Sloss and witches

 

9nov02. UCAFAA Conference, Conway Hall. In response to my question, speaker Charles Pragnall (Head of Research in Cleveland CC during the Cleveland affair) confirmed that Sloss never made any statement re. amount of abuse in Cleveland. He said Sloss only discussed procedures.

Ivor Catt, 28nov02

“I cannot find any mention in the report of your opinion as to how much child abuse actually occurred.” – Catt, 17sep02,

“p245

Recommendations

1. Recognition of sexual abuse. There is a need:

  1. To recognise and describe the extent of the problem of child sexual abuse;” – Sloss, 1987

 

Sloss stokes the Witch-Craze

 

BL ref   1987-88 CM412

short version BL ref 1987-88 CM413

Report of the Inquiry into Child Abuse in Cleveland 1987.   By Elizabeth Butler-Sloss

 

Short Version

 p1

3. .... Terms of Reference:

4. “To examine the arrangements for dealing with suspected cases of child abuse in Cleveland since 1 January 1987, including in particular cases of child sexual abuse, and to make recommendations.”

[Terms of reference identical in Full Report, p1.]

 

P10

Final Conclusions

....

[No statement as to how much child sexual abuse had occurred. It is not possible to discern how much abuse Sloss believes to have occurred. No statement that Higgs and/or Wyatt made faulty diagnoses. Sloss hid behind a narrow interpretation of her Terms of Reference, and made sure that she would not impede the escalating witch-craze. Note that in the family courts, Sloss regularly makes such judgements outside her remit, and causes her junior judges to do the same. Sloss did not betray the agenda of Bea Campbell and the rest of the extreme sisterhood. Sloss left Bea free to assert that massive child sexual abuse had occurred in Cleveland, which is what she did, [Beatrix Campbell, Unofficial Secrets, pub. Virago 1988, p153,] inevitably encouraging the tragedy of the false allegations by Bea’s partner and co-author Judith Jones against two nurses in Newcastle, finally discredited in 2002 (Note 1). In her 1987 Celeveland Report, Sloss irresponsibly stoked the smoke. Thus, whereas in the case of shared parenting Sloss grossly exceeds her remit, and is anxious to defy Parliament and make law [see “The Judgement of Solomon”, http://www.electromagnetism.demon.co.uk/zbbsloss.htm (Note 2)], in the case of Cleveland, she kept over-strictly to one narrow interpretation of her remit; one which favoured radfems, and encouraged them into the Newcastle disaster (Note 3) . Sloss broadens and narrows her remit to suit the sisterhood. She is a political animal misusing her position as judge for anti-social political ends. http://www.ivorcatt.com/2201.htm . - Ivor Catt. 5sep02]

[Final Conclusions are identical in the Full Report.]

 

Note 1

Judith Jones makes false allegations of sexual abuse

http://www.religioustolerance.org/ra_newca.htm

“…. Judith Jones, the social worker at the centre of a ‘satanic scare’ that caused another costly enquiry in Nottingham which had police searching (unsuccessfully) for babies’ bones. Her partner [and co-author] is Beatrix Campbell, radical feminist and strong believer in widespread child abuse. …. Both are involved in university teaching on gender and womens studies. Some of Campbell’s books are university texts on child abuse.” – George Williamson, You could be next to be falsely accused of sexual abuse, Newsletter No 7 of AAFAA, Action Against False Allegations of Abuse, Autumn 2002, p1. www.aafaa.org.uk

 

http://www.ivorcatt.com/2201.htm  Mr. Justice Eady ruled in favor of the plaintiffs and awarded Lillie and Reed £200,000 pounds each. This is the maximum allowed by law. He upheld their claim against the four report authors, saying that they had "forfeited" the protection of qualified privilege because they were "malicious in the promulgation of their report..."That is because they included in their report a number of fundamental claims which they must have known to be untrue and which cannot be explained on the basis of incompetence or mere carelessness."

