Talk:Cleveland child abuse scandal/Archive 1

Archive 1

Not a daycare case

Deleted reference to "daycare hysteria". Cleveland did not involve a daycare centre and the reference to daycare centres makes no sense. --Biaothanatoi (talk) 05:01, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Additional info

I added more balanced info to this article, drawing on Campbell's 1988 review of the case. --Biaothanatoi (talk) 05:49, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Added a summary of the official report, published by the British Medical Association surfingus (talk) 01:16, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Categories

I have added cats to the article that fit. ResearchEditor (talk) 01:27, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

NPOV check

I have added the check notice since the content appears biased against the findings at the time about child abuse allegations. Much of that opposition to the allegations were led by Stuart Bell MP, and he succeeded in overturning the allegations along with many others. However, there is no mention of him in the article. To achieve balance the article should be amended in my opinion. Peterlewis (talk) 22:10, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Bell was a public advocate for the parents in this case, that's all. If you want particular information about him added to the article, then by all means, go ahead. However, a number of Bell's public statements in relation to this case turned out to be factually incorrect. For instance, a number of fathers accused in the case failed to inform Bell that they had prior convictions for child sexual assault.

Whilst the media vilified the doctors, Butler-Sloss' report concluded that the paediatricians diagnostic techniques were valid and evidence-based. Both Campbell and Richardson's books on the incident suggested that the media campaign against the pediatricians was a moral panic against a female doctor who touched kids bums as part of general medical checks.

This article is not a pulpit from which to reproduce Bell's incorrect claims. If you want information about his role in the incident included in this article, then go ahead. Simply restating information provided by Bell, which later turned out to be false, isn't so helpful. --Biaothanatoi (talk) 02:38, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

That sounds very POV and against the conclusions of Butler-Sloss. Where is your evidence for sexual abuse convictions against the parents? The whole point of Wiki articles is to give a balanced view of a topic. Sir Stuart Bell is a distinguished member of Parliament, and not some hack journalist. Peterlewis (talk) 15:30, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I own the Butler-Sloss report, and, to my mind, I'm accurately reporting the inquiry's conclusions. Please show me where I have made an error of fact.

Butler Sloss, p 36 "Among the famlies affected were those well-known to Social Services Department, with long-standing familiy problems and a history of social work interventions, but no previous allegations of sexual abuse. There were parents with previous convictions for sexual offences against children (Schedule 1 offenders). There were families with children who were failing to thrive".

If you think Bell should be mentioned here, then go for it. It's not an issue. You just need to ensure that you include Bell in here in a NPOV way. Bell was an advocate for some parents, but not all.

For instance, on p46 of the Butler Sloss report, one mother expressed gratitude to Higgs for diagnosing her child with sexual abuse, since her husband was a Schedule 1 sexual offender with previous convictions that he had hidden from her.

Butler Sloss p 46 "She said that Mr Stuard Bell M.P. had spoken to her husband and believd her husband when he said he had not committed sexual abuse. Mr Bell telephoned her and would not accept her point of view. She told the Official Solicitor that Mr Bell said: "the bairn's been told to say she was abused". He told her he had seen her Social Services file, which she found very upsetting."

So your "distinguished member of parliament" believed the word of a convicted sexual offender over his daughter, and his wife, and breached this woman's confidence by illegally accessing her Social Services file? Nice guy.

Bulter Sloss goes into great detail to document that many parents in the Cleveland case were pleased with Higgs and the doctors and social workers, and the report explicitly states that the media has driven a campaign of misinformation against the doctors and social workers. All I'm saying is that we should not blindly reproduce that misinformation here. --Biaothanatoi (talk) 03:34, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Source for information

This quote mentions a lot but has no reference

"Some parents in this case directly engaged journalists in contesting the child protection interventions. Media coverage focused particularly on a technique, known as reflex anal dilatation, that had been used to diagnose some children with sexual abuse. In only 18 of the suspected cases was anal dilation the only medical evidence of abuse, however, media coverage erroneously indicated that Higgs and Wyatt had relied solely on this indicator. The media also failed to report that many of the children's families had documented histories of abuse. Seventeen of the children lived with fathers or other relatives who had already been convicted of sexual offences, and several other children were outpatients after their parents had been registered as having harmed their children."

