Police uncovering 'epidemic of child abuse' in 1970s and 80s

....and then there's "The History Boys"

My headmaster was a paedophile in 70s 80s 90s who only abused boys. It was a small private primary school and he would pick three boys in the oldest class to live with him in his flat for the final year (now called year 6). No-one questioned this. So basically abuse in plain site.

The story broke when in early 90s when one of the boys now 16 spoke up about what had happened to him there. It was a small town and people didn’t believe him. I even heard my friend’s mum say that he was making it up for attention. Once the police started investigating there ended up being 44 counts of abuse against him and the bastard got 7 years. Not enough for the lives he ruined. I’m still haunted by my conversation with the boy who spoke up when he told me what happened. I’ve lost touch with him and although I’ve searched for him in social media I can’t find him.

It turned out the headmaster had already been convicted in New Zealand for abusing boys in the school he ran there. Somehow he managed to come to UK and set up a school without any problems.
He was an evil shit that used physical and verbal abuse to all pupils. I was terrified of him. He was definitely hiding in plain site. After it broke so many stories came out but at the time everyone dismissed them as him being a funny old man.

where are we as a society where wives stand by their husbands who have been convicted of child abuse?

Do we know if they stand by them despite the acknowledged child abuse?

How many stand by them in the belief that their husbands/partners have been falsely accused/wrongly convicted?

Wasn't some of the David Challenor horror that both AC and DC's wife persisted in claiming that the victim as lying/complicit and that DC should never have been convicted even after the verdict and the evidence?

There are a whole lot of peters high up in government and police forces.

The cautionary tale of Peter Morrison MP, who was a known child abuser. This information was held by MI5 in case he was a security risk, and by the Tory party whips in case they needed to blackmail him. At no stage did anyone show any concern for his victims.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Morrison#Allegations_of_child_abuse

The headline should not really be about sexual abuse of children being an epidemic in the 1970's and 80's because it was endemic then and it is endemic now.

I agree. For all the safeguarding policies, for all the “we are much better educated and less squeamish about sex now” talk, for all the “oOh weren’t the seventies awful realisations, children are still being systematically abused by men.

Systems, that aren’t challenged because reasons.

I hope they are going to look into how the police helped cover it up. Jimmy Savile always kept the police sweet always helping out with police charities etc, the result was that when Surrey Police contacted West Yorks about a woman making claims of abuse they were told "Jim gets a lot of these" and nothing was done.

The absolute horror of historic sex abuse is the number of children one paedophile can abuse over a lifetime. The ratio of victims to perpetrator is staggering. I have no idea why that isn’t a reason for longer jail sentences and permanent place on sex offenders register and release conditions.

The paedophile I know, it was all about power, and abuse.

Remember though, paedophile is a technical term, even though it's often used more broadly in everyday speech. Not everyone who abuses pre-pubescent kids is a paedophile, by definition that is about being sexually attracted to children.

But there are also abusers of children who do so because they are interested in something like power, and children create a lot of capacity to play that out, and there are quite a few where it is a crime of convenience, children are simply available to them and not able to complain easily, the individual would just as soon abuse someone who wasn't a child. In some of those latter cases there is some lack of capacity on the part of the abuser as well.
Of course someone could both be a paedophile and also be attracted to asserting power.

I think there's some whitewashing going on in that article and I'm angry about it.

“These allegations and the vast majority of cases were never reported to the authorities.''
Jaw on floor. The absolute audacity of that statement. In so many cases when victims tried to get help, the authorities turned them away, blamed them, told them they would never be believed, that they would ruin a mans life.

ChickenonaMug I agree with you so much. Brilliant post.

She divorced him btw - but the police liaison also told her that 50% of wives stand by their husbands. There's food for thought - where are we as a society where wives stand by their husbands who have been convicted of child abuse?

The paedophile I know, it was all about power, and abuse. It was getting off on sadistic abuse - not an "attraction" to children. Without a single doubt. It was about hurting people who were weaker. This was what the police said to his wife (my friend).

Is it not all about power to some extent?

Gosh, I don't know, I mean there are people who think all sex is about power.

