1. The Sordid Background of Child Sexual Abuse in Britain by Jennifer Drew
2. Link and Text of ePetition to Her Majesty's Government created by Nazia Khan
3a, b and c. Samples of recent reports justifying this ePetition~~~~~~~~~~~~~
1. In the UK following the admission of guilt and accountability by male serial sexual predator Stuart Hall who for years enjoyed his male pseudo sex right to sexually prey on pre-teen and teenage girls, yet another male celebrity has been arrested in connection with an allegation concerning child sexual exploitation/violence.
The number of male celebrities being arrested on suspicion of child sexual exploitation/violence continues to increase and their common factor apart from their sex being male, is they are all over the age of 70.
Malestream media continues to promote its propaganda message that males sexually preying on female and male children is something which happened in the past during the so-called 'sexual revolution of the 1970's 'when women magically gained their sexual rights and ownership of their bodies.' Males apparently saw this magical freedom as an endorsement of male right to sexually prey on women and girls with impunity. Malestream media claims it was the 'promiscuous 1970's' which is to blame for these male celebrities, such as convicted male sexual predator Stuart Hall and deceased male sexual predator Jimmy Savile being allowed (sic) to enjoy their pseudo male sex right to pre-teen and teenage girls' bodies.
This is not true because First Wave Feminists commencing in the late 1890's and until outbreak of World War 1, engaged in a campaign publicly holding males accountable for enacting their pseudo male sex right to women and girls.
In the 1970's Second Wave Feminists focused on pseudo male sex right to females of all ages and male dominated media initially supported these feminists' work on holding male sexual predators accountable, but this stance was temporary. Malestream media swiftly realised holding men accountable for enacting their male pseudo sex right to female bodies would challenge Male Supremacist System and upset (sic) innumerable powerful and not so powerful males who continued to believe they have the innate right, if they choose, to sexually prey on any female of any age because her sex is female not male.
A similar situation is occurring now with malestream media promoting the lie that society has supposedly magically morphed into one wherein male sexual violence against women and girls is as rare as the unicorn! Legislation is in place to protect females and male children from those mythical monsters - the (male) paedophile! But passing legislation is only one part of the issue, because enacting said legislation and regularly evaluating whether or not said legislation is being implemented is another matter. So we continue to have a situation wherein innumerable males, most of whom do not hold positions of socio-economic power, continue to enjoy with impunity their male pseudo sex right to females of all ages and to a much lesser extent boy children.
Whilst innumerable previous UK governments proclaimed they were focusing on ensuring the right for all female and male children not to be subjected to male sexual exploitation/male sexual violence, because measures/legislation had been put into effect to provide support to victims of male sexual violence/sexual exploitation, the reality is very different.
Survivors of male sexual exploitation/male sexual violence continue to be pathologised and treated as if they are suffering from a medical condition, which necessitates treatment in order to correct their 'supposed medical syndromes,' rather than recognising these are coping strategies resulting from systemic male sexual violence inflicted upon them.
Louise Armstrong, a feminist activist who spent years researching and speaking out against systemic male sexual violence against female and male children, rightly stated that when adult survivors of childhood sexual violence/sexual exploitation speak out holding male perpetrators accountable; male supremacist system's response was not what these survivors had hoped for. Instead a very profitable industry was created whereby therapeutic intervention is seen as the answer to systemic male sexual violence against women and children. The industry pathologises survivors and innumerable male perpetrators are now supposedly suffering from a 'medical sickness or disease.' This neatly excuses/minimalises/exonerates male accountability because the male has a medical syndrome and hence is not responsible for his choice to sexually prey on women and children. Instead there are no perpetrators only victims including male sexual predators.
This view is widespread and is applied to all forms of male violence against women and girls, because of pandemic male centric refusal to accept male violence against women and girls is a political act of male sexual power whereby individual males and/or males in a group enact their pseudo male sex right to females of all ages and to a much lesser extent boy children.
