|
 |
|
When Satan Came To Town This excellent but extremely disturbing programme covered the Rochdale Satanic Abuse case of 1990 which saw 16 children removed from their homes during dawn raids conducted by Rochdale Social Services and Police. The BBC pursued the release of information through the Courts and managed to obtain the original video footage of the children's interviews. Now aged between 18 and 29, 6 of the young people agreed to appear on the programme and spoke of the events of those 6 months and beyond and the lasting damage that has been done. The Council did not take up the offer to participate in the programme, trying unsuccessfully to stop the BBC broadcast, though they did issue a statement to the BBC. The case began with Daniel, 6 years old at the time. His behaviour of hiding under the table caused concern to his teacher, who decided to report this to Social Services. They decided to take in all 4 children and their mother for questioning. The raid to remove the children and their mother was conducted early in the morning, they recall being in bed when they heard banging on the door and shouting telling the mother to get out of bed and get dressed. When the police and social workers entered the house, one of the children taken that day describes how her mother was still in bed with her nightclothes on whilst surrounded by men. The same young person goes on to say how they "Didn't understand them." and "Remembered wanting to get out of the room." Beverley, the children's mother tells how she waited and waited for news of her children, then a social worker came to tell her that the children were being examined at hospital. Julie, one of the daughters, describes being asked to lie on a table. "(I) looked at Mum and then she looked at me with a sad face like she knew what they were going to do." Following the examinations, the 4 children were taken and split between two care homes. None of the children were told why. They were then treated with a callousness that is beyond belief. Stripped naked, they were put in a bath and scrubbed with wooden nail brushes. One girl told how all their clothes were binned, including the new coat that she had received for her birthday. Beverley and her husband only learned the full extent of the allegations when their solicitor told them that the police and social workers believed that they were involved in a Satanic Ritual Abuse cult. During interviews, social workers and police claimed that the 4 children initially removed, then went on to name other children known to the family. Three months after the initial raid 12 more children were taken in dawn raids. One girl recalled the raids; "It was like we were being kidnapped. Like what you see on TV." Her 18 year old brother was arrested for sexual abuse. The girl, 15 at the time, was asked to describe body parts and sexual intercourse. She was shocked when the social worker then asked her if she had ever been pregnant. She later learned that social workers believed babies were being born solely for the purpose of sacrifice during rituals. Fiona Bruce went on to explain how the belief Satanic Ritual Abuse was introduced from the US. Conferences and training courses on the subject left no doubt in the minds of child protection workers that this was a new and dangerous form of abuse. Every social worker was on the lookout for SRA everywhere. Indicators that child protection workers claimed were signs that this abuse had occurred included behaviour that clearly would be cause for concern, but also included that which most people would consider to be normal behaviour. Examples of such indicators include being afraid of the dark, being afraid of ghosts, an interest in urine and faeces and not wanting to be left with babysitters. One training video claimed; "Ritually abused 4 year olds want to play chequers." The NSPCC in Rochdale had provided a list of such indicators to their staff. Social workers ignored the children's claims which denied anything had happened, believing their denials to be further proof of abuse. The fear of ghosts, listed as an indicator, was of great interest to the social workers as Daniel had mentioned being afraid of ghosts during an early interview. An interview video showed that despite persistent denials by one girl, who insisted that she was not afraid of ghosts, social workers continued assuming that she was. They believed the ghost to be Beverley's husband, Andrew. Another video showed the social worker asking Daniel to describe the shape of a cross and asking him where he (meaning Andrew) set fire to it. The social worker was therefore able to claim that Daniel had described Andrew setting fire to a cross during a ritual, when in fact this was solely the suggestion of the social worker. Dr Donald Holt, a psychiatrist, believes that Daniel's initial statement that he was afraid of ghosts originated not from satanic rituals but from reading about ghosts at school, as well as the fact that an exorcism had been carried out at one of the houses on the estate. Julie's denials that anything had happened were ignored and not recorded by social workers in their notes on the interviews. They persisted in asking her about dreams. Professor Elizabeth Newson told us that social workers were immediately interpreting Julie's dreams as reality. Julie, however, made it clear that it was a