Dear Susan Crocombe

I spent today fending off swarms of your internet tribe. Largely defined by ghoulish appropriation of child abuse. I did so because I pointed this out to you and your friend. Making failure to report SUSPICIONS of child abuse a criminal offence is dangerous, it is unworkable and it is nothing more than a chant by an internet tribe who need to get an interest that isnt child abuse, and if you are going to campaign about child protection, get ediucated.

First of all. Signs that might make you suspicious that a child is being abused. A child wetting the bed, having nightmares, a change of mood, becoming withdrawn, or any number of things. Signs that a child is being abused by a particular person? You may, if you are incredibly lucky, note somethig inappropriate, that thing may be that they are friendly. NOTHING in this list warrants a criminal offence for ‘failing to report’.

Secondly, intimiate crimes, child abuse, rape, they are very difficult to prove in a court of law. This is why protection hearings use on balanace of probability. To make failure to report suspicons based on normal behaviour, of something thta probably can’t be proved, a criminal offence that meets beyond reasonable doubt, is completely unworkable. In this system. With our justice system. With our legal frameworks. You’d know this if your sole purpose was not being a twitter ghoul ligging off abused children.

Making failure to report a criminal offence would not have stopped Jimmy Saville. In fact we need to get one thing absolutely clear, because you seem to be completely unaware of this, sometimes you can’t stop someone. Child protection investigations are 90% wading through poverty and the impact of poverty and making sure you are keeping your eyes peeled for the dysfunctional signs that say this is an abusive situation. You are making assessments on the balance of probability. In 100 cases like this the thing you are seeing will mean  something harmless. In a very small minority of situations, where someone is a really bad bastard, you are keeping your eye out for that one percent who is really harmful. You cant legislate everyone for those people. You cant change the rate of child deaths from deliberate harm. It doesnt change. Year on year it doesnt change. You cannot prevent it. You can only make sure that the conditions for abuse are kept to a mininum, reduce poverty, and make sure that the kind of things that cloud your ability to see that kind of bad bastard are kept to a mininum.

We dont do that. We just deliberately created maternal poverty and a breeding ground for abuse, ill health, and difficulty maintaining parenting. Suspicions in these circumstances are often ill founded. The impact of poverty looks very much like the impact of abuse. Its not good for kids. Your suggestion that everyone be criminalised for not reporting abuse is the suggestion of an idiot who has zero understanding of child protection or how we prevent child abuse.

Now there is a much simpler thing that desperately needs to be done. The Children Act has a principle called the Principle of Paramountcy. THis principle only applied to the families covered by family legislation, then it was expanded to other institutions. It needs to be expanded to media and politics institutions and institutions not usually considered as linked with children. That would be helpful. It wouldn’t be needlessly criminalising millions in an unworkable way.

But this isnt really about children is it? THis is about you. This is about identity formation and tribe formation on social media, with virtue signalling and hiding behind abused children to make a platform for yourself demanding something extremely stupid and dangerous.

I spent most of the day beating off morons, with their aw hugs. So let me be clear. The hallmark of an abuser is that they cannot hear or accept the consequences of their actions. When you are demanding that people be unnecessarily criminalised, demanding that our very broken child protection system be further broken to suit your ego, that is demands wit hserious consequences. You don’t get to hide behind abused children you dont know and pretend no discussion is needed.

Am sorry but your internet tribe of #survivor ghoulds don’t bother me in the slightest. I am a believer in decision making on the basis of possible consequences, and when you are asking for something which would cause so much harm, you will come across people who wish to discuss the consequences. People who know more than you. I suggest you stick to your echochamber of survivor ghoulds and educate yourself about what you are spouting off about. Dont bother me again.

 

 

 

 

MP report into Kids Company: FAO Kath Viner and Patrick Butler

This is the BBC report on the MPs report into Kids Company. I do not note anything in here which requires a national newspaper accusing someone whose allegation of abuse did not meet a criminal burden of proof, as malicious. I do not see anything in here which requires the reabuse of people whose allegations have not met the criminal burden of proof. I believe Patrick Butler’s name should be in here, as the personal PR of Kids Company.

 

I would suggest the Guardian reflect on why it is abusing young people alleging sexual and phsyical abuse is appropriate in this scenario.