Wednesday, February 28, 2007

Cleveland – 20 Years On

The Cleveland child sexual abuse scandal was re-examined in a Radio 4 program earlier in the week (RealPlayer format)

For those not familiar with the details of the case, it was briefly as follows. In Cleveland, in 1987, a local paediatrician, Dr Marietta Higgs, began to diagnose large numbers of children as having been sexually abused. Whenever a child was referred to her for an unrelated problem such as asthma, she took the opportunity to perform an ‘anal dilatation reflex’ test. This involved parting the child’s buttocks to see whether the child’s anus dilated. If it did, she took this as a sole indicator of sexual abuse – in effect, she assumed that the father was sodomising the child. She did not seek any corroborating evidence.

There was no scientific basis for this test’s reliability. In fact, "…the test shows positive in the normal child if a stool is present". Reference

Higgs was motivated not by science, but purely by ideology. She believed that child sexual abuse is rampant, a kind of hidden holocaust taking place behind every suburban net curtain. She set herself the goal of uncovering it.

It is obvious that she also believed that only men were committing these acts even though the evidence that women commit child sexual abuse is well documented.

Higgs, ostensibly a trained medical scientist, is not interested in the facts.

She also has a strangely narrow concept of what constitutes sexual abuse. What if the father was forcing the child to perform fellatio for example? This would not show up in an anal dilatation reflex test. Basing a diagnosis on this test alone is patently absurd.

The total referrals to Cleveland Social Services for all forms of child abuse during the period January to July 1987 were 505 referrals compared with only 288 referrals in the equivalent period in the previous year. Reference

All of these referrals were made by Higgs, assisted by a colleague, Geoff Wyatt.

Once these allegations had been made, social workers were removing the children from their families on Place of Safety Orders, often in midnight and dawn raids on the family home where children were taken from their beds and placed in foster homes and residential homes. The initial crisis came when there were no more foster homes or residential home placements to accommodate the numbers of children involved and a special ward had to be set up at the hospital to accommodate the children who continued to be diagnosed as having been sexually abused.

Increasingly the diagnosis using the anal dilation test was being challenged by the police surgeon, who questioned the validity of such a test, and the police gradually withdrew their co-operation in the cases referred by the consultant paediatricians. Relationships between the police, social workers, and the paediatricians broke down as the dispute in medical opinions escalated.

In the early months of the crisis, the allegations involved working-class families, who were confused, bewildered, and angry at being accused of sexually abusing their children, but they were powerless against middle-class professionals with the authority, power, and legal sanctions to support their actions. Gradually, however, the allegations began to involve middle-class families who were highly educated, employed in professional occupations, and with access to legal and political advice and to the media. They were to use such powerful allies to considerable effect. From a sociological perspective, therefore, the events in Cleveland could be seen as a punitive form of middle-class oppression of working-class families by middle-class professionals and an imposition of middle-class values on the working classes".
(My emphasis) More especially, it can be seen as an imposition of middle-class women's arrogance and neuroses towards working-class men. The source continues: "Some aspects of the Cleveland Child Sexual Abuse Scandal have been likened to a mediaeval witch-hunt by at least one author (`When Salem came to the Boro' - Rt. Hon. Stuart Bell, Member of Parliament for Middlesbrough - 1988).

In the initial months of the crisis, public sympathy and concern was strongly in support of the social workers and paediatricians and the media, pursuing their simplistic analysis of all situations as having `goodies' and `baddies', also supported the social workers. Several social workers and managers within the Social Services had serious doubts about what was happening, but although they voiced their concerns to senior managers, they too were powerless to change events.

Public concern centred on the removal of children from their beds at all hours of the night and fear spread among the local population…The turning point of events came in late May on the day that the parents decided to march from the hospital where their children were being held to the offices of the local newspaper, and they began telling their versions of events, which of course varied considerably from the narrative constructions of the paediatricians and social workers. Gradually, the media turned to support the parents, and the social workers came under intense public and political scrutiny, which eventually led to the setting up of a Public Inquiry led by Justice Butler-Sloss.

The Inquiry examined the cases involving 121 children where sexual abuse was alleged to have been identified using the anal dilation test and the actions of the paediatricians and social workers involved. Of these 121 cases where sexual abuse of the children was alleged, the Courts subsequently dismissed the proceedings involving 96 of the children, i.e. over 80% were found to be false accusations".
In the remaining 29 cases, a medical panel found that 25% of these had not been abused either. The remaining cases require further examination.