An epetititon has been created demanding the current UK government take action to put in place in every city and county, specific support for the innumerable survivors of (male) child sexual exploitation. This epetition succinctly states what needs to be undertaken by putting survivors first rather than viewing their suffering as being the problem which must be addressed and managed by so-called 'professionals.' Survivors continue to be pathologised and expected to make a swift recovery and return to "normality," because these survivors are 'the problem' not innumerable males sexually preying on women and children. Survivors who do not enact so-called appropriate submissive and deferential behaviour towards the 'professional(s)' are labelled 'a problem in need of fixing.' In reality the survivor's(s) behaviour/attitude/distrust etc. are normal reactions/coping strategies which occur due to systemic male sexual violence inflicted on them.
The survivor is not 'the problem' - the problem is our Male Supremacist System's continuing denial of the fact that pandemic male sexual violence against women and children shows no sign whatsoever of decreasing but continues to be justified/excused/denied by men in positions of socio-economic power. Claiming survivors are 'in dire need of fixing' because they are the ones causing problems for Society benefits men collectively because holding males responsible must never be acknowledged or publicly stated. Pathologisation of survivors is precisely what Louise Armstrong warned would happen and this is the current situation now in the UK - Jennifer Drew
Combating, breaking the myths and taboo on Child Sexual Abuse (CSA).
Ensuring Survivors are not pathologised & victimised by our society.
Responsible department: Department of Health
We Survivors of CSA ask for your help and support in;
- - ensuring adequate provisions of support/services available & accessible in every city/county by specialist staff in CSA.
- - eliminating adherence to stereotypes & what supposedly defines a 'real survivor'.
- - ensuring every service is inclusive of providing support to CSA Survivors & adequately funded.
- - providing free specialist long term psychotherapy, not based solely on clinical diagnosis & reducing waiting times.
- - ensuring there are trained staff who understand the cultural difficulties faced by a BME/Ethnic CSA Survivors.
- - providing services/professionals with supplementary training in order to support CSA Survivors.
- - ensuring there are stricter guidelines, sensitivity on media reporting on CSA.
- - CSA Survivors to be consulted when implementing policies or development of services.
- - CSA Survivors to be respected both during police disclosure and medical examination.
We thank you for your support and time.
Please Sign HERE
Jimmy Tarbuck arrested in child sex abuse inquiry
Comedian questioned by police in April over an allegation of child sex abuse in 1970s
By Press Association
Jimmy Tarbuck: comedian was arrested at his home in Kingston Upon Thames, south-west London, and released on bail. (Ken McKay/Rex Features)
Comedian Jimmy Tarbuck has been arrested in connection with a historic child sex abuse allegation, according to sources.
Tarbuck, 73, was questioned by North Yorkshire police on 26 April in relation to an incident that allegedly occurred in the late 1970s in Harrogate, North Yorkshire, when the victim was a young boy.
The TV personality's name had not been revealed until the Daily Mail named him on Monday night.
It is understood Tarbuck was arrested at his home in Kingston Upon Thames, south-west London, and released on bail.
The arrest was made following information passed by Metropolitan police officers working on Operation Yewtree to North Yorkshire police.
A force spokesman said: "North Yorkshire police can confirm that a 73-year-old man has been arrested in connection with a historic child sex abuse investigation in Harrogate.
"The man was arrested in Kingston Upon Thames on Friday 26 April 2013.
"Following questioning, he was released on police bail pending further inquiries.
"The complaint relates to an incident that occurred in the late 1970s when the victim was a young boy.
"It would not be appropriate to comment further at this stage."
Tarbuck is known for being a comedian who has spent more than 50 years in television. Born in 1940 in Liverpool, he was a schoolmate of John Lennon and his first television breakthrough came with It's Tarbuck 65! in 1964. He hosted numerous quiz shows, including Winner Takes All and Full Swing.
In 1994, he was awarded an OBE by the Queen for his services to showbusiness and charity.
