|
Ivor Catt. Written in 2002. 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:
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.ivorcatt.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
“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 |