The Psychometrics Forum is holding an event on 11th March this year to talk about politics and the personality of the politician, just in time for the elections. Speakers for the event include Dr Adrian Furnham, Professor of Psychology at University College London and Dr Rainer Kurz, who will be talking about politics and the psychology of abuse and cover up.
Dr Kurz has very kindly informed us that he will be exploring the following themes, which we feel may be of interest to our readers:
Politics, personality and performance including a model of manipulative behaviours
Psychometric measurement problems in clinical personality tests that shield abusers and re-victimise
Sir Cyril Smith, Sir Jimmy Savile, Marc Dutroux case and successful UK prosecutions of Satanists
Extreme abuse, trauma, dissociation
How ‘gaming’ of Family Court proceedings and mental health assessment works
If you’d like to attend this event, please see the flyer below for further details. Tickets cost £65 for full TPF members and £95 for non-members (including LinkedIn affiliates). Please contact Caro Leitzell with any queries or questions – admin@psychometricsforum.org
Many thanks to Dr Kurz for sharing this event with us.
The BBC are working on a new TV programme focusing on politics, and which will feature award-winning journalist Victoria Derbyshire, and a discussion panel made up of members of the public who are interested in current affairs.
If you’d like to take part in the programme, which will run from April, check out the details below:
“Do you have opinions on the day’s news, current affairs and issues of the day? We want your voice to be heard and would love to invite you to be part of an audience panel on a new programme on BBC 2 and BBC News Channel – presented by Victoria Derbyshire.
Throughout April we will be inviting up to 20 people a day to our studio in London’s New Broadcasting House to be on air and chat to Victoria and other audience members about the day’s news. Don’t worry – you don’t need to be an expert. We just want your take on issues that affect you.
It would be best if you lived near enough to London that you could get here relatively easily as we will probably only be able to give you a few day’s notice before the programme. You would then be required from 7am until 11am on the day of broadcast. Please contact Elaine if you want to know more. elaine.doran@bbc.co.uk”
“They did not have names; they did not know who their parents were, or where they came from, and they were completely terrified.”
He recalls that at the time, he was “deeply suspicious” of this practice, and had a strong feeling that the children did not have the proper permissions to travel. Since then, he has been likened to Jimmy Savile, although to his credit, he does say his rap sheet is worse. Savile was responsible for abusing 300 children – Blackheath facilitated the abuse of 2,500 vulnerable minors, none of whom knew where their parents were, or what was happening to them. They were completely alone in the world. And yet Blackheath, with his strong suspicions, which included the belief that what he was being asked to do to those children was in fact illegal, chose to keep quiet.
You would think that after an admission like that, Blackheath would be a little more introspective. But no. No longer speaking in the first person he tells us:
“It involved many tens of thousands of children over 15 years; we should be deeply ashamed of it.”
The rest of Blackheath’s statement is equally interesting. He details how these children were shipped off to Australia (careful to mention this happens during a Labour government – Blackheath is a Tory boy); how the courts there refused to sanction any adoptions involving these children; and how subsequently, they all ended up on the streets. 2,500 children. On the streets. All on their own.
And then, he goes on to share his knowledge, common knowledge as it turns out, that many of these children over time were picked up by so called religious organisations who were in fact abusing children emotionally and physically. Two of these organisations appear to be infamous – The Sisters of Mercy, who were Catholic nuns, and the Christian Brothers, who were already known in government service as the “Christian buggers”. “Already known in government service”. How about that.
Blackheath also tells us:
“The rules of a Christian Brothers home were that if you were abused by one of the holy fathers, that was an act of god, and if you complained about the holy father, that was a sin against god and you would be flogged for it. By the way, the flogging was with a metal hacksaw replacement blade. It did not leave much of a kid… Any ship that was allowed to sail from that date on was allowed to sail in the knowledge that the inmates were going to be raped and abused.”
And yet Mr Blackheath did nothing. He did not utter a word.
A group of social workers at the time, though, did. And of course, they were ignored.
Blackheath goes on to detail separate accounts from this period of time, but his statement, which clearly goes off at a long and winding tangent – the Lords are supposed to be discussing amendments to the Bill – is cut short by time watching peers.