Last November, he performed in the Royal Variety Performance at the Royal Albert Hall in London.
His daughter is the actor, television and radio presenter Liza Tarbuck.
Tarbuck's agent could not be reached for comment for on Monday night.
After Stuart Hall and Savile, the more victims' voices are heard, the better
Stuart Hall's admission of sexual offences has brought the abuse scandal that started with Jimmy Savile back into the headlines. It's painful, but important, that victims are now speaking out
By Suzanne Moore
Stuart Hall leaves Preston crown court with his solicitor. We still do not know how to deal with revelations about abuses such as his, writes Suzanne Moore. (Paul Cousans/Barcroft Media)
Witches never look quite like you imagine. The latest "victim" of what has been called a "celebrity witch-hunt" is an elderly, baffled-looking man. He is Stuart Hall aged 83. It turns out he is not a victim at all. He is a perpetrator who has pleaded guilty to sexually assaulting 13 young girls, the youngest of whom was nine. Yes, nine years old.
I want to emphasise this because, ever since the Savile scandal broke, there has been a rumbling discussion about the culture of the 70s, "permissiveness" and a haze of confusion about what constitutes consent. Sexual abuse and rape by men who were supposedly trusted and revered by the public has resulted in massive displacement, a smog of guilt – why didn't we know, or did we know and ignore it? – meaning all kinds of justifications have been made. Some have tried to turn this into a story about the evils of the BBC or of the Leveson inquiry, because in some ways that is easier to deal with than the banality of "light entertainment" being the home of sordid abuse.
At first, remember Savile was regarded as an eccentric, merely doing what "the talent" at the time did. When the full extent of his wickedness was revealed, we put him in a box marked "monster". As he was conveniently dead, that box was then moved, for fear of desecration. Savile, we saw, was a vile predator, and yet given access to already damaged and institutionalised girls.
The whole "groupie" excuse did not wash. Instead we learned of the seedy reality of the tracksuit bottoms whipped off, and serious sexual assault on a 10-year-old boy. We shuddered, looked away and assigned it to the past.
Well, some of us did. From the moment I started writing about Savile in early October, I began to receive letters and emails from women detailing their own abuse, often by a family "friend" and often, horribly enough, with their parents knowing. Thankfully the writer Yasmin Alibhai-Brown received one such letter from a woman Hall had assaulted. Yasmin is such a concerned and persistent person that she took it to the police. That started the inquiries rolling, for which we must thank her.
The common themes of many of the missives I received were that women who have been abused feel guilty, responsible and so ashamed that they have never spoken about it. The Savile case was churning up terrible memories. This experience was not completely new to me.
Once, when I was teaching an MA course, an extremely competent and mature student came to see me after a film I had shown triggered all sorts of memories for her about abuse. Apart from referring her to organisations that deal with "survivors", I found myself shocked to see someone so knocked sideways by things that had happened so many years earlier.
This feeling is now there again, but this time collectively. We still do not know how to deal with abuse. We are reeling from these revelations in denial, disbelief and distress.
For instance, there are those who criticise Operation Yewtree (set up post-Savile) on the grounds that we cannot apply today's attitudes to the sex crimes of yesteryear. There also exists the feeling that perhaps the police are themselves indulging in some retrospective guilt trip: as they did not act during the Savile era, despite complaints being made very early on in his career, they have now gone into overdrive, hanging out innocent men to dry. The list grows: Max Clifford, Rolf Harris, Dave Lee Travis, Jim Davidson, Bill Roache and Freddie Starr have all had serious allegations made against them.
The piecing together of historical evidence, as there is no physical or forensic evidence, is what will make or break these cases. Once again a different, murky time is demarcated for these alleged crimes: the blur of the late 60s and 70s, which we are told was both a more "innocent" time and also a time of great promiscuity. Promiscuity for whom remains the crucial question.
