Not directly about gender issues but an important reminder of the importance of journalists to keep digging, the need to revisit old assumptions and the suggestibility of children.
This is so interesting, so dad and so hard to unravel. I remember hearing about it at the time (and Esther Rantzen interviewing one of the doctors). All I wonder now is that there are many adults who were the children who went through this. If anyone knows what happened it is them, although understandably they may not wish to discuss it, because one way or another they must have learned to distrust adults asking questions, from a very early age.
After reading _The Witch Hunt Narrative_ I flinch every time I see gender affirming medicine compared to the "Satanic Panic". It wants to suggest that these are parallel instances where adults are imagining things about children and harming children in the process.
But in fact there was a there there - real child sex abuse -- in multiple instances of so-called "Satanic Panic", and the "Satanic Panic" phraseology was invented by adults who wanted to dismiss almost all talk of child sex abuse as all fake and invented nonsense... because they were abusers. It's almost the worst possible parallel to draw for adults interested in protecting children from adult-imposed harm.
I can't really summarize Ross Cheit's more than 500 page book for you in a comment. If this is a topic that interests you deeply I just highly, highly, highly recommend you read it. It changed my own view of the phrase "satanic panic" entirely.
just for clarity's sake: he's not a loonie who is like "actually it was Satan all along!". He is a professor at Brown University and he and his students re-examined all the police evidence and trial data from the famous cases from McMartin onwards and the media coverage of the same (Debbie Nathan comes off as a real monster). I promise you it is worth your while to sit down and read it.
I am afraid that after being exposed to the Hampstead Hoax and all that followed, I have very little time to give to those who advocate for things happening for which there is zero evidence.
He is a proponent of recovered memory, so I will pass. I think it’s a leap to say ‘people covered up abuse by the Catholic Church ergo children can’t be suggestible.’
You realize the “nope not reading a book I have decided has cooties” approach was often deployed against, say, Irreversible Damage. I get that life is short but your confidence that you know what Cheit’s book contains is very unwarranted and your incuriosity is … well perhaps characteristic. I do not know you and have perhaps operated under a misapprehension in making a recommendation I thought you would greet with interest.
the way the local San Francisco papers at the time of the "repressed memories" controversy treated this issue was interesting and I think indicative. They showed pictures of average-looking people and asked if anyone could seriously believe these average people were child abusers.....
In Orkney children were wrongly removed from loving homes on the basis of belief in satanic practices which the social workers concerned had been trained by evangelical lunatics to believe in.
This is a case which I took an interest in at the time and referred to in M.Sc dissertation on supervision in social work with reference to enquiry findings including Cleveland. The problem in my view is that the medical diagnosis alone without any further enquiry was judged to be sufficient to remove children overnight FROM THEIR MOTHERS without any investigation. No discussion with child or mother. An assumption that if the child was being abused he or she was being abused at home (not by other relatives, scout leaders, teachers etc This was completely wrong and uncalled for. The children were all detained on hospital and then to fostercare. Both of these situations present their own risks to children of abuse, neglect - but of course the trauma of removal from mothers who were being assumed to be guilty of complicity or of neglect was the worst aspect. It was an entirely wrong response. It is not how one should go about protecting children from suspected abuse. As you note - there never was any court finding of facts of abuse. The children were treated like objects and not as persons in their own right. Has Bea Campbell sought contact with them to get their account? The children from Orkney case were similarly treated as objects-removed , “placed” with strangers, denied contact with mums and dads, or even toys from home. No investigation at all. School and GPs not even contacted. They were all apart from W family not abused . Most if not all of the W children were probably more harmed by the process of “child protection” they were subjected to than by their difficult home circs including an abusive father. Brutal and ill considered responses to concerns are as harmful as doing nothing.
Yes, one child came forward and is interviewed in the book. She was grateful to be removed. Another sad and shocking thing is no follow up. Children’s voices again unheard.
I think that the major problem in Cleveland was the completely misguided social work response. Firstly the children were removed from both parents and all other family and were placed in foster care or hospital wards without any consideration of where any risk lay. Mothers and other family were not interviewed or assessed in anyway for their ability and willingness to protect their children. Two factors were ignored . 1)It is very rare for mothers to sexually abuse children. 2) Most mothers are protective of their children. This does not mean that no mothers abuse their children or that all mothers are protective.
These children were removed from their mothers and from all of their families and subjected to treatment and interviews that assumed they had been abused and that it was most likely their parents and families who were guilty or dangerous or unprotective collectivelyThat is a situation where children are desperate to please the people who hold them and have much more power than their parents - Stockholm Syndrome. and that is where rigid professional assumptions can lead to children agreeing or even making up the most fantastical nonsense to please. Happened in Orkney. And I regularly review socisl work files where years and months after being removed children exhibiting signs of sexual abuse are routinely alleged and “found” by courts to have been abused at home.
. There is alternative and good social work practice on child protection. Evidence based, sensitive, understanding that children are people and not “objections of concern”. Practice that identifies protective adults, works with protective family to make safe plans for the children that will help them feel safe and listened to.
Great article. Interesting that you mention Carl Beech. There was organised abuse of looked after children taking place in flats in Dolphin Square back in the 70s (I have heard accounts from care leavers my age of this and worse), but because Beech was found to be lying, the whole idea was dismissed.