That paragraph has many allegations. A proper wikipedia entry needs references or else it deserves to be omitted. Teesside dazza (talk) 07:03, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

It comes from Campbell's book "Unofficial Secrets", which is referenced on the page. I'll dig up some page numbers. --Biaothanatoi (talk) 03:35, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I have just spotted the comments by Surfingus (at the bottom of this thread).

Sadly he or she is both wrong in fact and in law. He or she is also evidently perfectly happy to make defamatory comments about my work and my personal attitude to the victims of abuse (as it happens I have worked extensively with abused children as well as with paedophiles, campaigned - successfully - to get a major law change AND made programmes heavily critical of the lack of care provided to vulnerable or damaged children by inflexible local authorities.

With respect, might I sugges to Wikipedia that it monitors its contributors and remind them that a on-line encyclopaedia is the last place which should allow inaccurate and /or defamatory remarks.

As to Surfingus: grow up and have the courage to emerge from your juvenile penname.

TimTate (talk) 16:36, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I did not make nor write those comments. May I suggest you examine the signing more carefully.

I have added another link to a Sunday Times article on this issue. surfingus (talk) 13:46, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

The link to the article by Charles Pragnell, Children Webmag, UK (which I didn't supply), didn't work. I have sourced this article and provided a working link to his article. surfingus (talk) 17:19, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Effects of the sexual abuse on the now grown children

I have added some updated facts relating to the effect that this behaviour by these two doctors had upon the now grown children.

I have also included links to back this up. Surfingus 16:26, 14 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Surfingus (talk • contribs)

In 1998 I produced a 60-minute documentary for Channel 4 which re-investigated the Cleveland Child Abuse Crisis ("Unspeakable Truths"). My colleagues and I researched the subject for very many months and obtained a large quantity of paperwork which had not been presented in public. Several disturbing points emerged.

1. There was prime facie evidence of sexual and/or physical abuse for almost every one of the 121 children at the heart of the Crisis. 2. In many caes the children were living in the same houses as convicted sex offenders; had lengthy previous histories of neglect and/or abuse; had made very plain attempts (for those who had reached an age at which they could speak) to tell someone that they were being abused. 3. Under media onslaught (truly dishonest and disgraceful junk journalism) both Cleveland Social Services and the Courts which were supposed to hear the cases simply ceased properly to operate. One judge, for example, refused to have evidence "about children's bottoms" presented in court. 4. Not merely was RAD (Reflex Anal Dilation) rarely if ever used as a sole diagnostic test, but despite the extraordinarily inaccurate reporting at the time, was a technique recognised as both accurate and important by all the medical establishment and the police service. 5. The Butler-Sloss enquiry cost £5 million and never - due to its remit - even considered the essential question: had the children been abused ? It did, however, aim much of its most severe criticism at Stuart Bell - the MP whose disgraceful behaviour turned a difficult sitiation into an impossible one. 6. The Conservative government actively intervened after the Crisis to order that all records of the 121 children as a group be destroyed.

For those that wish to see the uncomfortable truth about Cleveland, I'm not embarassed to recommend my film. It's certainly agreat deal more honest than anything you'll read in the Daily Mail etc.

Tim Tate 194.72.160.132 (talk) 17:59, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Need I point out that you are not a reliable source, per se. Your film might be interesting, but it could only be useful toward improving this article if it points to reliable sources. (And, for what it's worth RAD is now recognized as being inaccurate. If it was recognized as being accurate at the time, that might be interesting.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:12, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

To Arthur Rubin: Actually, you need to be able to justify your assertion that I am not a reliable source. Since I spent many months researching the crisis; spoke with many of those involved and - crucially - got hold of all the internal documents presented to the Enquiry (which to the best of my knowledge and belief no other jouirnalist ever attempted to read)... the results of which which I published both in a documentary and in a book, I think I do have the right to claim authority. Of course, if you - or anyone else - knows better, then you should provide some evidence for your assertion: otherwise, withdraw it.

