by Liz DaviesJersey care leavers and whistleblowers are fearing the worst - that the truth about child abuse including alleged murder may never be exposed, and perpetrators will not be brought to justice. For some of us who have been involved in the investigation of institutional and organised abuse since the early 1990's there is a sense of déjà vu.
In 1995, the Islington Inquiry concluded that allegations concerning 61 children reported as possible victims of organised network and ritualistic abuse were not substantiated. The authors said that Islington police, Scotland Yard and the social services inspectorate had found insufficient evidence. Yet, as the social worker who reported these issues, I know what I witnessed and recorded. I was doing the work of child protection I was employed to do and I still do not fully understand why it was so important to deny at every level these most serious crimes against children. I believe the Inquiry was misinformed.
Throughout the 1990s, a great deal of professional knowledge emerged about the international child sex abuse industry and methods of investigating organised abuse. We learnt that abusers exert their power and influence, feed us misinformation and divert our attention to protect their activities. They seep into our academic and political worlds and persuade us that survivors of child abuse invent stories and that whistleblowers are over-zealous and obsessive. Jersey must learn these, and other, lessons from the UK.
Fear and intimidation
The Jersey police, as was the case in Islington, are unsure of which professionals in other services were actively involved in the abuse of children, who colluded with the abuse or failed to protect children through fear, intimidation, incompetence or inexperience.This makes joint investigation problematic. There is already emerging evidence of UK children placed in Jersey children's homes and of children sent to and fro on holidays.It is therefore important for the UK to assist the Jersey government and police through widening the investigation to include the mainland and to establish an independent social work and police team. Given the proximity of Jersey to France there must be also be liaison with the French authorities.
The Islington Inquiry identified 32 staff members who were deemed unsuitable to work with children. These names were placed on the Protection of Children Act list to prevent them from working with children and every effort was made to identify their current places of work. Where prosecution is not possible in Jersey these other protective measures must be firmly in place.
Accounts of care leavers
In Islington very few survivors came forward and very few professionals blew the whistle. The Jersey investigation is unique in the extent to which police are informed by the accounts of care leavers and survivors and intensive forensic work. With the internet, and increased public knowledge about child abuse, the climate and opportunity for disclosure is very different from even ten years ago.
In the absence of prosecutions there are likely to be current child victims. The Jersey investigation provides an opportunity for both the UK and Jersey governments to demonstrate a willingness to support staff, children, adults and families in speaking out to inform both current and historic investigation.
Liz Davies, social worker and senior lecturer at London Metropolitan University, blew the whistle on the Islington child sex abuse scandal in the 1990s
More information:
Home Office and DoH (2002) Complex child abuse investigation- Inter agency issues.
Jersey Care Leavers Association:
Contact cla.jersey@yahoo.co.uk
Donations
Throughout the 1990s, a great deal of professional knowledge emerged about the international child sex abuse industry and methods of investigating organised abuse. We learnt that abusers exert their power and influence, feed us misinformation and divert our attention to protect their activities. They seep into our academic and political worlds and persuade us that survivors of child abuse invent stories and that whistleblowers are over-zealous and obsessive. Jersey must learn these, and other, lessons from the UK.
Fear and intimidation
The Jersey police, as was the case in Islington, are unsure of which professionals in other services were actively involved in the abuse of children, who colluded with the abuse or failed to protect children through fear, intimidation, incompetence or inexperience.This makes joint investigation problematic. There is already emerging evidence of UK children placed in Jersey children's homes and of children sent to and fro on holidays.It is therefore important for the UK to assist the Jersey government and police through widening the investigation to include the mainland and to establish an independent social work and police team. Given the proximity of Jersey to France there must be also be liaison with the French authorities.
The Islington Inquiry identified 32 staff members who were deemed unsuitable to work with children. These names were placed on the Protection of Children Act list to prevent them from working with children and every effort was made to identify their current places of work. Where prosecution is not possible in Jersey these other protective measures must be firmly in place.
Accounts of care leavers
In Islington very few survivors came forward and very few professionals blew the whistle. The Jersey investigation is unique in the extent to which police are informed by the accounts of care leavers and survivors and intensive forensic work. With the internet, and increased public knowledge about child abuse, the climate and opportunity for disclosure is very different from even ten years ago.
In the absence of prosecutions there are likely to be current child victims. The Jersey investigation provides an opportunity for both the UK and Jersey governments to demonstrate a willingness to support staff, children, adults and families in speaking out to inform both current and historic investigation.
Liz Davies, social worker and senior lecturer at London Metropolitan University, blew the whistle on the Islington child sex abuse scandal in the 1990s
More information:
Home Office and DoH (2002) Complex child abuse investigation- Inter agency issues.
Jersey Care Leavers Association:
Contact cla.jersey@yahoo.co.uk
Donations
http://justice4survivors.org/sharp/The_Sharp_Report.htm
Hi Liz,
Many thanks for sharing this with us. Could you tell me if there were any consequences to you whistleblowing? Did you get any support or where you isolated? I am trying to support someone who volunteered in an institution where she witnessed sexual abuse between an older patient and a child. She informed the manager of the institute, who reacted by denying this and informing the minister of welfare that she wasn't allowed to volunteer anymore in the institute. She feels bad because of this and also because the manger reacted by removing the child and all other children to another home, which wasn't catered for children with special needs.
I am trying to launch a training programme to build awareness of child abuse and would very much appreciate it if you could share your views on this, organisational abuse and whistleblowing. if you are interested please email me on jaihanne@hotmail.com and I will try and be more specific.