Operation Yewtree: A Worrying Can-of-Worms

I’ve previously commented on The Prolific Growth of the Savil’s Yewtreee but what many don’t consider is how Operation Yewtree has also been instrumental in opening a veritable can-of-worms. Many of which are more insidious and worrying than perhaps even the hideous paedophiles who have subsequently been exposed…

You see it’s not just the ‘worms’ of (alleged) paedophilia in our society but more, the inadequacies of our legal system in providing protection for victims. Add all the opinionated self-interest and social control or commercial desires of our media machine to the mix and you can (partly) understand some of the recent comments from some of our legal profession.

But even the most controversial comments from the likes of Barbara Hewson QC who claimed; the “witch-hunt” against ageing celebrities was reminiscent of the Soviet Union (see here), could also be seen (cynically) as having been offered for self-promoting and/or commercial reasons. So much so that even Ms Hewson’s own chambers quickly distanced themselves from them.

We are shocked by the views expressed in Barbara Hewson’s article in Spiked (8 May 2013). We did not see or approve the article pre-publication and we completely dissociate ourselves from its content and any related views she may have expressed via social media or any other media outlets…(Hardwicke Chambers)

Not without standing the outcomes from the Savile Scandal, or the media furore around the recent admissions of guilt by Stuart Hall and his subsequent conviction; rape investigations are often ‘undermined by belief that false accusations are rife (see here). An important consideration in all of this is that finally, we should be dispelling the rape myths that still abound. But the Savile and Hall outcomes should not be seen as de facto evidence to support the raison d’être of modern media methodology.

There may have been calls to Raise the IQ of Barristers, some of whom (see above) have been accused of being out of touch with society. There has also been many strong arguments around the naming of ‘suspects’ prior to conviction (Silence & Anonymity Do Not Bring Abusers To Justice). Jon Brown, head of strategy and development for sexual abuse at the NSPCC, raised the question - Witch Hunt or Justice for Victims? - when looking at the thoughts/reasoning behind the comments of Hewson. 

I get the arguments which relate to ‘victim confidence’ i.e. their ability to come forward and make a formal complaint; these are mainly offered by the legal profession and child-protection charities such as the NSPCC and Barnardo’s. The ones I struggle with are those arguments around ’public interest’ and a ‘need’ to know. These are mostly put forward by our media organisations, again (cynically) for commercial reasons perhaps?

Here we go again: …the recent recommendations made by Keir Starmer QC (see here) to make changes to the way child abuse cases are handled and dealt with by the police authorities and the judiciary, are now critical…(Jonathan Wheeler)

Yewtree has been a minefield of opinionated and often self-interested debate around the rights and wrongs of investigative process, legislation and some morality issues but even Ms Hewson’s controversial views on child sex abuse have (surprisingly) had support ”flooding in” (see here).

Commenting on the need for a change to sentencing guidelines in child sexual exploitation cases, Cherie Blair QC said; “Child sexual exploitation is an appalling crime that devastates lives, and the legal system in this country has a crucial role in protecting children from such abuse by bringing the perpetrators to justice” (See HERE);

Regardless of how mature a child looks, how they behave or what kind of relationship has been established with the abuser, it must always be the case that victims of sexual exploitation are treated as children and never as willing participants…(Cherie Blair QC)

I don’t think any right-minded person would disagree with any of the above however; my greatest concern here is that of ‘justice’ – for both victims and the accused. To me it seems we are in danger of running headlong into accepting a ‘mob rule’ type of justice. One that is happy to allow trial by media, or even worse social-media, as opposed to the previously accepted concept of innocent until proven guilty and only then within a court of law.

This week North Yorkshire Police have been criticised for failing to release the name of the veteran comedian Jimmy Tarbuck, when he was arrested back in April for alleged Op Yewtree type offences dating from the 1970s.

Freedom of speech campaigners and politicians said North Yorkshire Police’s decision not to report its arrest of veteran comedian Jimmy Tarbuck over an alleged assault on a young boy more than 30 years ago was also “a blow to open justice”…(D&S Tuimes)

While some police forces, including the Metropolitan Police, have announced high-profile arrests in the past, the cynic inside me suggests there may well have been ulterior motives at play. The fact that North Yorkshire Police did not reveal it had questioned Mr Tarbuck on April 26 until asked by journalists, is not a real issue, except for the media. The force actually complied with national guidelines in force at the time.