dream that she woke up from, stating this on at least two occasions during the interviews. Neither Julie nor Daniel ever accused anyone. With prompting however, Julie began talking about other children on the estate. "We didn't understand what they were trying to get at or why they were watching us on camera." "Didn't realise that playing with toys was going to stop us from going home." Lisa, another child taken that day recalls how she was put in a room and actually locked in. Her parents were told by social workers that they were not happy with how Lisa was reacting. Lisa eventually gave up her efforts to escape the room and sat on the floor crying. Both she and her mother wrote to one another, Lisa was told that her letters had been passed on; neither received the letters that had been written to them. Social workers believed that any contact whatsoever would have allowed coded signals to be sent to the children. Lisa's parents asked "what signals are we supposed to be doing?" They were told that "If you scratch your head that meant the children had to shut up." Lisa kept asking when she could go home; the reply was always "in a couple of days". She says that after a few weeks "I knew they were lying to me." They spoke then of the rumours that had begun to circulate in the neighbourhood. People began to believe they had things buried in the back garden. The local council became concerned over the scale of the abuses apparently going on in their area. Local councillor at the time, Tony Heaford, asked the police what evidence they had. The police told him of new born babies being micro waved and children having their fingers chopped off. Mr. Heaford asked "What evidence do we have that any of this went on?" The police replied; "None." Fiona Bruce then spoke to Caroline, who was taken along with her brother and sister. Having seen what had already happened to children on the estate, Caroline's mother told her that she didn't think Caroline would be going home with her. Caroline was made a ward of court at 4.25pm and taken away. Social workers took Caroline's mother home telling her that the best thing she could do would be to go and see a solicitor. Unknown to her parents Caroline and her brother and sister were examined for signs of sexual abuse. "It wasn't nice at all." All the children were medically examined; they describe the experience in disturbing terms. "Violated" "I felt sick, I felt invaded." "In my eyes, that's abuse." "I do think that one of my parents should have been there. They can't do that to a child." During another interview a game of 'tig' was discussed. The child stated clearly that the game of tig was played by touching his tummy. Social workers immediately interpreted this as meaning on his genitals, ignoring the child's actual statement. Having found no evidence to support the allegations, police dropped the charges against the parents. Despite the police charges being dropped, the Courts imposed strict conditions of secrecy on the families involved; they couldn't even contact their local councillor or MP. Caroline spoke of how "every night I would kneel at the bottom of the bed and say "Please God, let me go home." Tony Heaford, former councillor, described the family’s position, "They didn't understand what was happening to them. Some didn't understand the letters they were being given." Due to increasing media pressure, after the children had spent 6 months in care, social services started allowing parents to see children. The media started questioning social workers and the secrecy surrounding the case. Eleven months after the first children had been taken; social workers took the case to the family courts. As the case progressed, the mistakes made by the social workers were laid bare. Professor Elizabeth Newson: "The key error right from the very start was that the social workers believed they knew best." Daniel states "I found it all really strange and really scary. I suppose you could say that was abuse in itself." The interviewing methods came in for much criticism. With the interviews being described as repetitive and bordering on interrogation. During one interview, we see a social worker repeatedly asking the child if she had seen a ghost. The child denied this. The social worker states “You didn’t’t see the ghost” and immediately ignores her own confirmation of the child’s statement, continuing “So when the ghost that frightened you....” Professor Newson tells us that “It’s very difficult for a child to withstand an adult that repeats and repeats things. Very difficult for them to deny anything.” The judge also criticised the social workers lack of training as well as criticising the entire social work department. Interviews showed social workers constantly asking for advice over a phone link. Dr Donald Holt: “It makes painful viewing.” Denies were ignored. Very distressing to watch was the video footage of an interview with Caroline. 6 years old at the time, she cried as soon as she entered the room and cried constantly for 17 minutes. Through her sobs, she kept asking to go home and asked repeatedly for her brother David. This was ignored. At one point she is heard to cry out “Leave me alone.” Throughout the video footage of Caroline’s distress, the social worker persistently attempts to interview the little girl. Professor Newson draws attention to the fact that the social worker raised her voice and was shouting at Caroline “You can’t do that”, “Are you listening Caroline?”, “Can you hear me Caroline?”