"One of the major findings of the Butler-Sloss Inquiry was that children had been removed precipitately by social workers who had failed to seek corroborative evidence to support the allegations of the paediatricians and had failed to carry out comprehensive assessments of the children and their families. Consequently a requirement was introduced that social workers should not act solely on the basis of medical opinion.

Concerns were also expressed at the Inquiry regarding the use of video-recording equipment for surveillance of interviews with children and the use of anatomically-correct dolls in the questioning of children where sexual abuse was alleged. During such video-recorded sessions, social workers were seen to threaten and attempt to bribe children in order to bring pressure on the children to confirm the social worker's views that they had been abused and leading questions were asked of the children which would not have been permitted in courts. The interviews of the children by the social workers also confused the investigatory nature of such interviews with a therapeutic purpose. Where interviews containing a therapeutic element with children where abuse is alleged are conducted before trial, courts could take the view that such interviews contaminated and corrupted the children's evidence…One of the key issues in the Cleveland Child Sex Abuse Scandal was the power of professional groups in U.K. society, and how those powers can be misused and abused in the absence of accountability in law and for professional practice.

Higgs and Wyatt were banned from child protection work. They got off too lightly. At the very least, they should have been struck off the medical register.

Since 1987, the people of Cleveland have sought to move on from this unsavoury episode in the area's history and to gradually remove the slurs and scars to the reputation of what has always been a vibrant industrial and commercial community.
Perhaps the most lasting effect has been the climate of fear which was created and engendered in the parents of young children by events in Cleveland in 1987, not only in Cleveland but the rest of the U.K. In the 1980s male parents were becoming more accepting of their role as direct carers of their children and to share roles with their female partners, commonly referred to as the `Sensitive New Age Guys' [SNAGs]. This involved the male parent in bathing and dressing their children and performing other acts of personal care. Following Cleveland, many male parents withdrew from these activities from fear that their actions might be seen as unhealthy by social workers and might be misinterpreted by social workers as having an unnatural interest in their children, and they feared allegations of child abuse could be made against them…

The Radio 4 program carefully avoided condemning Higgs and her fellow witch-finders. From the opening seconds, the poignant piano music, the female voice saying “I was aged nine. I was taken to hospital and examined”, this program seemed to go out of its way to suggest that there really had been child sexual abuse going on in Cleveland. It sounded to me like obfuscation. It was a program that was hiding something.

The fact that the police eventually refused to co-operate with the witch-hunt was represented by the program as a 'professional turf war'. It was no such thing. It is not the case that everyone agreed that abuse was taking place, but they argued over who had the right to deal with it, in order to advance their own careers. That would be a turf war. In fact, the police surgeons simply didn't believe what Higgs was saying. And they were right. The program seemed to be condemning anyone who stood in the way of the witch-hunt, effectively accusing the police of incompetence and obstruction. The opposite is the case. The police surgeons were the ones acting professionally.

The BBC program interviewed Beatrix Campbell, of all people, who was introduced as ‘having written about abuse from a feminist perspective’. No mention of the fact that she grossly distorted and exaggerated the issues in order to promote her radical lesbian feminist political agenda. No mention of the fact that her partner Judith Jones was one of the witch-finders in chief.

An article by the British False Memory Society states:
“Ms Jones, together with her partner, journalist Beatrix Campbell, has been a longstanding opponent of the BFMS. As part of a campaign to uphold 'recovered memory' theory, both Campbell and Jones have sought to blacken the name of the BFMS over many years. The most flagrant example of this was in their 1999 co-written book Stolen Voices which sought to portray, through misinformation and misrepresentation, the BFMS and other critics, as part of a 'paedophile's lobby'. Unsurprisingly, the totally unfounded slurs in the book resulted in a queue of people intending to take legal action. Responding to the first of many potential claims, the publishers withdrew the book the day before publication.

One facet of Ms Jones' campaign against the BFMS was the setting up of a group of therapists and 'recovered memory' clients, Daughters and Their Allies (DATA). Based in Newcastle, the group's specific object was to discredit the BFMS and promote 'recovered memory' claims. However, very little is known about this shadowy organisation.

