Positive developments from strategy against child sex abuse
Your Letters March 17 2006
I have followed the debate on the publication of Sarah Nelson
and Sue Hampson's booklet, A Can of Worms, with much interest.
As a founder member of the cross-party working group on Survivors
of Childhood Sexual Abuse (I was secretary from 2000-2003), I
am highly delighted to see the Scottish Executive welcome its
publication and, quite separately, put forward £2m towards
funding a much-needed national strategy on this issue. This is
an area where there really are positive developments happening.
The booklet is a practical, straightforward one, with careful
researching of sources, from agencies such as my own. Feedback
I have received from survivors, childcare practitioners, educationists
and those about to work with children (eg, primary teaching students)
has been good. I cannot imagine the flood of false allegations
that Mr Jim Fairlie (March 8) predicted. Nor can I see it being
useless for public-awareness-raising of the CSA, as he goes on
to claim (March 13). On the contrary.
The booklet is meant for anyone genuinely seeking understanding
of the ways survivors may either try to accommodate or attempt
to disclose abuse in childhood, then in adolescence, or even right
into adulthood. As your own editorial pointed out, Danielle Reid
died because "in the end, no-one in authority was looking
out or speaking up for the five-year-old". Some of us have
had enough of those people who look the other way.
Another reader highlighted, quite rightly, that when Mr Fairlie
cited other child-abuse cases – eg, Cleveland – he
was wrong to use it as an example of high-profile cases which
have false accusations at their heart. If I am correct in thinking
his references to "Ayrshire – twice" involve one
which reached the High Court in Edinburgh in July 2001, he does
not have the pertinent facts about that, either.
It would be quite wrong to let this pass. I can vouch for the
fact that this case collapsed after two children, supported by
the charity I founded, gave evidence. An 11-year-old girl finished
hers after a fortnight of gruelling cross-examination by six defence
teams; her eight-year-old brother broke down after a few days.
The advocate-depute deserted the case, indicating that further
cross-examination would be detrimental to the boy's future well-being.
The case against the six individuals involved was deserted because
a very young child could not find the strength to keep going.
The Criminal Injuries Compensation Board – a body that was
able to consider all the evidence, including medical and forensic
examination statements – compensated both children with
the highest awards then possible.
Sandra Brown, The Moira Anderson Foundation, Airdrie.
Please
read our answer to this letter exposing yet another so called
expert