This is so interesting, so dad and so hard to unravel. I remember hearing about it at the time (and Esther Rantzen interviewing one of the doctors). All I wonder now is that there are many adults who were the children who went through this. If anyone knows what happened it is them, although understandably they may not wish to discuss it, because one way or another they must have learned to distrust adults asking questions, from a very early age.
After reading _The Witch Hunt Narrative_ I flinch every time I see gender affirming medicine compared to the "Satanic Panic". It wants to suggest that these are parallel instances where adults are imagining things about children and harming children in the process.
But in fact there was a there there - real child sex abuse -- in multiple instances of so-called "Satanic Panic", and the "Satanic Panic" phraseology was invented by adults who wanted to dismiss almost all talk of child sex abuse as all fake and invented nonsense... because they were abusers. It's almost the worst possible parallel to draw for adults interested in protecting children from adult-imposed harm.
https://polisci.brown.edu/publication/wint-hunt-narrative
But where was the ‘there’? How many of the day care employees were rightly investigated in your view?
I can't really summarize Ross Cheit's more than 500 page book for you in a comment. If this is a topic that interests you deeply I just highly, highly, highly recommend you read it. It changed my own view of the phrase "satanic panic" entirely.
just for clarity's sake: he's not a loonie who is like "actually it was Satan all along!". He is a professor at Brown University and he and his students re-examined all the police evidence and trial data from the famous cases from McMartin onwards and the media coverage of the same (Debbie Nathan comes off as a real monster). I promise you it is worth your while to sit down and read it.
I am afraid that after being exposed to the Hampstead Hoax and all that followed, I have very little time to give to those who advocate for things happening for which there is zero evidence.
Again, if this is an issue that you care about deeply, you really should have a look at Cheit's book.
He is a proponent of recovered memory, so I will pass. I think it’s a leap to say ‘people covered up abuse by the Catholic Church ergo children can’t be suggestible.’
You realize the “nope not reading a book I have decided has cooties” approach was often deployed against, say, Irreversible Damage. I get that life is short but your confidence that you know what Cheit’s book contains is very unwarranted and your incuriosity is … well perhaps characteristic. I do not know you and have perhaps operated under a misapprehension in making a recommendation I thought you would greet with interest.
the way the local San Francisco papers at the time of the "repressed memories" controversy treated this issue was interesting and I think indicative. They showed pictures of average-looking people and asked if anyone could seriously believe these average people were child abusers.....
In Orkney children were wrongly removed from loving homes on the basis of belief in satanic practices which the social workers concerned had been trained by evangelical lunatics to believe in.
This is a case which I took an interest in at the time and referred to in M.Sc dissertation on supervision in social work with reference to enquiry findings including Cleveland. The problem in my view is that the medical diagnosis alone without any further enquiry was judged to be sufficient to remove children overnight FROM THEIR MOTHERS without any investigation. No discussion with child or mother. An assumption that if the child was being abused he or she was being abused at home (not by other relatives, scout leaders, teachers etc This was completely wrong and uncalled for. The children were all detained on hospital and then to fostercare. Both of these situations present their own risks to children of abuse, neglect - but of course the trauma of removal from mothers who were being assumed to be guilty of complicity or of neglect was the worst aspect. It was an entirely wrong response. It is not how one should go about protecting children from suspected abuse. As you note - there never was any court finding of facts of abuse. The children were treated like objects and not as persons in their own right. Has Bea Campbell sought contact with them to get their account? The children from Orkney case were similarly treated as objects-removed , “placed” with strangers, denied contact with mums and dads, or even toys from home. No investigation at all. School and GPs not even contacted. They were all apart from W family not abused . Most if not all of the W children were probably more harmed by the process of “child protection” they were subjected to than by their difficult home circs including an abusive father. Brutal and ill considered responses to concerns are as harmful as doing nothing.
Yes, one child came forward and is interviewed in the book. She was grateful to be removed. Another sad and shocking thing is no follow up. Children’s voices again unheard.
Yes
I think that the major problem in Cleveland was the completely misguided social work response. Firstly the children were removed from both parents and all other family and were placed in foster care or hospital wards without any consideration of where any risk lay. Mothers and other family were not interviewed or assessed in anyway for their ability and willingness to protect their children. Two factors were ignored . 1)It is very rare for mothers to sexually abuse children. 2) Most mothers are protective of their children. This does not mean that no mothers abuse their children or that all mothers are protective.
These children were removed from their mothers and from all of their families and subjected to treatment and interviews that assumed they had been abused and that it was most likely their parents and families who were guilty or dangerous or unprotective collectivelyThat is a situation where children are desperate to please the people who hold them and have much more power than their parents - Stockholm Syndrome. and that is where rigid professional assumptions can lead to children agreeing or even making up the most fantastical nonsense to please. Happened in Orkney. And I regularly review socisl work files where years and months after being removed children exhibiting signs of sexual abuse are routinely alleged and “found” by courts to have been abused at home.
. There is alternative and good social work practice on child protection. Evidence based, sensitive, understanding that children are people and not “objections of concern”. Practice that identifies protective adults, works with protective family to make safe plans for the children that will help them feel safe and listened to.
Great article. Interesting that you mention Carl Beech. There was organised abuse of looked after children taking place in flats in Dolphin Square back in the 70s (I have heard accounts from care leavers my age of this and worse), but because Beech was found to be lying, the whole idea was dismissed.
Fantasists and botched investigations leave a long shadow
Goodness, don't they just?
Sadly, Campbell is not the neutral observer in these matters that she purports to be.