'Can everyone please calm down about child abuse?' pleaded Claire Fox, of the Institute of Ideas, in one of the few sane and sober commentaries I'd read on the subject. If only those foolish enough to spread suspicion and rumour on the back of the perverse dynamics of the Savile hysteria had heeded these wise words.
Fox wrote the piece following an appearance on Newsnight that, she said, prompted a "minor Twitchunt". Ironically enough sounding not disimilar to that which was to nearly sink said BBC flagship only days later as it embarked on its own rumour-mongering tarted up as investigative journalism.
In a misguided effort to undo the criticisms of what, in retrospect, might be regarded as an admirably cautious editorial decision not to run the Savile documentary; it took the 'nudge, nudge, wink, wink' approach instead. And in so doing it indulged in the kind of thing that supposedly respectable media organisations have, post-Leveson, been accusing the gutter press of.
As Fox had warned against they opted "to treat rumour as fact". Not unlike those other investigations not worthy of the name: notorious social services departments pursued imagined and (as it turned out) imaginary episodes of child abuse in the 1980s. Children were taken from their families on the grounds of scarily-wacky social work theories about Satanic Abuse or, as Fox puts it, because of the ridiculous conviction that 'all victims must be believed'.
Having written my own piece for The Huffington Post UK disputing the much-repeated statistic that 1 in 4 children are abused, this social work favourite was cited in response. We don't believe your statistics I was told. They 'minimise' abuse. Children don't lie, apparently. And if they do lie, according to the bizarre and twisted logic of abuse hysteria, its because they are hiding something. Probably abuse.
That these sorts of ideas 'inform' the decision making of a profession whose reputation rises and falls on the perceived wisdom of its interventions into children's and families lives is scandalous. Or at least it would be if we weren't so obsessed with (actually rare) child abuse. As I explained in my blog, only 0.4% of children are even deemed to be at risk of any kind of abuse - mostly neglect and emotional abuse, and a few cases of physical abuse.
This is in contrast with the exaggerated claims of rampant abuse being made in the context of a controversy about alleged incidences of sexual abuse. The inference at least is clear. As I stated at the time, the category of sexual abuse wasn't even listed in my Department for Education statistical source such was its rarity. However, on reading a recent publication by the Parliamentary Education Committee, I am now able to put a figure on this latter category too.
There were 2,370 children thought to be at risk of sexual abuse in 2011. The mid-2010 estimate of the population of 0-17 year olds is 11,045,400. This means that the authorities suspected that 0.02% of children in England were at risk of sexual abuse last year. And this is post-Victoria Climbie when social workers are more suspicious than ever and under pressure to discover more cases of potential abuse than they were before. Another reason, incidentally, to be weary of a dynamic that creates anxieties in professionals too as the 'something must be done' brigade, also cited by Fox, gets louder and louder.
As she argues, organising society around a "heightened sense of child protection" is costly in every sense of the word; both for the already stretched social care system and in terms of societal trust. But this doesn't seem to stop those with the lowest view of their fellow human beings insisting that whatever the figures say, we don't know what's going on 'behind closed doors'. Indeed we don't, but since when did that become an argument for suspecting the very worst? We have every reason to believe the opposite.
By massively overstating the problem of child abuse they are already undermining our relationships with each other and with the institutions in which we might once have invested our trust. The irony being that the likely consequence of the anxieties promoted by those fuelling the Savile affair is a less safe environment for all of our children. One in which adults (and children alike) are less likely to seek the help of strangers; and are far less minded to intervene if they see a child in distress or danger, for fear of being suspected of something untoward. Such is the legacy of child abuse hysteria.
Follow Dave Clements on Twitter: www.twitter.com/davec1ements
Neil Wallis: How a By-Election Proves State Regulation of the Press is WRONG
The whole concept is flawed and hysteria has set in!
Whilst it was not uncommon in the 1950's and 60's for teenage girls to be touched inappropriately by their peers, adult co-workers and/or bosses, most laughed it off and got on with their lives. Times have changed and most adults do not touch nowadays!
Some sick individuals still have a desire for sex with children, but get it into perspective, they are still very much in the minority!
He no longer feels he can approach or comfort someone else's hurt or frightened child with any degree of safety.
(Obviously, in a life-threatening situation he would throw political correctness to the winds, but still ...)
Even the "lord" (whose name must not be mentioned) has been investigated in the past but no action has ever been taken. Now, that may be because he is innocent, but why the cover ups. Something is radically wrong here but those that the top will deflect and cover any real evidence. This article does nothing to help anything, except to help a writer to increase his persona and self worth.
The "lord" (whose name must not be mentioned), was investigated several times in the past, not only for alleged child abuse, but fraud. he's not alone. I'm sure you have seen the list of highest profile offenders. The Exposure prog last night came closer to claiming that high profile members in the Thatcher cabinet were complicit in the abuse by savile. Why?
Whilst I don't want a wich hunt, I do want investigations. However, the real danger here is that this goes quite high and to investigate some of these "alleged" paedophiles would damage this country severely and I fear that attitudes as the one you appear to have is nothing but damaging to the protection of children. Without hysteria, this issue must be followed to the bitter end. Genuine victims of such abuse need encouragement, unfortunately your article gives anything but!
I don't really see the point of this article at all?"
You say:
'' There were 2,370 children thought to be at risk of sexual abuse in 2011. The mid-2010 estimate of the population of 0-17 year olds is 11,045,400. This means that the authorities suspected that 0.02% of children in England were at risk of sexual abuse last year. ''
The report says:
'' Thousands of children each year are being sexually exploited by gangs in England "who humiliate, violate and control them", according to an interim report.
Figures published midway through a two-year inquiry, which was ordered by the government, found 2,409 children and young people were confirmed victims between August 2010 and October 2011.''
YOU HAVE MISREAD THE STATISTICS
The figure you are using is for children at risk from sexual abuse BY GANGS!!!
NOT THE NATIONAL TOTAL!!!
1. child abuse figures are overstated
2. you know this because a paper in 2011 identified 2,370 children as being at risk - (that's a very precise figure, wouldn't you say?)
3. Therefore anyone who questions this figure must be exaggerating it.
It seems plain that the 2011 figure is the result of someone asking the question - "how many children do you know to be at risk?"
If someone had asked the question "How many children do you estimate are at risk that you DON'T know about?" the figure might be rather different.
So look again at your figur of 2,370. Assuming that each paedophile assaults only one child, that means that there are only 2,370 perverts in the entire country! But hang on - what about Jimmy Savile? He seems to have accounted for more than 300 by himself - maybe if paedophiles are actually serial rapists, and assault - oh - ten each? that means that there are only 200 paedophiles in the country!
Result!
Er------- why is it that I just don't like that conclusion? Maybe that 2,370 figure just isn't right.
Given that one paedophile apears to have abused hundreds of children, it would be foolish in the extreme to refuse to make the assumption that there ight be another like him. As an approach to risk management, that would be, frankly, reckless.
The 16,000 figure of children at risk is actually well founded. Those children display the typical indicators of vulnerability - skipping school, drinking, drug abuse, stealing, hanging round with random adults. That is why they are KNOWN to be at risk - but if you meant that in a lrage number of cases the risk will not turn into an actual instance of abuse - well of course.
But all they are saying is that 16,000 children are in the at-risk bracket, and their analysis is backed up by lots of experience of the type of child displaying "at-risk" behaviour.
You say I am incorrect to suggest that there are 2,370 perverts in Britain. OK, how many are there, and how do you know?