Ms Jones was also, under her married name Judith Dawson, an instigator of the 'satanic abuse' scare in Nottingham in 1989. Her pivotal role in disseminating false information fuelled the Rochdale and Orkneys abuse fiascos. The reckless approach adopted by Judith Dawson/Jones in investigating these cases was identified by a joint police social services inquiry in the JET report. However, having been accepted by the police, and social services director, David White, planned publication of the summary final report was successfully blocked by Ms Dawson and her team who waged a campaign of slur and innuendo against the authors of the report. The upshot was that belief in satanic abuse and the unsound methods of investigation continued to permeate the world of welfare professionals and activists, with Ms Dawson retaining unjustified influence for many years.”

Campbell’s main contribution to the program was to argue that, as a result of the Cleveland case, child protection agencies have been ‘disempowered’, that they are ineffectual after having had their wings clipped. She does not make the effort to ask herself why this happened. The tacit implication is that it is some kind of evil conspiracy. The fact is, these so-called professionals showed themselves to be hysterical, gullible, power-mad fools. If they have had their powers limited, it is their own fault.

The program clearly stated that some children had been abused, but did not provide any grounds for the claim. It radically underplayed the fact that most of the children involved had not been abused. It failed to tell the listeners the fact that Cleveland was an anti-family, anti-male witch-hunt, orchestrated for political reasons by radical feminists. It failed to point out that law-abiding families were torn apart, and that dozens of innocent fathers were accused of anally raping their children under the noses of their wives.

The BBC is not the only mainstream media outlet which continues to defend the witch-hunts. An article (originally published in 1989) in Health Matters, which bills itself as ‘Serious coverage of today's health service and public health issues’, states: “The concentration on how professionals handled the situation they found themselves in does nothing for the Rape Crisis movement or for Women’s Aid groups which are still getting on with the business of dealing with the same problems as ever - problems rooted in male attitudes to women… For all his outrageous behaviour, MP Stuart Bell still command (sic) massive support in his Middlesborough constituency”. Unbelievable. The ‘Rape Crisis movement’ and ’Women’s Aid groups’ are the very source of the problem. These people are motivated by a radical ideological agenda which seeks to destroy the family and demonise men. Stuart Bell enjoys the support of his constituents because they enjoy his support. He was brave, honest and intelligent enough to stand up to the anti-family witch-hunt destroying his community. The Health Matters article is a disgraceful piece, dripping with feminist ideological dogma and anti-male bias. The author has the gall to suggest that the people are wrong to support their Member of Parliament; that by defending the interests of his constituents, he is somehow unfit for office. Thus we see the feminist contempt for democracy laid bare. It concludes, “Cleveland will not easily lose its association with the ‘unmentionable’ crime. But the chance to become known for bringing a new approach to male violence seems increasingly remote”

A more balanced approach is taken by The Sunday Sun, a local paper from the north-east.

What is never mentioned by these various sources is the effect that the case had on the fathers who were wrongly accused. No-one speaks for them.

The message is clear: Those responsible for the Cleveland witch-hunt still believe that they were right, and that the system failed them. They are waiting in the wings for another opportunity to destroy families, and separate children from their fathers by using false accusations. These people will not stop until they are forcibly stopped.


Christian J said...

I honestly believe that the Men's movement should demand a judicial hearing into the abuses and downright malicious actions that feminists aimed at families and men in particular.

Cases should be bought to court and sentences should be handed out.

This is totally incomprehensible.

jbgood2 said...

The two paediatricians at the centre of the scandal - Dr Marietta Higgs and Dr Geoffrey Wyatt - declined to take part in the programme . . . Cleveland 20 Years On.

But its producer Smita Patel visited Dr Higgs at her home in Gillingham, Kent, for an off-the-record briefing.

Here is a quote from the Sunday Sun.

"Both Dr Higgs and Dr Wyatt still work in children's medicine. Dr Wyatt remains in Middlesbrough and Dr Higgs works from Medway Maritime Hospital in Kent. "To this day, Marietta Higgs doesn't accept that the diagnosis was wrong," says Ms Patel."

Sadly these people are still allowed to work with children and Higgs refuses to accept the possibility that she was wrong which is a slap in the face for the men who were falsely accussed. Two men hung themselves in Durham Jail leaving children fatherless as a result of their actions. This country needs a false addussers register with proper penalties for the perpetrators.

John Doe said...

speaking of false memories and accusations, you might find this interesting. Note the close alignment of an advocate of "recovered memories" with those who would say parental alienation is a tool of abusers. (Well, it is, but the abusers are the alienators who don't want you to look behind the curtain.)

Field Marshall Watkins said...