. Professor Newson described how the social worker was going on and on at her. The judge described this video footage as the most abiding and disturbing parts of the case. Daniel’s response was an expletive. Professor Newson: “Social workers believed they were saving these children. They were prepared to tell quite ordinary lies.” At one point a social worker describes how Daniel spoke of being locked in a cage during one interview. In court this was proved to be untrue, Daniel never claimed this. Professor Newson: “The judge was kind enough to say it was misguided zeal, I’m more straight talking. It was a lie.” Dr Holt was asked if he believed the allegations of abuse to be true. “Found no evidence at all, I simply don’t believe it. I don’t think there was any.” The children were allowed to return home. All except for one family. Andrew and Beverley’s children were kept in care. Social workers changed their story and now claimed that poor parenting skills and debt meant they couldn’t’t look after them. Contact with their children was limited to 1 hour every month. Contact visits with Daniel were eventually limited to 1 hour a year. Social workers claimed it was too distressing for Daniel. Beverley and Andrew describe how they felt. “We were on our own. We had no support.” They spent 4 years fighting social services and got no where. Tony Heaford: “They never found anything about abuse.” Finally after 10 years in care, Daniel, the first to be taken, was allowed back and returned home around Christmas. They were not the only ones to fall victim to the Satanic Panic, during the 1980’s and 1990’s there were more than 80 reported cases of satanic ritual abuse across the UK. Not one was ever proven. It was agreed that dawn raids to remove children were harmful. The council now claims it has already apologised. 12 of the children are now taking the council to court over the damage that has been done. With the Rochdale case being seen as one of the biggest mistakes made in the last 25 years. The programme ends with some of the young people describing the lasting effects of those traumatic events. David: “My life was so messed up after what they had done.” Lisa suffers from depression and anxiety. Daniel has no self-confidence, he spoke of being unable to start conversations or talk to people. The two social workers are still working in child protection. The young people are still waiting for an apology. Jill France is registered as a social worker in Preston. This was an excellent programme and congratulations go to the BBC, Fiona Bruce and her production team for pursuing this to the courts in order to obtain the video-taped interviews. Parts of this programme did make distressing viewing, but I hope that it has opened a few eyes around the country. Thanks go also of course to the families involved who agreed to take part in this. I do not agree with the assumption that these cases are ‘mistakes’. They are created with a deliberate malice, not as an ‘accident’. I am disappointed that the NSPCC’s involvement was not covered in more detail. The NSPCC provided their staff with lists of satanic indicators. This is important because the head of the NSPCC in Rochdale at the time of this case is now the head of child protection with the Catholic Church, Eileen Shearer. Disturbingly we learn that these two social workers have remained in child protection for the last 15 years since this case. This raises a number of questions in regard to their professional’s integrity and behaviour during later cases of suspected child abuse in which they have been involved. What is also of great concern is that the current Director of Social Services in the Rochdale area wished to ignore the terror and distress caused to these children. Claiming that it makes present day child protection more difficult when we keep reviewing past cases. Following the programme, Lancashire County Council claimed that naming the social workers damaged children. It is absolutely crucial that past cases are reviewed, not just to stop false allegations against parents, but to improve services provided to those who genuinely have been abused, as well as preventing damage being done to children by the system itself. It is right that these social workers have been publicly named. Far from damaging children, it can only protect them. Parents and children should be entitled to know whether a social worker appointed to them is competent and trained to do the job they are given. They should be entitled to know if social workers actions have been criticised in previous cases, such as being found guilty of negligence, currently we are entitled to know very little about a social worker’s professional record. The fact that social workers who are guilty of professional’s misconduct or negligence are rarely disciplined is also a major concern. Quite simply, unless these two social workers can prove that they have improved their practice and attitude with regard to their work, they should not still be employed as social workers, let alone in child protection. Eileen Shearer should also be made to answer for her staff’s ready acceptance of satanic abuse and their influence on others involved in child protection.
|
 |
