Saturday, November 24, 2012
Rotherham Council exemplifies PC-fascism
The behaviour of Rotherham Council re the couple prevented from being foster carers because of their membership of a political party -- a mainstream political party at that (UKIP) -- is not at all incredible but merely an indication of the PC-fascist politicised culture in which we now live.
'Political Correctness' has had a long evolution – see all of the scholarship (including my own: the scene-setting first section in my science journal review paper of the misrepresentation of domestic violence) – being the great backlash by the intelligentsia against the mass of ordinary people: punishment for not responding to the prescription and prediction of the intelligentsia's political-Left (Marxist) mindset.
In a nutshell, because we didn't all 'rise up' in revolution, this caused what psychologists term 'cognitive dissonance' in the minds of all those with a political-Left mindset, given that this is in direct conflict with reality. It's human nature not to blame your own gullibility for swallowing obvious baloney, and instead to find a fall guy. The fall guy here is collectively all those who were supposed to benefit from Marxist revolution: 'the workers'. [Note this is not any kind of conspiracy but simply the coalescing of individual attitudes emanating from shared normal psychology that was the subject to usual 'groupthink'.]
The workers stereotypically are – and in the past overwhelmingly were – male, white and heterosexual. By a truly ridiculous inversion, neo-Marxism (cultural Marxism; identity or critical studies) deemed 'the workers' as unworthy, and in their place was put a new 'oppressed' class comprising all those who were non-male, non-white and non-heterosexual – women, ethnic minorities and gays/lesbians/trans-sexuals.
Correspondingly, in place of the 'boss' class as the main ogre, they deemed the major villains of the peace 'the workers' as the new 'oppressor' class. This inversion likewise is basic human nature. The friend who is seen to become a turncoat is hated more than the erstwhile enemy. Meanwhile, the state, which had hitherto been regarded as the supposed boss's lackey also did a spectacular somersault in political-Left imagination. Being now stuffed full of all those who recoiled from being in the proper, commercial workplace and 'capitalism', the state was magicked into the imagined main agent of social change.
PC has nothing whatsoever to do with being considerate to minorities as claimed, being in fact the very opposite of egalitarian. It wilfully mis-identifies the actually disadvantaged group – lower-status males – and pretends they are instead somehow the main source of what creates disadvantage. Meanwhile those who are actually the most privileged in any and every society – women – are deemed their 'victims'.
PC is truly the most absurd and nastiest political fraud in all history, and over the past 20 years or more has taken hold of every institution here in the UK, across Europe and in the USA. [Indeed, it began in earnest in the USA, albeit that the main root was in central Europe -- the Frankfurt School (of Marxism) circa 1930.] It has become hegemonic across the whole of the 'Western' world'.
Anyone who is at all interested in truth and justice has a clear duty to smash it.
Saturday, November 10, 2012
Not the first time BBC Newsnight completely screwed-up over bogus stories re Bryn Estyn -- the very same North Wales children's home.
In all these stories of supposed 'paedophile' rings there is either no truth whatsoever or just a kernel of it. Here there was indeed a guilty party, but just the one member of staff: no other staff members, and nobody on the 'outside'; famous or otherwise. All the rest is non-proven, non-provable and very likely complete fabrication.
This (below) is from the website of the late Richard Webster -- the brilliant author of Why Freud Was Wrong and exposés of bogus 'false memory', 'satanic' and child sex abuse scandals: an article he wrote for The New Statesman which appeared on 19 February 1999.
What the BBC did not tell us
ON MONDAY 25 January 1999, immediately after Newsnight, BBC2 broadcast a documentary, A Place of Safety, about sexual and physical abuse in children's homes in North Wales. Many who saw it found it one of the most harrowing programmes about abuse they had ever watched.
As the North Wales Tribunal, the longest and most costly public inquiry in British legal history, gets nearer to publishing its report, the BBC had lined up a succession of witnesses who were prepared to speak about the years and years of child abuse they said they had experienced. All of them were adults. Almost all of them were men. With one exception they spoke full-face to the camera and allowed their names to appear on screen. They spoke of beatings and of bullying by the staff who were employed to care for them, of habitual sexual assaults and of cruelty and neglect on a scale that, ten years ago, would have been beyond belief.
