The writer of the article on false abuse allegations (Viewpoint, 8 November) fails to state whether the father's "wrong" conviction for sexual abuse was declared a miscarriage of justice by the courts, or whether this is a personal view.
The writer casts doubt on the role of the social services department, the social worker and the police, but we are not told of the specific details of these concerns.
If this was a miscarriage of justice then details of the process by which this occurred would allow a more informed view, and there are appropriate channels to pursue this.
At the same time, it is often difficult for perpetrators of sexual abuse and their families to acknowledge the guilt of the perpetrator.
Discussions of false allegations are not new. An adult can manipulate children and it is the job of the police and the Crown Prosecution Service to look at the available evidence and decide if there is enough for a conviction.
It is then for the prosecution to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that the alleged perpetrator is guilty. The legal process has, in fact, frequently been criticised for failing children not the accused.
The writer states: "It is hurtful to read articles that dismiss miscarriages of justice as part of a necessary price for society to pay in the war against sexual abuse." But this is a double-edged sword. It is also "hurtful" for children and their families to feel that alleged perpetrators have not been convicted. In recent years a number of high publicity cases have shown that people can be wrongly convicted in a wider context than child sexual abuse.
The writer's statement that others are willing to sacrifice a few innocent people in the fight against sexual abuse lacks foundation.
The impact of sexual abuse on a child is traumatic. The child's world is likely to be fundamentally changed as the boundaries of the relationship and attachments are blurred.
If professionals feel it is necessary to work with a child in pairs or to leave a door ajar, that is as much about fostering a safe and secure environment for the child as it is about reassuring staff.
It is important to acknowledge that false allegations are a possibility, but at the same time be clear that many allegations are genuine. Furthermore, myths about wrongful conviction and false allegations, without the facts, do little to contribute to meaningful development of practice and merely perpetuate a myth while providing no alternative.
Iain
Moody and Wendy Molloy
Kingston upon Hull
Ban smacking….
Norman Wells misses the point as to why smacking children should be banned. Thousands of families raise well-behaved and well-adjusted children without recourse to physical punishment.
So why do we need to accept it at all? Unless smacking can be justified as necessary we should not tolerate a higher level of violence towards children than adults. I have worked with anti-social young people for over 30 years. Their problems were not due to insufficient smacking. The vast majority have either been smacked often and severely, or deprived of attention or affection.
Norman Wells' main points are that a change in the law would not help reporting and that there would be a lot of unnecessary investigations and legal proceedings.
A ban would in fact assist reporting because when a child says they have been hit, it will not be automatically dismissed as "a disciplinary smack". A key issue undermining the effective protection of children is that adults do not hear what children are saying. This will remove at least some of the ambiguity.
The notion that child protection teams or the police will waste hours on trivial cases is a red herring. Child protection is triggered by "significant harm". The police will deal with minor infringements of this law in the same way that they deal with others - at most giving a caution. Changing the law would mean everyone, whether they are six years old or 60, would have the same protection.
It would also mean our society is giving an unequivocal message that violence towards children is wrong.
Roy
Grimwood
Market Drayton
Shropshire
…look at the evidence
I find it appalling that someone claiming to be involved in "family education" should promote such inhumane and self-defeating views as those proposed by Norman Wells (Letters, 22 November).
He confuses the issue by stating that the difference between physical abuse and smacking is obvious, and comparable to the difference between sexual abuse and affectionate contact. No it is not.
Physical affection develops from the nurturing, protective and comforting instincts of parenthood. It has a positive benefit in the rearing of young children. Sexual motivation, intent and action are predatory and exploitative when directed at those with no power to choose.
However, the infliction of pain on the young by those in a parental role is not part of nurturing. It is an imposition of power through cruelty and is for the benefit of the adults not the children.
This is true whether it involves temporary pain, or permanent injury. As such it is in the same category as sexual abuse. So the true groupings are of nurture, including physical contact.
Norman Wells sees children running amok and huge numbers in care, if smacking was no longer legal. The evidence indicates the opposite. All forms of corporal punishment of children by carers were banned in Sweden in 1979.
In that generation of children the proportion involved in crime, drug taking, and alcohol misuse has massively declined, as have suicide rates.
The number of children admitted into care has been cut by over a quarter, and only one child was killed by a parent. It is not necessary to haul ordinary parents before the courts (we all recognise our own fallibilities) but a climate is created which is much more positive for child rearing.
Diane
Jones
Bristol