Tim Tate TimTate1 (talk) 18:03, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't intend to imply that you are not reliable, or that you are, for that matter. However, you are not a reliable source, as Wikipedia defines it. You would basically have to be a recognized news organization, to the point where it would be considered a major scandal if you had doctored the evidence. We accept the New York Times, as a reliable source, even though they've been scammed from time to time. We do not accept the The National Enquirer, even though they've been known to post a truthful article from time to time. Your book might be considered reliable for an ordinary article, but not under WP:BLP. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:18, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. But doesn't Channel 4 - the UK's most respected commercial broadcaster - qualify as a relliable source ? (It would seem odd that - for exampke the NYT qualifies but Channel 4 doesn't). My documentary was broadcast in 1998 by Channel 4 (and, by the by, was a finalist for the Royal Television Society awards).

TimTate1 (talk) 15:33, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think TV documentaries necessarily qualify as WP:RS. For example, the "Crystal Skull" "documentaries" on the Sci-Fi channel and the History Channel do not qualify as "reliable sources" except insofar as they point to really reliable sources. I'd probably refer the matter to WP:RSN if you gave a reference to a documentary, though. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:29, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Herewith the reference, as requested. "Cleveland: Unspeakable Truths" (Part One of 3-part series - The Death of Childhood). Channel 4 Television, April 1998. I would also request that the chapter I authored on the subject in an academic work be listed as a reliable source (if Wikipedia can list Stuart Bell's lamentably inaccurate book as a source, then it should surely eb able to list an academic volume ?). The details are: “Unspeakable Truths – Child Sexual Abuse & The Media” (in ‘The Challenge of Child Sexual Abuse’ – ed. Richardson & Bacon. Pub: Jessica Kingsley,May 2001 TimTate1 (talk) 11:51, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Tim Tate's role in the British SRA allegations is described in less than glowing terms by Phil Jenkins. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 14:27, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I think someone needs to delve into the issue of the foster parents, as well. How many of them were accused of abuse by Dr. Higgs, and how many were arrested/convicted? Is this a case of thousands of people working in tandem throughout all levels of society and government to abduct, abuse and sometimes murder children, or did one sensationalist doctor make a large number of wrong diagnosis' and then refuse to admit the mistake? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.230.234.79 (talk) 20:41, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I recall your film. It was an exercise in assertion with very little actual evidence.

The angry reaction to the removal of these children, which you term hysteria, was perfectly understandable. This woman had innocent children removed from their homes! Forcibly removing a child from their parents, without just cause, is a disgusting form of abuse. It will destroy the security that children should enjoy, it will irreparably undermine the trust children have in their parents, it will insult and attack the very real and natural feelings that parents are entitled to enjoy in raising their children.

The claim that some of the children were abused is probably true. Child abuse is not uncommon but the law in Britain and other countries restricts publication of many details partly to avoid encouraging others and partly because of the voyeuristic nature of some who many wish to read these details.

But many of these families were completely innocent. Yet they were punished along with the guilty!

This sort of community penalty for the actions of a few is unacceptable in a civilised society and in law. Yet Higgs and co were not only able to behave in such a high handed manner, with utter impunity, their attitudes were arrogant and even snobbish.

This is not the sort of behaviour we should expect from doctors. These people have been granted enormous authority by society because of their particular skills.

Higgs, Wyatt and others like them should be hounded, if only to demonstrate to the medical profession that such abuse of their authority and position will never be tolerated. The law clearly refuses to protect ordinary people from the actions of doctors. This is the only legal recourse working class people have.

I would have thought, that if you actually had any genuine concern for the welfare of abused children, you would be thinking of those children whose families had not abused them. Their abuse came from Higgs and Wyatt. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Surfingus (talk • contribs) 19:41, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

It is perhaps revealing that you choose not to give your name. Certainly your contribution is the sort of unsourced, factually incorrect vitriol that is easier to hurl from behind the barricades of anonymity.