(1) A person commits an offence if the person arranges or facilitates the travel of a child (“C”) with a view to transferring C’s permanent residence unless the person reasonably believes that—
(a) C’s parent or guardian consents,
(b) it is necessary for securing compliance with an order under section 8 of the Children Act 1989, or
(c) it is necessary for securing compliance with an order of a court in a foreign jurisdiction.
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1) “permanent residence” shall not include any detention under a sentence that is imposed by a court after a conviction for a criminal offence.
(3) A person may in particular arrange or facilitate C’s travel by transporting or transferring C, harbouring or receiving C, or transferring or exchanging control over C.
(4) A person arranges or facilitates C’s travel with a view to transferring C’s permanent residence only if the person knows or ought to know that C is travelling in order to live for a substantial or indeterminate period of time in a different location to the one in which C lived before the travel.
(5) “Travel” has the same meaning as in section 2.
(6) A person who is a UK national commits an offence under this section regardless of—
(a) where the arranging or facilitating takes place, or
(b) where the travel takes place.
(7) A person who is not a UK national commits an offence under this section if—
(a) any part of the arranging or facilitating takes place in the United Kingdom, or
(b) the travel consists of arrival in or entry into, departure from, or travel within, the United Kingdom.
(8) For the purposes of this section, a “person” shall include a public body.”
Was it a guilty conscience, perhaps? A fear that he might find himself under scrutiny? After all the amendment if enacted might in some way be retroactive. And with the nation’s Inquiry into child abuse he may be feeling a little nervous about being thrust into the spotlight. Nevertheless he’s done that for himself, by telling the world what he did in a public debate in the House of Lords. Whilst we appreciate that there may be a trace of contrition in that act, it’s hard not to feel disappointed by those who choose not to do the right thing when it comes to protecting children from being exploited.
What do British actress Emma Watson, statutes of limitation and insurance companies have in common? We’re about to find out.
Whilst the nation watches on as the Child Abuse Inquiry gets underway, inquiries further afield are already giving us a feel for what’s to come. The eery familiarity of our own, limited, progress in relation to our abuse inquiry in Britain owes as much to its many false starts as it does to the predictability of a process which bears many of the same hallmarks as investigations currently taking place in Australia and Ireland.
It is not inconceivable that this might happen here. With the current inquiry’s remit set to go back as far as Word War II, and perhaps farther still, the scope for thousands of victims to come forward will be set, whom quite rightly, will be angry and suppressed, and looking for justice. For many, that justice can now only come in the form of compensation, with historic abuse often leaving its long passed abusers languishing in graves or knocking on hell’s door. And we are already starting to see the effects. Child sexual exploitation figures have exploded in the last few months, with police appearing to uncover new spates of abuse cases. Perhaps not a coincidence that their past reticence to investigate these crimes has now turned into fevered action post the Inquiry’s inception.
As you might imagine, this stance has led to councils trying to sweep abuse allegations under the carpet to avoid losing their insurance cover. We don’t need to tell you the impact that would have had on vulnerable children not getting the help they so desperately needed.
Nevertheless, Emma Watson, who is a UN ambassador for women, made a powerful point on this issue, albeit indirectly, in a speech she made in New York last year. She highlighted the fact that in the UK alone, suicide is the biggest killer of men between 20-49. We also know that a significant portion of those who commit suicide, both men and women, are victims of abuse as children. Many also go on to die prematurely as a result of poor health which stems directly from their abuse. International statistics tell us that:
40 million children are subjected to abuse each year, and that;
Suicide is the third leading cause of death among adolescents globally.
So what does this all mean for the nations’ statutory inquiry into child abuse? Put bluntly, it means those involved are going to have to make a lot of enemies if they want to do the job properly. The Insurance sector will need to be thoroughly investigated. Local Authorities’ policies and practice protocols will need to be stripped down and analysed. The source of every action condoning both implicitly and explicitly the kind of behaviour which has failed to protect our children from abuse also needs to be found and scrutinised. Motivations for these cover ups and breaches of process need to be fully investigated and proposals for putting together child-friendly policies need to be made, much like the now infamous Family Test Prime Minister David Cameron proposed last year but which has yet to be implemented.
This inquiry is going to get ugly. It will be a Monster’s Ball. But we will all be watching, because unlike The Oscars, every one has a stake in the outcome.
Lowell Goddard, Chair for the Statutory Inquiry Into Child Abuse
Researching Reform 