As each of these "family" entertainers is arrested, I hear people – often men – saying, "Is all my childhood going to be destroyed?" Which is unfortunate, because yes, that's exactly what abuse does. I don't share this nostalgia for these "wholesome" presenters – they were always a bit creepy – and the new details of their extraordinary behaviour bear this out. The immunity that protects celebrities was clearly in play 40 years ago. Was it really OK that when Hall turned up at a school in Cheshire in 1967 to hand out school prizes, he insisted on kissing the young schoolgirls? Was it OK that, as Linda McDougall recalls, he occupied the medical room at the Look North studios for his dalliances with "lady friends" or that "he was one of those people who had his hands all over you and all over any female that came in". Was it OK when, eight years ago, he told Radio 5 listeners, "Your average 10-year-old can instruct you in oral and anal sex"? These remarks were dismissed as satirical banter.
Anyone my age knows how some men did behave in the workplace, and you got as far away from them as fast as possible. But there were always girls who didn't or couldn't. For the 70s was pre-Aids, a time when we were expected to be free and easy. What did not exist then was the idea that one could be sexually harassed, and could complain and be taken seriously.
This is why today, when I hear the voices of Hall's victims, I would argue that naming the suspects (which enabled some women to come forward) remains powerful. Some of these women have been silent for a very long time. When Susan Harrison, whom Hall plied with alcohol then assaulted, told her father after returning home in tears, he said: "He is famous and we are nobodies. Nobody is going to believe you if you tell." Unless victims waive their right to anonymity, the victims do indeed remain nobodies. Harrison felt guilty, worrying that Hall may go on to abuse others, which he did. She later suffered from depression.
Kim Wright, another of Hall's victims, was watching the news about Savile when she decided to make a formal complaint. She is a policewoman who has worked in child protection. "I've always felt what Stuart Hall did to me is not something he'd do once, that it was part of some kind of modus operandi." Wright felt that if the police could tell other victims they were not the only one, they would have the courage to come forward. And she was right. "When he picked on me," she said, "he picked on the wrong person."
Indeed. Though surely sex without consent is always picking on the wrong person. We can now choose to recognise that or not. We worry about our young, about "sexualisation", about access to porn, and yet we are still – some of us – hazy about consent. Girls are still deemed to be "asking for it" if they are out late or wearing the wrong clothes.
It is much easier to assign all these horrible stories to a different time. But is it really so much better now? Are young women believed when they speak up today?
These men, who now look old and pathetic, clearly at the time felt immune and able to damage who they liked. Those who criticise Operation Yewtree should listen to the calls coming into Childline for a few nights. Abuse didn't stop with the arrest of a few sad DJs. I see Peter McKay in the Daily Mail quoting Thomas Macaulay: "We know of no spectacle so ridiculous as the British public in one of its periodical fits of morality."
Maybe so, but what culture thinks it's all right to sexually assault a nine-year-old? None that I want any part of. Now let the victims' voices come to the fore. They were pushing off Hall and Savile. They were saying no. They were crying. They were gagging. They were bleeding. They were hurting. Child abuse and sexual assault has not suddenly stopped, but if we cannot speak about the past, we cannot speak about the present. Now we need to listen.
This is not the "persecution of old men". This is the prosecution of rapists, and we should applaud it
It’s not just about Jimmy Savile, or Stuart Hall, or the BBC, or the Socialist Workers’ Party, or two American high-schoolers crying in court, or three young women chained in a basement in Ohio, or one dead girl in a hospital in Delhi. After too long, people are fighting back against rape culture – and there's nothing worse than watching the bigots stand their ground.
By Laurie Penny
Stuart Hall, who was accused of rape and pled guilty to indecent assault, receiving his MBE in 2012. (Getty Images)
There’s nothing more embarrassing than watching bigotry flopping around trying to save itself while the tide of history retreats down the beach. Yet another week has passed in which high-profile politicians and entertainers are all over the papers being fingered for rape and sexual violence.
