not to prosecute.

    No prosecutions happened.

    Evidence is there. Mr. Harper managed to get round a case the law officers were not going to prosecute. It was tried successfully.

    A potential crime scene that was closed down.

    ReplyDelete
  32. @James, "The comparison between Stephen Lawrence and the putative victims of abuse is not a valid one."

    We were making an analogy with the concept of historic, not the nature of the crime or any evidence available.

    Why do you use the word 'putative'? Are you saying that the 150+ people who came forwards to give evidence of abuse were making it up?

    ReplyDelete
  33. Here is another child abuse muder cover -up we only know of Moira Anderson there could very well be more. This time it is STRATHCLYDE POLICE involved, I need to spend somey time looking back to see how many young girls and boys disappeared from that area .

    Quite a lot of disturbing events under the name of 'law appear to be happening in Strathclyde, they are racist for one !

    http://smileyculturelies.blogspot.com/2012/01/httpwww.html

    If anyone can add to any info that has happened in Strathclyde please leave the lennks here.

    There is a very deep high up peadophile ring operating in Goverment, we need to find it and expose it

    Many thanks. xx

    ReplyDelete
  34. SteelMagnolia, Norman Scarth the 86 year old WW2 veteran is the chap you want to talk to about Strathclyde Police corruption, here's a link to his website:

    http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=norman%20scarth&source=web&cd=1&sqi=2&ved=0CCsQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fnormanscarth.blogspot.com%2F&ei=gqMVT-OUGM_pOf_4kboF&usg=AFQjCNFvljRw7aSNXfJWTaouWtFxspiGSQ&sig2=9Mw__80fRyrGonptyaNrqg

    ReplyDelete
  35. The question has to be asked, why, yesterday, in what should have been a straightforward and unanimous appointment, there were 7 members who abstained and 3 who voted against the appointment of Mr Averty to the JFSC. Did they know something that we don't?

    As the debate was held in secret, we will never know, but some allegation or similar must have been made that concerned these 10 members and led to the Constable of St. John to ask for a reference back.

    Do you know anything about this? And why was it held in secret in the first place?

    ReplyDelete
  36. A reader say:

    "As the debate was held in secret, we will never know, but some allegation or similar must have been made that concerned these 10 members and led to the Constable of St. John to ask for a reference back.

    Do you know anything about this? And why was it held in secret in the first place?"

    I have my thoughts.

    By why not question your States members? The people who were present?

    The way they voted is public, so as your elected representatives, ask them why they voted as they did?

    Stuart

    ReplyDelete
  37. Roy Boschat hasn't half had a go at Lenny Harper in today's paper.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Sadly people have gone very off topic here - Tom Perry's contribution is extremely important for a number of reasons.

    Why?

    To an aware abusee the scale of offensiveness of the description ‘historic,’ is equalled only by use of the word ‘nigger.’ Neither should have any place in the lexicon. “Historic” is used without hindrance even in court; its use prejudices a complainant by time discounting a crime on a child; it distances the perpetrator from the crime; and in consequence it potentially promotes a subliminal reduction of the crime’s importance in the mind of jurors.

    ReplyDelete