 

 

Note 2

From http://www.electromagnetism.demon.co.uk/zbbsloss.htm

Sloss correctly says judges are not bound by HMSO guidance, but she proceeds to follow them in defiance of what she herself states is the intention of Parliament in the new 1989 Act; ".... the disapproval of a joint custody order .... Riley v Riley ..... can no longer be good law and has .... been overruled by the statute."

We see her motivation later, p677; ".... implications of the Children Act. But.... the wisdom of the past .... children's problems have not changed .... the problems still arise although this court is now bound by statute."Thus, when it benefits the sisterhood, she broadens her remit. This is a political animal manipulating her position as judge for anti-social political ends.

 

Note 3

Unofficial Secrets -  Beatrix Campbell, pub. Virago 1988

p153 "The men's movement. What made the Cleveland case so remarkable was not so much the number of referrals as the mass dissent from the diagnosis. Not in 100 years had patriarchal society been so profoundly and publicly confronted by the scale of men's sexual abuse of children. Male sexuality was the problem, but in the great sex scandal of the 1980s that had become almost unsayable."

 

xx

 

17sep02

Recorded Delivery

Second copy sent Recorded Delivery 26sep02

 

Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss,

Higher Marsh Farm,

Marsh Green,

Exeter   EX5 2EX

 

Dear Lady Elizabeth Butler-Sloss,

 

Re the Cleveland Report.

I cannot find any mention in the report of your opinion as to how much child abuse actually occurred. Is it correct, that you did not offer an opinion?

 

Best wishes,

 

Ivor Catt

 

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

 

“I cannot find any mention in the report of your opinion as to how much child abuse actually occurred.” – Catt, 17sep02, above

“p245

Recommendations

1. Recognition of sexual abuse. There is a need:

a. To recognise and describe the extent of the problem of child sexual abuse;” – Sloss, 1987, below

 

British Library Shelf No. Cm 412.  (Short report is 413)

 

Report of the Inquiry into Child Abuse in Cleveland 1987

 

I now submit my report and recommendations.  Yours sincerely, Elizabeth Butler-Sloss.  6 June 1988

 

....

....

 

p245

Recommendations

1. Recognition of sexual abuse. There is a need:

a. To recognise and describe the extent of the problem of child sexual abuse;

b. To receive more accurate data of the abuse which is identified.

 

2. Children

There is a danger that in looking to the welfare of the children believed to be the victims of sexual abuse the children themselves may be overlooked. The child is a person and not an object of concern.

 

We recommend that:

a. Professionals recognise the need for adults to explain to children what is going on. Children are entitled to a proper explanation appropriate to their age, to be told why they are being taken away from home and given some idea of what is going to happen to them.

b. Professionals should not make promises which cannot be kept to a child, and in the light of possible court proceedings should not promise a child that what is said in confidence can be kept in confidence.

c. Professionals should always listen carefully to what the child has to say and take seriously what is said.

d. Throughout the proceedings the views and the wishes of the child, particularly as to what should happen to him/her, should be taken into consideration by the professionals involved with their problems.

e. The views and wishes of the child should be placed before whichever court deals with the case. We do not however, suggest that those wishes should predominate.

f.  Children should not be subjected to repeated medical examination solely for evidential purposes. Where appropriate, according to age and understanding, the consent of the child should be obtained before any medical examination or photography.

g. Children should not be subjected to repeated interviews nor to the probing and confrontational type of ‘disclosure’ interview for the same purpose, for it in itself can be damaging and harmful to them. The consent of the child should where possible be obtained before the interviews are recorded on video.

h. The child should be medically examined in a suitable and sensitive environment, where there are suitably trained staff available.

i.   When a child is move from home or between hospital and foster home it is important that those responsible for the day to day care of the child not only understand the child’s legal status but also have sufficient information to look after the child properly.

j.   Those involved in investigation of child sexual abuse should make a conscious effort to ensure that they act throughout in the best interests of the child.

 

....

....

Access

d. Whenever and however children are received into care social workers should agree with parents the arrangements for access unless there are exceptional reasons related to the childs interests not to do so. In either event the parent should be notified in writing as soon as possible of the access arrangements and the avenues of complaint or appeal open to them if they are aggrieved.

 

x