In terms of what I was saying, paedophiles are people who have a sexual attraction to pre-adolescent children, and it seems to be fairly up in the air what the origins of that are. But as far as I know it's straightforward in the sense of that is what is arousing to those people, and I think often they aren't aroused really by adults.

But there are other people who sexually abuse children who don't fall under that label, it's not that they are particularly sexually attracted to them, they probably are normally attracted to other adults. There seems to be some variety in their motives. In some cases it's just that they have access to kids but not so much to other sexual partners, or they do actually get off on the intimidation, or they for some reason don't want to or can't deal with adults. Sometimes it's that they were abused themselves and it's created other mental or social problems that leads to a cycle of abuse. People who abuse teens are also more like this, they have fairly normal sexual interests, there are other reasons they target people who are relatively young.

Someone upthread mentioned there have recently been more women being identified as abusers and IIRC they tend to fall into this second group, where it's more a crime of opportunity.

Is it not all about power to some extent?

Gosh, I don't know, I mean there are people who think all sex is about power.

In terms of what I was saying, paedophiles are people who have a sexual attraction to pre-adolescent children, and it seems to be fairly up in the air what the origins of that are. But as far as I know it's straightforward in the sense of that is what is arousing to those people, and I think often they aren't aroused really by adults.

But there are other people who sexually abuse children who don't fall under that label, it's not that they are particularly sexually attracted to them, they probably are normally attracted to other adults. There seems to be some variety in their motives. In some cases it's just that they have access to kids but not so much to other sexual partners, or they do actually get off on the intimidation, or they for some reason don't want to or can't deal with adults. Sometimes it's that they were abused themselves and it's created other mental or social problems that leads to a cycle of abuse. People who abuse teens are also more like this, they have fairly normal sexual interests, there are other reasons they target people who are relatively young.

Someone upthread mentioned there have recently been more women being identified as abusers and IIRC they tend to fall into this second group, where it's more a crime of opportunity.

for all the posters who have talked about their abuse on here. it's devastating, it really is.

I agree with the poster that I wouldn't allow my children to be alone with any male coach or whatever. For the past 8 years I have lived life on a constant radar for these things - like I said, fnding out a trusted friend had done these things changes you as a person.

I remember hearing an interview with a convicted scoutmaster - would have been about 2003, because my DS1 was a baby - who had been found guilty of abusing his scouts on a camping trip and of making indecent pictures of children. There was something about his voice that disturbed me. He only served a small sentence and minimised his crimes - which was exactly what my friend's "DH" did too.

His voice - I can't explain it - it had a querulous, breathless, excitement about it, while talking about this. I'd swear he was turned on talking about his crimes on the radio. His voice had the same 'excitement' about it as my serial dirty phone caller (in the 80s when I was teenager) had. Disturbing as fuck, these predators.

for all the posters who have talked about their abuse on here. it's devastating, it really is.

I agree with the poster that I wouldn't allow my children to be alone with any male coach or whatever. For the past 8 years I have lived life on a constant radar for these things - like I said, fnding out a trusted friend had done these things changes you as a person.

I remember hearing an interview with a convicted scoutmaster - would have been about 2003, because my DS1 was a baby - who had been found guilty of abusing his scouts on a camping trip and of making indecent pictures of children. There was something about his voice that disturbed me. He only served a small sentence and minimised his crimes - which was exactly what my friend's "DH" did too.

His voice - I can't explain it - it had a querulous, breathless, excitement about it, while talking about this. I'd swear he was turned on talking about his crimes on the radio. His voice had the same 'excitement' about it as my serial dirty phone caller (in the 80s when I was teenager) had. Disturbing as fuck, these predators.

Bless you, toothfairy

The fact that yours is a historic case sort of proves my point. In the past, there would never have been a prosecution when it was a child's word against an adult's.

Even with adult witnesses, an abuser like Chris Woodhead was untouchable and was protected by David Blunkett.

@Mockersisrightasusual

And the law has changed. Prior to 2003, there was no offence of 'sexual activity with a child.' Anything short of full intercourse was a grey area that was in practice never going to be prosecuted.

This is not quite right. The sentencing is much stiffer and the sexual offences act of 2003 has made some things a crime which were not specifically listed before, but there were other laws which allow prosecution.