As the programme went on, it became clear why North Wales has now become almost a synonym for abuse. Sir William Utting, chairman of the National Institute of Social Work, said on the programme: 'I think this is one of the names that will continue to resonate through childcare over the coming decades because it establishes a kind of benchmark for the combination of things that can go wrong in residential childcare . . . It will be the name that's used to terrify future generations of childcare workers.'
This is now the received view of North Wales, held alike by journalists, social workers and politicians. But there is a problem with the story of North Wales. It is a problem that the BBC programme illustrated repeatedly and disturbingly.
The first witness to appear on the programme was Brian Roberts. He had been sent to Bryn Estyn, the home said to have been at the centre of a web of abuse, in 1970 when it was still an approved school. Standing in front of the buildings he said: 'It was just like something out of a horror movie, the beatings, the abuse, the sexual abuse. It was disgusting.' As atmospheric music played and the camera cut to a shot of crows perching on nearby tree-tops, Roberts went on to say that a man (whom he did not name) had taken him into the gym and attempted to bugger him.
What the BBC did not tell us was that Brian Roberts only made his allegation of sexual abuse after watching a television programme about Bryn Estyn in 1997. This programme, which dealt with the setting up of the North Wales Tribunal, had mentioned the conviction of Peter Howarth, the deputy head of Bryn Estyn, for sexually abusing adolescents in his care. (It did not mention that Howarth, now dead, always protested his innocence, or that some of his former colleagues still believe he was wrongly convicted.)
Roberts immediately contacted the tribunal and told them that he, too, had been sexually abused by Howarth. He then made a formal statement to this effect. At this stage it was pointed out to him that Howarth had not begun working at the school until November 1973, three years after he had left. Far from being sexually abused by Howarth, Roberts had never met him.
The next witnesses to appear on the programme were Keith and Tony Gregory. Tony described a regime where physical abuse was commonplace. He said: 'You'd let it happen to you. You'd let the staff punch you in the face, or in the stomach, or throw things at you.' He went on to make even more serious claims, including that he had seen Peter Howarth sexually abusing one of the residents.
What the BBC did not tell us was that Tony Gregory had also given evidence to the North Wales Tribunal. One of the allegations he had made concerned a Mr Clutton who, he said, had thrown a leather football at his face so hard that it had almost broken his nose. During cross-examination it was pointed out that, although there had been a Mr Clutton on the staff of Bryn Estyn, he had left in 1974, three years before Tony Gregory had arrived.
The next witness to appear on the programme was Steven Messham. He said that on one occasion, when he had been in the sick-bay with blood pouring from his mouth, he had been buggered by Howarth as he lay in bed. He said that on another occasion he was asked to take a hamper of food to Howarth's flat, where he was buggered by Howarth over the kitchen table.
What the BBC did not tell us was that Messham claims he was sexually abused by no less than 49 different people. He also says he has been physically abused by 26 people. In 1994 the Crown Prosecution Service declined to bring his allegations against Howarth to court. None of his allegations has ever resulted in a conviction. In 1995 one of his most serious sexual allegations was rejected by a jury after barristers argued that it was a transparent fabrication.
The next witness was Andrew Teague. Teague said he had been beaten and sexually abused by one unnamed member of staff and that he had also been sexually abused by Howarth.
What the BBC did not tell us was that, although Teague had at one point agreed to appear as a witness at the North Wales Tribunal, he changed his mind at the last moment. The tribunal declined to use its powers to subpoena him. Counsel to the tribunal, however, did read out a statement which Teague had made to the North Wales police in 1992. In this statement he made allegations of physical abuse but clearly said: 'I never experienced any sort of sexual abuse by the staff.' His main allegation was of serious and repeated physical abuse by a care worker, Fred Rutter. It was later pointed out to the tribunal that Teague was at Bryn Estyn between 1977 and 1978. Rutter, however, did not start working there until 1982.
The next witness to appear was Andrew Treanor. He said that he had been abused at Ty'r Felin in Gwynedd, when a member of the care staff had punched him in the face.
What the BBC did not tell us was that in 1992 the North Wales police took a statement about a similar incident from a young woman who had been in care with Treanor. In her statement she recalled that Treanor had been arguing with a member of staff: 'Following the argument Treanor came to join us by the steps to the loft. He had a bruise on his face from an earlier incident . . . We were talking about it and Andrew decided to start hitting himself on his face by this bruise to cause a more serious injury. He then said he would make a false allegation against the ex-army member of staff to get him dismissed. We all agreed to go along with his story, although we all knew Andrew had not been assaulted at all.'