Critics (mostly media based) have suggested that ‘public confidence’ in policing is being ‘undermined’ by similar actions, or should that be inaction? They’re almost suggesting that police should not only confirm but actually announce the names of suspects in ‘public interest’ cases, as if it were almost a matter of ‘duty’ for police forces.

But where is the divide between ‘public interest’ and pandering to salacious gossip-mongering? Are the police expected to feed so-called ‘investigative journalism’ irrespective of any consequences? Perhaps we should expect this constant media coverage after all; they’re commercial organisations that earn their cash from reporting on things, anything, be it factual or opinionated, they have columns and airtime to fill.

A spokeswoman for freedom of expression campaign group English Pen is reported to have said: “The fundamental issue is about open justice and the great concern is that if this becomes the norm, there will be a worrying secrecy surrounding individuals whose civil liberties could be endangered.” I have to agree with one of the comments to the article;

This is utter nonsense and the media know it, they are playing a game in a desperate attempt to detract from Leveson. And because of their rapidly declining business, want stories handed to them on a plate. It is not the police’s job to name those under arrest. It is the police’s job to gather evidence and ensure a fair trial and justice for victims…(noiretblanc)

I do however agree with Keith Vaz MP, chairman of the Commons’ Home Affairs Select Committee, who reportedly said: “It is unacceptable that a suspect living in one area should be treated differently to a suspect in the next postcode.”

That goes without any argument from me, I’m fully supportive of citizens always receiving the same standards from any of our public services (not only justice), no matter where they live in the UK. I also support the principles of ‘open justice’ but I’m struggling a bit with the wording which suggests; an individuals ‘civil liberties’ are somehow undermined when you apply ‘secrecy’ to their identity?

As another commentator to the D&S Times piece said; “What this country needs is a referendum on the laws that allow the media to print speculation” – It appears that irrespective of Leveson we’re still not confident about the methods employed by our media, let alone their culture, practice or ethics, and probably rightly so.

Irrespective of the fact that many ’suspects’ will  be arrested who haven’t committed any crime, the police will often need the power of arrest to protect the public ad/or effectively carry out thorough investigations into any alleged offence. Each police officer is open to scrutiny (and disciplinary/legal action) should they abuse that power. It also has to be remembered; being arrested is not proof of being guilty.

Whether or not there is any substance in the allegations which suggested, the police may have tipped off the media in some ‘high-profile’ arrests, during Op Yewtree; the role of the police is not to feed the media, it is to protect the public and to prevent and investigate crime.

The police should never act with judgement but that’s also a function which isn’t afforded to our media (as yet), irrespective of how much they would like to think it is!

Related articles

• The Prolific Growth Of Savile’s #Yewtree (bankbabble.wordpress.com)
• The worst thing I’ve read today (stavvers.wordpress.com)
• Outrage at barrister who called Stuart Hall’s crimes ‘low level’ (dailymail.co.uk)
• Consent age should be 13 says lawyer (bbc.co.uk)
• Legal chambers’ ‘shock’ after human rights lawyer calls for age of consent to be lowered to 13 and an end to the ‘persecution of old men’ in wake of the Savile scandal (dailymail.co.uk)
• Top human rights barrister sparks outrage with call for age of consent to be lowered to 13 (independent.co.uk)

The Prolific Growth Of Savile’s #Yewtree

Despite all that we’ve heard about Jimmy Savile’s disgusting and ’perverted’ lifestyle since his death and over recent months (see here), I have to say that I find the prolific growth of Operation Yewtree a little concerning…

Has all the (apparently) previously unknown pedophilia within our entertainments industry actually been as widespread as it now appears or, is there also an element of jumping aboard a bandwagon at play here, by whoever and for whatever reason?

The Police operation, which began back in 2012 and not long after demise of Sir Jimmy Savile, was pursuing around 120 separate lines of inquiry during its early days, according to Scotland Yard. A factor which was reported widely in the media then (see BBC) and still is today.

Thanks to the Savile can-of-worms, it now appears that our entertainment industry of the day was allegedly riddled with ‘sex offenders’ in the past. Adults and children, including a boy of eight, were abused by Jimmy Savile, according to the joint NSPCC and Police Yewtree Report which details allegations spanning a 50 year period (see here).

By the end of 2012, the Operation Yewtree team said “589 alleged victims had subsequently come forward” during their investigations into Savile and others. Of those alleged victims, 82% were female and 80% were children or young people (source BBC).