One of the victims of Stuart Hall, who had a long record of assaulting teenage girls, told ITN how Hall attacked her at the hotel where she worked: “He grabbed hold of me and he started kissing me and then he tried to force himself on me. I struggled, I tried to push him away, and it was only the fact that there was someone walking along the corridor . . . that he stopped and I managed to get away.” Some people are asking, with an air of annoyance, as if they were tired of all the fuss: how many more revelations will there be?
The question is chillingly rhetorical. We know, really, that the answer is many, many more. This isn’t just about ten, or forty or a hundred dodgy individuals. We have moved beyond the point where we can decently speak about outliers when it comes to systemic tolerance of sexual violence. It’s not just about Jimmy Savile, or Stuart Hall, or the BBC, or the Socialist Workers’ Party, or two American high-schoolers crying in court, or three young women chained in a basement in Ohio, or one dead girl in a hospital in Delhi. Over the past year, an enormous, global cultural shift has begun to take place around issues of consent, rape and violence against women, and it’s a cultural shift for which our institutions are clearly vastly underprepared.
Some members of those institutions have responded with panicked self-justification. We didn’t know, we thought it was allowed, we weren’t there, we didn’t see, they’re all lying sluts anyway and they should stop whinging and playing the victim. Take lawyer Barbara Hewson, who claimed in Spiked that the real problem is that child protection agencies are trying to profit from changing definitions of victimhood, and the real victims are the “old men” who are being unfairly scapegoated for a bit of jolly dressing-room lechery. I do not “support the persecution of old men”, as Hewson manipulatively puts it, but I absolutely support the prosecution of rapists, and you should, too.
Hewson’s article is part of a series of defences of high-profile rape defendants published at Spiked, a once-interesting magazine reduced to a sad, attention-seeking faux-leftist cult on a mission to whip up controversy by making libertarian reactionaries feel good about sexism. Its editor, Brendan O’Neill, is possibly the closest thing the British Left has to a professional rape apologist, and has no qualms about monetising misogyny in his Telegraph blog. I’m ashamed to admit that I once brought him a cup of coffee as an intern.
It’s always annoying arguing with Spiked. You know that that’s just what they want you to do, because they’re vicious trolls who seem to believe that compunction is something only the little people have. Hewson’s piece, however, in which she calls for the lowering of the age of consent and the imposition of a time-limit on rape complaints so that we can retroactively exonerate all of our dubious cultural heroes, has struck a nerve.
Hewson is far from only one to plead for tolerance on behalf of the intolerable. Men like Stuart Hall and Jimmy Savile lived in a different time, their detractors claim, a time when shoving your fists with impunity up the skirt of any passing schoolgirl was just the present you got for being born with a set of testicles. Said detractors often speak of this time with the same kitschy nostalgia usually reserved for the Village Green, toasted teacakes and casual racism: life was just easier back then, for some of us at least. Elderly rapists and abusers didn’t know what they were doing at the time, so how can they be blamed?
This defence, which is rather insulting to the significant and growing number of males who absolutely do respect women enough not to shove their hands and penises inside them without asking, is also wheeled out on behalf of the many men, young and old, who are suddenly being exposed as rapists and abusers despite never having heard of Jimmy Savile. "They didn’t know they were doing anything wrong."
It’s the same defence used last month when two American high-schoolers in Steubenville, Ohio were convicted of raping an unconscious girl over several hours and capturing the evidence on cameraphones: these poor young men didn’t know they were committing a crime. Now their futures are ruined. Perhaps the girl in question should have kept her mouth shut? Perhaps all the countless thousands of victims of rape and abuse should do the same, now and for ever? Perhaps we should remember who the real victims are in this situation: grown men and their guilty erections, mercilessly victimised by wanton teenagers who continue to have the brazen temerity to actually exist in the world as more than acquiescent fuck-holes.