The FACTS (an important word) are as follows:-

1) My film produced chapter and verse evidence that many of the "innocent" parents had previous convictions for child sexual abuse and/or that their children were already registered as being at risk of either physical or sexual abuse.

2) The film also provided clear and atttibutable allegations that courts in the area had ceased to fulfil their function in assessing evidence of abuse. It documented cases where children had been returned to parents whose social service files listed - prior to the arrival of Drs Higgs and Wyatt - them as a danger to their children.

3) I also produced documentary proof that the Department of Health ordered the destruction of all case files relating to the 121 Cleveland children as a group. The DoH declined to explain this instruction when asked to do so.

Your comments about British law restricting the publication of details of child abuse cases to prevent the encouragement of abuse and/or to avoid titillation are simply wrong. Whoever you are, you have plainly not read much less understood the law.

I have spent 25 years in print, on radio, on television and in books campaigning for gerater protection of children from sexual abuse. I care not what class an abuser, an abused child or a wrongly-accused parent (and this does - of course - happen) might be. As a young woman who had been abused in Cleveland put it in my film: "I was abused as a child ... because the adults around me wouldn't make it stop."

Precisely. 194.72.160.132 (talk) 13:56, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I choose not to give my name to avoid becoming the subject of a witch-hunt.

Your claim that the courts, the social services and even the Department of Health all conspired to cover up child abuse while you, Higgs and Wyatt were acting as crusading heroes quite frankly sounds a little paranoid.

We are all concerned about child abuse, sexual and otherwise. But charging in, with both guns blazing doesn't help or work. The issues are more complicated than that.

But perhaps the most damming criticism of Higgs and Wyatt is what they claimed had happened to these children. The test they performed was a test for buggery. Nothing else. You might be forgiven for not understanding the implications of such unlikely allegations, Higgs and Wyatt cannot.

This document describes the anal dilatation test and its effectiveness in diagnosing child abuse.

http://gut.bmj.com/cgi/content/abstract/32/6/670?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=reflex+anal+dilatation&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&sortspec=relevance&resourcetype=HWCIT

The anus has a limited dilation. Exceeding this will result in anal tearing. Moreover, the rectum can be easily torn by insertion. In any case, extreme pain will result together with nausea. It is conceivable that some children may be able to endure buggery with few ill effects. It is not conceivable that over 100, in a given sample, would.

To get an idea of what happens, think of the width of a bowel movement. A bowel movement is produced naturally and exits in the designed direction. That will give you an idea of the maximum dilation capability of the anus.

My comments about British law regarding descriptions of child abuse are perfectly accurate. There are a number of laws relating to these matters, not least, the Obscene Publications Acts.

It is fully appreciated that you care little for wrongly accused people in your campaign against child abuse. That is why I and so many are so strongly opposed to people like you.

The tendency toward this sort of blanket accusations bring the entire effort against child abuse into general disrepute. To that extent, it is people such as you, Higgs and Wyatt who are partly responsible of the lack of help for girls such as the young woman you describe.surfingus (talk) 16:44, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Numerical discrepancy?

The first sentence mentions 121 "cases" (presumably each case is a separate supposed victim); a later sentence in the same paragraph mentions 121. We are told that, of the 121, 96 cases were dismissed. 121 – 96 = 25. We are told that 26 (not 25) "children" (cases) (presumably of the 121) were found to have been wrongly diagnosed. It seems that findings of incorrect diagnosis are different from dismissals. 96 + 26 = 122 (not 121). And then the paragraph mentions yet other cases, involving protection orders. 96 + 26 + others > 121. Is there overlap, or what number is wrong? — President Lethe (talk) 02:56, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I've been unable to get any clarity on this as yet from Child Webmag about their summary either. Chapter 1 of the Butler-Sloss report apparently states that 165 children were examined and 165 children were examined and 125 diagnoses of sexual abuse made but more detailed breakdowns given there are that 78 were made by Higgs aand 43 by Wyatt, and that 21 children remained in care and 98 were returned to their family. I'll edit to clarify if I get a reply to my enquiry but it would be good to get the article into better shape. LookingGlass (talk) 10:00, 9 October 2013 (UTC)