I was sexually abused as a child in the late 70s/80s. It went to court last year and he was convicted. If it had just been me his sentence would have only been a couple of years, but because the case was joined with other victims (some post Sexual offences act) his sentence was tougher. They have to sentence within the regulations of that time.

He got 16 years. Not that he will serve all of that. Judge described him as a serial predatory paedophile, he should be in there for life

Brilliant post chicken
I thought the Michael Jackson documentary "Finding Neverland" was eye opening about the extent of grooming and how clever paedophiles can be. One of the victims still struggles to see what happened to him as abuse not love

I think that society has a long way to go in acknowledging the extent of the problem of sexual abuse of children. The headline should not really be about sexual abuse of children being an epidemic in the 1970's and 80's because it was endemic then and it is endemic now. There are some differences of course between then and now, to do with safeguarding legislation and social acceptability, but I don't think that much has changed.

I was sexually abused throughout most of the 1980's. I don't think that enough has changed between now and then to prevent exactly the same sort of abuse happening again and on the same scale. Predators still know how to approach a child in ways to prevent her or him from either understanding what is happening or to prevent her or him from escaping or disclosing or being believed. Children, once they in someway understand what is happening to them, still have the same fears about disclosing that they always did, the fear of not being believed, the fear of being blamed, the fear of hurting their loved ones, and the shame - always the shame.

As a society we think that we understand these things much better nowadays but I think that we really don't. Most adults don't understand grooming - and how not only children are groomed but also the adults around them and the rest of society. We, as a society, don't understand coercive control either, or misdirection and being encouraged to look away or in another direction. We don't understand victim-blaming and about how all these resources that are going into schools to "help and enable children to keep themselves safe" place the blame for failure to stay safe and prevent abuse on the child. We also don't understand the power imbalance between a child and an adult, we think that we do but I think that it is clear that many adults in society have a really poor understanding of child development and children's vulnerabilities.

As a society we have made progress of course, especially around safeguarding legislation, but we are seeing safeguarding best practice challenged and diluted. We are seeing those with the loudest, clearest and most persistent voices about safeguarding being shut down, rather than recognised as some of the most important weapons we have in this fight.

Society continues to prioritise adult concerns over child safeguarding and we will not IMO make progress on the endemic sexual abuse of children, until we change this.

there is an actual massive problem of men sexually abusing women and children and it just goes on and on and on because people pretend it isn't happening
Quite right. It interests me that even in this article they are pretending it is somehow a peculiarity of the 70s, despite the fact there are ongoing scandals like rotherham or that gym coach Larry Nassar in the states, or this
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-34219235

I'm flipping sick of it tbh. And the victim blaming and apologism that goes on when it's in the news.

There is no way I'd let my children go anywhere they might be unchaperoned with a male teacher/sports coach/scout leader etc. It's just too high risk.

I am also encouraging my daughter to trust her gut so if she tells me she finds someone creepy I validate that. There is too much "oh he seems like a nice man..." that goes on and it allows these predators to operate more easily.

I speak as someone who was abused as a child and looking back I believe it was a ring because it was a sports coach and a lot of the other coaches around the sport at the time also got convicted of abuse.

There today and recently way too many threads opened up about child abuse and sexual abuse going on within 'normal' appearances families on Mumsnet common theme on Mumsnet, questioning if they are doing the right thing as it's too easy to keep quiet and cover it up. When are we going to have the strength to deal with this and say no. It's not ok. It's a crime.

I also had a friend who committed suicide at 31 after being raped by her father through her adolescence. She left two tiny children.
I think that the climate in the 70s and 80s did see teenage girls with much older men as precocious, rather than groomed. Bill Wyman for instance, how old was Mandy Smith, 13 or 14 ?
Now, I feel the internet means that although in public life things have changed, it is far easier for men to find images of abuse, and to meet or communicate with each other and share images. I live in a rural village and I have come across two men I am sure are paedophiles, yet when a friend called the police about one of these men, they dismissed it as a neighbour dispute , rather than taking a very close look at his hard drive. He had been lurking and taking pictures of her child in a paddling pool, which another neighbour had also found him doing years before.

it's more about lack of boundaries, desire to control, and that sort of thing
Is it not all about power to some extent?