The next witness did not appear under his real name, and was filmed in shadow. He told of how, some ten years ago, he had been sexually abused by Stephen Norris, the officer in charge of Cartrefle children's home. His testimony was detailed and convincing. There is a wealth of evidence to indicate that the sexual abuse he described (and which he complained of at the time) did indeed happen. Norris, who had previously worked at Bryn Estyn, subsequently pleaded guilty to offences against boys in his care and has served two prison sentences.
Partly because of Norris's conviction there can be no question at all that some sexual abuse and some physical abuse did take place in care homes in North Wales during the 1970s and 1980s. But equally, after all the evidence which has now emerged, there should be no doubt that a substantial number of false allegations have also been made. If the selection of witnesses who appeared on A Place of Safety is in any way representative, then the programme itself would seem to indicate that the proportion of false allegations may be startlingly high.
By far the most disturbing feature of the programme, however, was that the journalists who worked on it failed utterly to discharge the most basic duty of all journalists - the duty to investigate.
The real question raised by the programme is not whether every detail of the complaints made in it was true or false. It is whether the witnesses it featured should have been relied on by responsible journalists. At least five of the first seven witnesses who appeared had in the past made serious allegations of abuse that were demonstrably false. In some cases they had tried to uphold their allegations even when the details of their complaints had been shown to be impossible. Brian Roberts, for example, after having learnt that he could not have been abused by Peter Howarth, said that he had mistaken the identity of the staff member involved. The trouble, he said, was that 'we never knew the staff directly by their names, it was either Sir or Miss'. According to those who knew Bryn Estyn at the time, Roberts' account of an institution whose staff had no names bears no relationship to reality.
In most cases the amount of research needed to uncover the unreliability of the witnesses who appeared on A Place of Safety was minimal. In the cases of Roberts, Gregory and Teague, for example, all the BBC needed to do was consult the relevant portions of the transcript of the North Wales Tribunal. Yet even this piece of elementary journalistic research, which would have taken hours rather than days, appears to have been too much for them. The result was a programme that undoubtedly shocked many who saw it but which is actually far more shocking as an example of the low level to which some television journalism has fallen.
The low standards of this BBC programme are all the more worrying in view of the planned publication, later this year, of the report of the North Wales Tribunal. This report was referred to in the programme. Steven Messham, the man who claims he has been abused by more than 70 different people (and who also frequently appears on Channel 4 News), spoke of the promise made by Gerard Elias QC that the tribunal would 'leave no stone unturned in its search for the truth'. Messham went on to suggest that this was not so because the tribunal had failed to give proper consideration to the idea that a paedophile ring had organised a network of abuse in North Wales care homes.
What the BBC did not tell us was that other observers have criticised the tribunal from a quite different point of view. In particular they point out that, although considerable doubt surrounds the conviction of Peter Howarth, the tribunal has explicitly declined to consider this question. The tribunal says that it is bound by the doctrine of res judicata, which prevents it from investigating matters that have already been brought before the courts. This may well have been a legally correct decision. But the effect of the ruling is to prevent Howarth's barristers from challenging the soundness of his conviction.
In other words, one stone must remain unturned. And since the stone in question is nothing less than the foundation stone on which the entire North Wales story has been built, there are those who hold the view that the tribunal has not been able to conduct a proper inquiry at all.
The North Wales Tribunal has cost the taxpayer an estimated £15 million, but if this expenditure is unprecedented, so too is the difficulty of the task it faces. No amount of money can buy access to the truth and we must hope that the tribunal will not end by wholly or partly endorsing a received view of the story of North Wales that is fundamentally false.
But in view of the doubts that surround the story of North Wales - doubts that A Place of Safety, by its choice of witnesses, inadvertently illustrated - it is extremely important that the report, when it eventually appears, is thoroughly examined. For that to happen it is essential that the report is scrutinised by journalists who have themselves researched the story in depth, and whose appetite for sex, sensation and scurrility does not overpower their capacity to judge between what is true and what is false.
On this front, the only reassuring news to have emerged since the broadcast of A Place of Safety is that the tribunal report is now unlikely to appear until the summer. This gives journalists both in the BBC and in other media throughout Britain at least three more months to research the story thoroughly themselves. If we are to judge by the quality of journalism apparent in the BBC's A Place of Safety, they will need all this time and more.