The problem lies with the Judicial System and the Govt. They are both infested with the virus of feminism, and until people with grit start making some noise, nothing is going to happen.

Anonymous said...

These Lesbian Lead groups should be charged in the US under the RICCO Act, as ongoing Criminal Enterprises. Their Assets seized, and Leadership sent to Prison for long Prison sentences.

I have a former business Partner who went through this scenario. It damaged his family for 15 years. And caused him to spend several Hundred thousands of dollars in Legal Expenses. The Santa Clara County Woman in charge of the Child Services fled the country! One Step ahead of indictment.

Also burried by the News Media was what happened to the Camp Fire Girls Camp run by Lesbians in the San Mateo Mountains. Closed due to hundreds of Girls Molested.

I was a Scout Leader at the time it happened and remember it vividly. And this is one of the principle reasons the Boy Scouts will not allow Gay Scout Leaders.


BrusselsLout said...

As Heretic rightly intimates in his report, there is something fishy going on with using Beatrix Campbell as an advisor. What possible light could an author of trashy novels throw on paediatric medicine or psychology? What light could a lesbian throw on family life? What light could a man-hater throw on fathers and husbands? And, probably worse, why did the BBC stoop so low as to use a person like this in a discussion on precisely these subjects?

It would be like seeking Hitler's advice on peace or Peter Sutcliffe's on gynecology. I'm not joking. The only reason Campbell is not a serial killer of men is because she's physically incapable of it.

Ah, but I forgot. She's a professor at a university. (Of wimmin's studies.)

Anonymous said...

Higgs and Wyatt should have been struck off the medical register. Higgs in particular was protected by the Medical Protection Society, who got her moved to a job in Scotland where she disappeared only to surface again in Kent. Look beyond these two to those bastions of the medical profession who covertly supported them so that they never lost their jobs. Watch these people, it will happen again.

BrusselsLout said...

"Higgs and Wyatt should have been struck off the medical register."

I would go further. I think Higgs should have had criminal charges filed against her for attempting to pervert the cause of justice. Or at least criminal negligence if the motivating force was professional incompetence rather than total malice.

On the optimistic side, there's still a chance. There's no statute of limitations in the UK, and a very old crime is occasionally dug up if it might send a man prison.

Anonymous said...

I suggest that you all read the Butler Sloss Inquiry which categorically states that 'there was not a shred of evidence to support any collusion, conspiracy, bad faith or impropriety’ on the part of Higgs and Richardson.
It also quite clearly states that in NO cases WHATSOEVER was anal dilatation the sole sign of abuse.
Finally of 121 children, 93 were returned home but only on conditions that they had regular health screenings or that a parent had been removed from home.
Many of the 93 represented later with further signs of sexual abuse.
The only people with a vested interest in minimising cases of abuse are abusers.

Heretic said...

"The only people with a vested interest in minimising cases of abuse are abusers"

This is hysterical, politically-motivated nonsense.

You are clearly implying that I am 'minimising cases of abuse', and that I am therefore an abuser myself. This is a profound and baseless insult.

No one is minimising the importance of child sexual abuse. The important point about these cases - Cleveland, Rochdale, Shieldfied, Orkney, Lewis, to name just a few in the UK, never mind those in the USA, Australia and New Zealand - is that in most cases, if not all, NO ABUSE TOOK PLACE.

Those making the false allegations of abuse were in many cases trying to advance their own careers, and/or trying to demonise men and destroy families as part of a wider political agenda. There is simply no way this can be denied.

I do not appreciate ad hominem attacks, little feminist.

Anonymous said...

You are clearly implying that I am 'minimising cases of abuse', and that I am therefore an abuser myself. This is a profound and baseless insult.

You have misinterpreted my comment. I am simply suggesting that the misguided comments that you are making which demonstrate no awareness of any research into the nature and prevalence of child sexual abuse only serve to support those men and women who abuse children and rely on fear and silence as their protection.

Once again I direct you to the literature on the matter including the full report of the Inquiry in order that you familiarise yourself with the realities of child abuse.

Your claims regarding the motivations of the professionals involved is quite frankly ludicrous and only displays your rampant misogyny rather than any reasoned intellect.

And as for "little feminist" - wow, what a comeback.

Educate yourself, little sexist.

Heretic said...

So, first you imply that I am a child abuser, and now you accuse me of beng a 'misogynist', and 'sexist'. I have given you no reason to draw these conclusions. All you have is insults and ad hominem attacks. I will not submit to your emotional games.

