I'm not sure if anyone has looked at the Watehouse report but it is very clear than a majority of the accused abusers were not charged with anything even though there had been numerous complaints by different victims all saying the same thing, as the victims could not produce evidence or were classed as unreliable. I have picked relatively mild accusations in the grand scheme of things because it didnt seem appropriate to post anything else but you can see that these children didnt stand a chance of justice. The waterhouse report didnt question why the hell these people were not charged. It just followed on from the previous inquiries and offered nothing which is why a criminal investigation has to be started again into every reported offence.
Parts of Waterhouse report.............
21.99 To complete the picture it is necessary to mention also that a number of allegations of alleged abuse were reported by the Community to the Welsh Office in the period between l988 and l993. Thus, in May 1988 there was an allegation of assault on a resident made against White junior[297], who was then apparently Director of Bryn Alyn Hall. The Solihull boy involved was 16 years old and was a resident at Gatewen Hall, whilst attending school at Bryn Alyn Hall. The incident was investigated quickly by the Community and Clwyd Social Services Department set in train Child Abuse procedures. The conclusion reached in the Community's internal investigation was that White junior had "acted excessively". He had been suspended from duty during the investigation and, after the North Wales Police had informed him that he would not be prosecuted, he was transferred to administrative duties within the Community. He did, however, act as Deputy Head of Gatewen Hall from the summer of 1991 to January 1993 following the resignation of Lynn Williams.
21.100 In June, August and October 1989 there were further allegations of physical abuse. The first and last of these involved the same member of staff on both occasions. On the first occasion he was alleged to have physically abused two boys and removed all their clothes, for which, after an investigation, he was given a formal warning. Then in October 1989 he was alleged to have abused a girl resident, for which he was dismissed. The complainant in August 1989 alleged that he had been struck and pushed on three occasions by different members of the staff, after which he had absconded to his home in Sandwell. The allegations were referred to the police for investigation but no support for them by other children named as victims or witnesses was forthcoming and no prosecution ensued.
Ystrad school hall for disabled children.......
22.16 Four other members of the staff (one unidentified) and one resident were the subject of allegations of sexual abuse made by five different former residents, each of whom referred to only one abuser. As we understand the position, police officers investigated the allegations, which were not corroborated, and no prosecution ensued. The evidence of two of these complainants was read to us. In his first statement to the police, made in prison on 10 August 1992, this witness, C, described in detail how he had been indecently assaulted and later buggered by a named member of staff in a staff bedroom at Eirianfa. He alleged that the last occasion when buggery occurred was shortly before the fire at Eirianfa. He had not complained to any member of the staff about what had been done to him but he had confided in four named friends.
22.17 Although that statement reads quite straightforwardly, doubt about the general credibility of the witness C arises from two subsequent statements that he made. Shortly after his first statement a former resident told the police that he had seen C assaulted physically on two occasions by another member of the staff, Christopher (Chris) Williamson. C was seen, therefore, on 26 November 1992 by a police officer, who wished to ascertain whether C would confirm the allegation. In response, however, C denied that he had been assaulted by Williamson and said he recalled the latter only vaguely as a handyman who had never worked as a care assistant. C described Williamson as an elderly man with a grey beard who was cross-eyed.
22.18 C made his third statement on 16 January 1997 when he was seen by a representative of the Tribunal. In that statement he repudiated the second statement attributed to him, saying that he did not make it and that its contents were not true. He went on to say (contrary to his first statement) that he had complained to Williamson in his office about the first act of buggery on the day after it had occurred, but that he did not recall anything being done about it. Later in the same statement to the Tribunal C gave a full description of Williamson, putting his age in the early forties, and alleged that Williamson had assaulted him twice physically: the first occasion was when he had complained of being buggered, whereupon Williamson had come around his desk, grabbed him by the shoulder and smacked him across the face and had then pushed him down on to an arm chair, shouting "No, he didn't do it"; and the second occasion was when he repeated the allegation of buggery by a member of the staff to Williamson after some discussion with a friend's father and Williamson had thumped him on the face and head and kicked him in the ribs when he went to the floor.
22.19 The internal conflicts between these three statements are such that we cannot be sure that any of them is correct. The other complainant whose evidence was read named another young boy as his abuser and it has not been appropriate to pursue that allegation
These children were disabled and lad learning difficulties. What did the police need to prosecute because i am at a loss for words
Yes, it gets complicated but these children were the most vulnerable. What do the police and courts expect. Other than being a hand written confession, no amount of evidence seemed enough.