The fact that these men felt they were doing nothing wrong is precisely the problem. The fact that for generations, men of all ages have felt able to use and abuse the bodies of women and children for their own entertainment is the problem, and the fact that our culture legitimises this approach is a bigger problem.
For centuries, men in positions of power were untouchable, while women and children were anything but. One simply could not call a man like Jimmy Savile or Stuart Hall to account for his actions and expect to be taken seriously. One could not accuse a popular football player of rape and expect justice. These things went on, but they went on in silence, with the complicity and of quiet armies of flunkies and facilitators.
The reason that these "old men" are being prosecuted – sorry, "persecuted" – right now is simple. They are being prosecuted because their victims are finally coming forward, and their victims are finally coming forward because society has reached a tipping point when it comes to rape culture.
Rape culture, for those who still require an explanation, is the cultural tolerance of rape and sexual assault. It’s the idea that people who are raped must have in some way provoked it, and I know from experience that it can take years for victims to understand that it is men’s responsibility not to rape. It's an old prejudice, embedded in our institutions, in our police forces and judiciary systems, in political parties and in public organisations like the BBC. It also infects the tabloid and broadsheet press, who have changed their tune in recent weeks only because the process of consciousness-raising is panic-inducing, and there’s nothing the media loves more than a good panic.
Right now, though, things are changing, and men and boys and those who love and respect men and boys are going to have to shift the way they think about rape, abuse and harrassment – fast. The most important attitude change is going to take place not among abusers, but among the far larger contingent who simply stand by and let it happen. Among the people who have been taught, or learned from hard experience, that these things are simply part of the tissue of power in this society, perhaps not strictly moral, but not worth taking the risk of speaking out about. They’re only women, after all, and they were probably asking for it.
For many, many generations, women and children were told: don't let yourself get raped, and if you do, for god's sake don't whinge about it. Don't act like a slut. Don't let your guard down. Don’t ever assume for a second that you have the same right as a man to exist in public or private space without fear of assault and humiliation. That message is slowly, finally, starting to change, so that instead, we’re telling men and boys: do not rape. Do not grope, assault, bully or hurt women, children or anyone over whom you have temporary power. Doing so will no longer increase your social status. If you do it anyway, you will find yourself publicly shamed and possibly up on criminal charges. This is the age of the internet, and nobody forgets.
Confronting structural violence is intensely painful. It’s like squeezing out an enormous splinter you hadn’t realised was there. The pain comes, in large part, from the understanding that you yourself might be implicated by virtue of easy ignorance; that you yourself might have stood by while evil went on; that people you know and trust and respect might very well have done terrible things simply because they thought they were allowed to. Questioning the morality of slave-owning was, until comparatively recently in human history, a minority position. It would be crass and simplistic to equate rape culture with slavery even if there weren’t complex historical links between the two. There is one important similarity, however, and that’s in the reaction when dominant, oppressive cultures finally wake up to the idea that evil on an immense scale has been taking place right in front of them.
Sometimes that reaction is shocked disbelief, frantic apology, self-blame; more often it is angry, even violent. There is no rage, after all, quite like the desperate rage of those who refuse to acknowledge their own bigotry.
This is going to hurt, I’m afraid. An enormous, panic-inducing cultural change is underway, and before it is over, more men and boys will be accused of and prosecuted for rape and assault. We will see more beloved cultural icons contaminated by revelations past transgressions, more young men who thought it was alright to taking advantage of their female friends slapped with convictions that will follow them around forever.
We are going to have to face up to the idea that men and boys we know and respect, men and boys who may be decent, ordinary citizens, friends and relatives and colleagues and bosses, have been complicit in a culture that sees women as less than human and hurts and humiliates them with impunity. It’s not just a handful of monsters. Rape culture has pushed itself into every part of our society, and if we truly want to change it, we will have to look at ourselves and those we love in a new and painful way. This is something we are going to have to sit with, and accept, and not shrink from, because right now we all need to decide what side of history we want to be on.