I put it to YOU that there has been a Christian-fundamentalist/radical-feminist inspired witch-hunt against men, intended to demonise men and split up families. There is no way you can deny this. In the overwhelming majority of cases, no abuse took place. Read my article on the Orkney fiasco, again feminist driven. Read this webpage. Read this page too.

I amless sexist than you, and probaly more educated. I just don't happen to agree with you. Get used it it.

Anonymous said...

No, what I have is years of research into this field and a well read library of literature regarding these cases and child sexual abuse more generally.

Until you are prepared to engage intelligently with the extensive research then you will coninue to mis-represent the events of specfic cases and mislead others who read your blog about the realities of child sexual abuse.

I do fervently deny your allegations regarding the fundamentalist/feminist nature of these events. You argument sounds about as rigourous as Stuart Bell's - right wing trash.

Heretic said...

It is one of the hallmarks of a witch-hunt that those who question it become targeted themselves. You continue to insult me. Having called me a child abuser and a misogynist, you now call me Right-wing.

By Stuart Bell, I take it you are referring to the local - incidentally LABOUR - MP, who was very popular with his constituents, and exposed the radical feminist anti-family witch-hunt for what it was. You are displaying the usual feminist contempt for democracy. Calling a Labour MP right-wing is verging on idiocy.

What is the relevance of sokmeone being Right-wing anyway? I have no party loyalties. Are you implying that Right-wingers commit more child abuse than Left-wingers? Where is your evidence? You accuse me of lacking intellectual rigour,and your own case is pitiful.

Have you considered the actions of the so-called social workers in these cases? Offering the children sweets if they'll draw the dirty pictures they're told to draw? This is like something out of Stalinist Russia, and the scum behind it should never work again. Don't you think the cross-examination of children by your vigilante friends 'lacked intellectual rigour'? Butler-Sloss seemed to think so, but you for got to mention that, didn't you?

Face it, this entire episode was a disgrace, and it is a tribute to our system that the consequences were not worse than they were. It is an indictment of our system that those responsible were not brought to book for it.

Get this: Hysteria does not help crime prevention.

Anonymous said...

I would dispute that it is idiocy to call Stuart Bell a right wing labour MP. That is precisely what he is. Many of them exist. Perhaps it is in fact you that lack nuance in your understanding of the British political system.

Of course my suggestion is not that the right wing commits more child abuse than the left wing, that would be moronic. I was merely pointing out that your perspective is very much inflected with right-wing politics, though obviously in ways that you are unable/ unwilling to recognise.

In terms of the insults you keep bemoaning, I clarified that I was NOT calling you a child abuser. However, you are quite clearly misogynistic and if you are unable to recognise that in your own personality then you should perhaps spend some time examining your own blog. It is offensive.

The Butler Sloss Report details that one or two nurses lacked the full training to deal with disclosure work and that this was a flaw in the medical response to the crisis. However, this is not commensurate with your claims that no acts of abuse took place. They did and continue to do so.

Furthermore, your comment about sweets and dirty pictures again just displays how unfamiliar you are with the process of disclosure work and child therapy. Again, I would direct you to do some further reading on the matter.

Mistakes were made in the management of the rise in diagnoses. However, the professionals acted in good faith in the interests of child protection (as Butler Sloss concluded).

Denial of the problem and demonising health professionals does not protect children.

It seems we have very little productive to say to one another so perhaps we should draw a line under our dialogue?

Heretic said...

There is nothing remotely misoynistic on my blog - it just rejects post-1960s Marxist-feminist dogma. There is a difference. It doesn't tolerate misandry, it's not self-effacing, it doesn't pander to women's vanity or submit to their emotional games. It insists on the principles of liberal democracy and the rule of law. If that makes me right-wing then so be it. You're not used to men standing up to you, that's the trouble.

I intend to do more reading in this subject. I suggest you do the same. You should also ponder the benefits of living in a democracy, recognise that it carries responsibilities, and consider the effects of your actions and those of your supposed 'child protecting' friends.

Heretic said...

"Denial of the problem and demonising health professionals does not protect children."

