PeteMorris Posted June 11, 2013 Share Posted June 11, 2013 Ok, in the wake of the various alleged abuse cases going on at the moment, I was totally stunned the other day after talking to a female friend of mine. She's a born and bred Sheffield 'lass'. Never lived anywhere but in Sheffield and is in her late 30's. She received a letter from the London metropolitan police enquiring if she had ever been in a certain children's home in London, and if so was she ever 'abused'. Now the logic (to me) of this letter, is that they must have a list of names of people who were in that 'home' at a certain point in time. So they must have sent a letter to everyone in the country with her name (which is a fairly common name) and in the right age bracket. In effect, actively trawling the entire country to find a potential 'victim'. If indeed one exists!!! Now there are several questions this poses. 1: Are the police simply being proactive and like to be 'seen' to be bringing justice? (albeit far too many years late) 2: Is it right to 'trawl' in this manner? 3: Is this simply creating a bandwagon culture? 4: Is this the reason there are so many 'claimants'? 5: Are the 'claimants' all genuine? (no doubt a hell of a lots are, but I suspect if this method of contact is used, some may not be!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyfriday Posted June 11, 2013 Share Posted June 11, 2013 1. Yes, and probably yes. 2. Yes, if it identifies victims. 3. Not if the 'victims' it identifies are properly corroborated. 4. Probably as they might not have come forward otherwise. 5. Even if they aren't, their testimony will be compared against known criteria and common victim narrative themes so false 'victims' will be easy to identify. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeteMorris Posted June 11, 2013 Author Share Posted June 11, 2013 I can't an wont go into specific detail but I recently had cause to question and set the record straight with this so called 'proactive' approach, which seems to be the norm these days. The assumption being (by the police) that because someone has a female gender, then they are automatically considered 'the victim'...Whereas the opposite was the case. I know that's a bit vague, but like I said, I'm not going into the details. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strix Posted June 11, 2013 Share Posted June 11, 2013 You seem to have eliminated the possibility that they are looking for a witness Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyfriday Posted June 11, 2013 Share Posted June 11, 2013 I can't an wont go into specific detail but I recently had cause to question and set the record straight with this so called 'proactive' approach, which seems to be the norm these days. The assumption being (by the police) that because someone has a female gender, then they are automatically considered 'the victim'...Whereas the opposite was the case. I know that's a bit vague, but like I said, I'm not going into the details. That's fine Pete, but I think it's preferable that the police treat 'victims' as victims until such time as it's proved otherwise. The flipside of that coin is that genuine victims would be reluctant to come forward and would have their grievance dismissed or not investigated comprehensively. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jessica23 Posted June 11, 2013 Share Posted June 11, 2013 I can't an wont go into specific detail but I recently had cause to question and set the record straight with this so called 'proactive' approach, which seems to be the norm these days. The assumption being (by the police) that because someone has a female gender, then they are automatically considered 'the victim'...Whereas the opposite was the case. I know that's a bit vague, but like I said, I'm not going into the details. Just enough detail to make sweeping claims about how the police investigate abuse cases but not enough detail for anyone to really comment sensibly on it. Perfect! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeteMorris Posted June 11, 2013 Author Share Posted June 11, 2013 You seem to have eliminated the possibility that they are looking for a witness I haven't eliminated anything? I merely posed the question(s) for discussion. Let me check....yep...it's definitely a 'discussion forum' ---------- Post added 11-06-2013 at 11:46 ---------- Just enough detail to make sweeping claims about how the police investigate abuse cases but not enough detail for anyone to really comment sensibly on it. Perfect! Nope...there's no sweeping claims there. Only my recent experience....and the logical conclusion that it's the 'norm'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jessica23 Posted June 11, 2013 Share Posted June 11, 2013 Well, here's a sweeping claim for you: the number of people who think nothing of coming on to SF to peddle damaging suggestions about abuse victims really does not contribute to making life easier for those victims. In fact, directly the opposite. Posts like your OP - yes, even when you frame those damaging assumptions as questions rather than statements - contribute to a culture of under-reporting, shame and secrecy around abuse (and rape, sexual assault, harassment, etc) that harms victims. The assumptions implicit in your question demonstrate a lack of understanding of these issues and are, in my view, irresponsible. /sweeping claims based on my own experience and extrapolating to assume it's the norm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeteMorris Posted June 11, 2013 Author Share Posted June 11, 2013 Well, here's a sweeping claim for you: the number of people who think nothing of coming on to SF to peddle damaging suggestions about abuse victims really does not contribute to making life easier for those victims. In fact, directly the opposite. Posts like your OP - yes, even when you frame those damaging assumptions as questions rather than statements - contribute to a culture of under-reporting, shame and secrecy around abuse (and rape, sexual assault, harassment, etc) that harms victims. The assumptions implicit in your question demonstrate a lack of understanding of these issues and are, in my view, irresponsible. /sweeping claims based on my own experience and extrapolating to assume it's the norm WOW...one angry lady! Just on one point...If my experience recently isn't the 'norm' then am I singled out for special treatment?...Both scenarios are wrong!...it shouldn't be automatically assumed that the male is an abuser....Or is that you'r view?...In which case you're very, very wrong, and you show as much lack of understanding as you accuse me of having! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jessica23 Posted June 11, 2013 Share Posted June 11, 2013 WOW...one angry lady! Just on one point...If my experience recently isn't the 'norm' then am I singled out for special treatment?...Both scenarios are wrong!...it shouldn't be automatically assumed that the male is an abuser....Or is that you'r view?...In which case you're very, very wrong, and you show as much lack of understanding as you accuse me of having! If you manage to extract from what I wrote in my previous post that (a) I'm angry and (b) that I assume all males are abusers automatically then there is a serious problem with your reading comprehension. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.