No we don’t. We legally have to follow the Children Act 1989.
ACP 4 contains an (appropriately) bastardised wording of Section 1 Which states that “the child’s welfare shall be the court’s paramount consideration.”
Obviously we’re not a court, so we follow the principle that ‘The Welfare of the Child is paramount.’
When I told my wife about this she said wait for all the others to ‘come out’ afterwards which will create more havoc than the few in this programme. I sense she’s correct. Look what happened after Jimmy Saville, a veritable deluge.
Reading the air cadet statement, I would suggest that like all bodies requiring DBS the reliance is on the DBS to give reasons to say no to someone. The other things might get done, but I’ve yet to give a negative reference and would suggest the same happens (as I know it does) for the ATC.
I’ve turned someone away at an early stage because I wasn’t happy with them in interview, but that caused a confrontation, how many people are prepared to have that and how many are afraid of it?
Why is more victims being brave and coming forward an issue?
Surely we want people to come forward if they have been the victim of a monstrous sexual offence? The perpetrators might no longer be in the organisation, but then again they might. Just because we now have a strong resilient system (which can still be beaten if an offender is clever and has never been caught before, no system is infallible) doesn’t mean we should ignore past failings.
Nothing wrong per se, other than the fall out, immense scrutiny and shadow it puts over the organisation and individuals in then and now. Would anyone be prepared for finger pointing now, even though they are completely innocent? Look at the witch hunt etc that went on after the things about Jimmy Saville came out. One of daughters’ boyfriend coaches for little kids football and even when the stuff came out about the things that went on football came out, a few parents pulled their kids out as a result and things were asked.
Unless it was known about and nothing done, it’s not a failing.
As you quite rightly say no system is infallible, but you don’t have to be clever to evade being caught given most are caught by accident almost. What’s clever in not telling people who might dob you in what you are up to. I don’t have much of a clue what goes on behind the closed doors of people’s (including close family) lives nor do I want to and similarly no one knows what goes on behind my closed door and neither should they.
Frankly I dont care about the repercussions, I care about those victims. I care the offenders are brought to justice. I don’t care how much more admin it causes me. I care that we deal with this now, correctly and move on with our lives. Something which those poor kids have struggled to do.
Sometimes Teflon I really wonder why you are in the ATC. You should consider joining the WI or something else.
So you don’t care about the family of the accused? Remember there are always two groups in these things and both sides deserve to be treated with respect and decency. Their family would have been completely innocent and will get targeted and persecuted by societies divs for the ‘sins of their father/mother/brother/sister’.
Personally I see the prosecutions we have seen wrt historic cases as being a waste of time and money and rapidly lose their news value and is only organisations and society self-flagellating to make it feel better about itself. What on earth comes of prosecuting people in their 70s or 80s or 90s for things they did 20+ years ago? Then there are those that are unfounded, which destroy the lives of those accused. Look at people like Tony Blackburn because he didn’t say anything, was stripped of his position by the BBC and Paul Gambaccini a few unfounded accusations which ruined his life and who had his friends pursued and questioned by the plod looking to get a prosecution. If the system in this country was that no one was named until found guilty and in a non-guilty verdict the accuser named, it would be much better. But no, as soon as the police start sniffing around, the media find out and the police can’t wait to spill the beans, along the lines of we have had reported unsubstantiated accusation, nothing absolutely concrete and proved beyond doubt, but we are prepared to see them ruined on the back of this. They should stick to standing around with speed cameras.
I wonder why people come out after living with it for years, what purpose does it serve to say things decades later, when the accused may well be dead or mentally incapable. This is why I feel we should have a statute of limitations of maximum 10 years. That way things are relatively fresh in the minds of people, not 20+ years previous when memories are blurred and open to suggestion.
I disagree. I think the prosecutions are important because the victims do deserve justice. What isn’t needed is some kind of witch hunt that spills over into the organisations today. There is no point spending public money on inquiries into how these things happened as we know full well that safeguarding has completely changed since then, and is ahead of many other organisations that deal with young people.
I do think there needs to be more protection into the accused from a publicity perspective. Our culture is supposed to be innocent until proven guilty, but someone named in public as being accused of a sexual offence against a child is going to carry a stigma with them even if found not-guilty. When they are found guilty then they should be named.
To convict someone you have to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that they did it, just because you can’t do this doesn’t mean that the victim made it all up and should be named and shamed.
Why do people come forward in later life? Lots of reasons, it could be that after all these years they finally tell a loved one who encourages them to come forward, it could be that when someone else speaks out they realise that they aren’t alone. Either way you can’t deny victins justice because it happened years ago.
By the same token neither should the accused be named, it can’t be proved they did it. If it means cases held in camera so be it. Not good for 24 hour news needing to fill dead time.
I’ve read the reports in the paper about some of these and other historic cases and you sense the years really cloud things on all sides and as a result the accused are dead men walking. Having a statute of limitations means less time passing between the act and coming forward and things a lot fresher and the perpetrator younger. A statute of limitations doesn’t deny anything, other than time.
Back to the programme, did it really annoy anyone else how the presenter was delivering historic cases framed as if they were current in the way she spoke?
As we all know and has been said above, the processes and structure have completely changed. I would argue that the mindsets have too of many - many people are now very ready to question something they feel is a little off and I’m sure we’ve all looked at someone we don’t know with a very skeptical eye
That’s normal for these things. Through all the celeb witch hunts when referring to organisations it was always intimated that it was going on today by the intonation of the reports.
True. Darn media.
So… I’ve heard nothing about it from cadets, parents, MOPs, and we’re still receiving enquiries from parents of interested darlings - has anyone had anything different or did our rush-job media training merely give us an insight into how quickly the CoC _can _ act when it needs to out of self-preservation? I have this image in my head of big barcodes around the country running in circles and rocking in office corners…
Nope, nothing. I think most of the viewers were probably CFAVs who wanted to see what it said! I couldn’t find historical viewing figures, but I don’t think panorama gets the viewing figures it once did, especially with a late night tuesday slot.
The only people I know who have watched it have been staff out of curiosity. I lost interest after 15 minutes on the I-Player. There was nothing new to say and if people are like me, I’m bored with it now. Every so often since the revelations about Sir Jimmy, we’ve got another instance. Rightly or wrongly unless it affects you directly, you tend to read and forget.
[quote=“Giminion, post:54, topic:3103, full:true”]
how quickly the CoC _can _ act when it needs to out of self-preservation? I have this image in my head of big barcodes around the country running in circles and rocking in office corners…[/quote]
Very accurate description of what happened. I just wish they would act as quickly to rectify the bigger problems in the Corps. I don’t suppose crass mismanagement within the MoD wouldn’t really be news.