No-one is denying the problem. (1) Child abuse does exist, but it no more common now than it was a century ago, probably less in fact. (2) Most child abuse is not sexual in nature. Physical and emotional violence and neglect are far more common.
(3) The person most likely to abuse a child is its mother. However, child abuse committed by women is systematically overlooked, and feminists are heavily involved in making sure that this situation continues. Women are better able to disguise their abusive actions as care-giving. When they are caught, they are given a much easier ride than men are, and are usually forgiven altogether on the grounds that they were 'depressed'.
(4) As for sexual abuse - which is a tiny percentage of overall child abuse - the person most likely to commit this is the mother's boyfriend, not the father. Thus, undermining marriage and splitting up families will make the problem worse, not better.

"However, the professionals acted in good faith in the interests of child protection (as Butler Sloss concluded)."

The idea that these people were 'professional' is one that I am calling into question. So their hearts were in the right place. Whoopy doo. Hitler thought he was doing the best thing for Germany as well. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. What you are saying is 'They weren't evil, they were just stupid and deluded'. Oh, well, I guess that makes it all right then.

The current media frenzy over paedophiles, which has been going on now for a decade, has absolutely no bearing on reality. Yes, there are a few such people out there, but there are just as many women as men, and children face much more danger from mundane hazards like traffic. But that doesn't attract any money does it? Middle-class women have set themselves up as the saviours of the world, and are making a nice little penny for themselves doing it. Men are the ones paying the price for this, rotting in prison for crimes that never happened in many cases. Until the abuse industry starts being honest, and apolitical, it will remain the enemy of men, and the enemy of a free society.

Anonymous said...

Until you have acquainted yourself with the relevant research this dialogue will be fruitless as currently your argument rests on unsubstantiated and unsupported claims which only demonstrate your ignorance on the matter.

Before you leap to reply to say "oh now you are calling me ignorant" -No what I am saying is that you are not well informed on this matter.

The second half of your reply shows you have further misunderstood my opinion. I did not claim their hearts were in the right place and their actions were "evil" as you suggest. Rather, I intimated that while mistakes were made in the management of the rise in diagnoses their actions and decisions were correct in the majority of cases.

May I suggest that you watch the Channel 4 documentary on Cleveland. It may help broaden your understanding of the events of 1987.

May I also ask that you reflect on your tone and approach which has been hostile and inflammatory. This is a discussion between adults so please do not attempt to translate it into a personalised conflict. (once again I urge you not to return to your insults defence, it is rather weak and transparently manipulative)

I have addressed you with calm courteousy, I would ask you to do the same.

Heretic said...

I wonder if you have even bothered to read my article at all, because you have not addressed a single one of my points. Your treatment of the subject is highly selective. Butler-Sloss was very highly critical of the ways in which social workers dealt with it, 96% of the allegations were shown to be false, and you seem to be in complete denial about this.

Until you start being honest we will get nowhere. I suggest you start by reading my article again and answering it point by point, rather than just accuse me of being politically unsavoury and ignorant. You have given me nothing substantial at all. You are the one making it personal, not me.

Heretic said...

I made a type - over 80% of accusations were shown to be false (96 out of 121).

Your dismissal of Stuart Bell - the popular and democratically elected MP - is particularly disgraceful.

It is you who is being manipulative, issuing a stream of insults and then trying to claim the moral high ground.

I say again - you have not answered a single point in my article. This is because you know you cannot.

Anonymous said...

I wholeheartedly agree with you. This is discussion is pointless.

Do check your facts though. 80% were not found to be false, and nowhere in the report does it say this.

The report does conclude that 93 of 121 were returned home but only on certain conditions such as a parent being removed from the home or regular health screenings. That, I must add, does NOT mean that abuse had not taken place. You are making a gross leap of interpretation.

You are not being insulted. Your impression that you are shows that you are unable to distance your personal emotions from the discussion in hand. A problem Stuart Bell and Michael Wright and the Police Surgeon Alisatir Irvine were similiarly heavily criticised for in the Inquiry. I would suggest you reflect on your language, tone, and motivation in this discussion.

Your article is only further evidence of poor research and an inability to reflect calmly and objectively without your aggressive political agenda skewing your views. I will not read it again, I have no desire to further endorse your opinion with my time.

Heretic said...

Bye then. Thank you for teaching me a lesson on impartiality.

Anonymous said...

The Butler Sloss enquiry?

Isn't Butler Sloss the top family court judge who said that the family courts were not biased against men?

Yep: she was.

Anonymous said...

"The only people with a vested interest in minimising cases of abuse are abusers."

The people with a vested interest in MAXIMISING cases of abuse include all those who benefit ideologically, financially, politically and/or professionally from creating hate and hysteria over the matter - which amounts to **millions** people in the UK.