Now the actor Michael Le Vell (Kevin Webster in Coronation Street), is also facing 19 charges relating to alleged offences between 2001 and 2010 (see here). Recently Rolf Harris was named by The Sun as a ‘suspect’ in the Yewtree allegations of sexual offences” (see here). That allegation was closely followed by similar ones against William Roache who has since been charged.

Having completed our review, we have concluded that there is sufficient evidence and it is in the public interest for Mr Roache to be charged with two offences of rape relating to a girl, aged 15, in 1967…(Nazir Afzal – CPS North West)

The fall-out from the Savile Scandal has also reignited the fire under the distasteful record of Gary Glitter who was subsequently arrested again. The DJ Dave Lee Travis and comedian  Fredie Starr have both had their collars felt in the last few months and only yesterday (02-May-2013), the previously well-loved TV/Radio presenter Stuart Hall, late of It’s A Knockout fame, pleaded guilty to the offences he was previously charged with (see here).

Now even the renowned and prolific celebrity PR mogul Max Clifford has been charged with 11 counts of indecent assault against teenagers (see here). Like some others I’m prompted to yell…WTF? One cynical commentator quickly suggested; ”if Clifford can’t spin his way out of this, what hope have ’ordinary’ celebrities got?”

Comments such as that may be comical at face value but they are also unfair, the tone (as with much of that espoused by our media), is actually a suggestion of guilt prior to any court conviction.  It must therefore be understandable that Clifford should claim he is being pilloried and “held up to national shame.” Whether or not his comment of, ”if the Jimmy Savile situation had not come along none of this would be happening” turns out to be true, will be (rightly) wholly dependent upon the outcome of a court of law. If indeed it progresses that far?

Today Op Yewtree involves somewhere in the region of 70 police detectives and has so far cost upwards of £2M (as at the end of April 2012). Despite resulting in some well founded criticism of the BBC, revealing some police failings and highlighting so many previous lost chances to prosecute, it also has its critics. It’s good that the operation has been Giving Victims A Voice, all be it belatedly, and it also appears to be adept at rooting out so many ‘alledged’ offenders. I am however wondering; could it be that Yewtree is now (hopefully unintentionally) becoming something of a media fuelled Witch-Hunt, rather than the bona fide criminal ‘investigation’ it originally set out to be?

Freddie Starr believes cops are after him because they failed to nail Jimmy Savile…(mirror.co.uk)

Despite any obvious attempt by Starr to clear his name, doesn’t he actually have a valid point? It’s looking like we now have what can only be described as  ’open season’ on anyone who enjoyed celebrity status during the 1960/70/80s. A desire to air our historic dirty washing in public which are moves designed to mitigate against our previous system failures perhaps? It’s another one of those situations which plays directly into the hands of our emotive tabloid media.

Another household TV name is being investigated over sex abuse allegations by Jimmy Savile police… Allegations of historic sexual abuse have been made against the TV favourite, who denies the claims… Police yesterday refused to confirm who the much-loved comedian was… The Sunday Mirror knows the identity of the man, now in his 70s, but we have decided not to name him…(mirror.co.uk)

Writing in The Mail at the end of last month Peter McKay was (obviously) waxing cynical when he commented on the above story under the headline; Sir, we are charging you with being a celebrity…(see here). He suggested that police from Operation Yewtree, were only “pursuing alleged ‘historic’ sex crimes by the famous.”

In his piece he asked; “what if you were the victim of a serious assault in the past which was not sexual in character — a mugging or a savage beating, say, by a famous person which took place in 1966? Would the police begin proceedings against the celebrity you say was responsible?”

Apparently McKay sought clarity and an answer from a friend of his who happened to be a QC… The learned gentleman thought not, “especially if it’s simply one person’s word against another’s.” The QC also suspected that Yewtree could well be a “publicity stunt.”

The QC (allegedly) went on to say that “outside of old murders solved by new DNA procedures, few, if any, ‘historic’ assault cases are tried.” Could McKay’s cynicism also be well founded when he says; “But sex crimes are more news-worthy than beatings and muggings. Especially if the victims are young girls and the alleged abusers are, or were, famous.” I wonder? Always assuming the QC isn’t part of some ‘establishment’ paedophile ring himself? Surely not?

There is no doubt however that there will be many ’celebrities’ panicking about their past catching up with them. If only because of an incident that what was once considered to be ’harmless’ petting or flirting, is now considered to be a criminal offence of sexual abuse.

Turning things around somewhat and by way of an example; isn’t it worth remembering that homosexuality was once considered to be a criminal offence in this country but now,  in more enlightened times, it’s actually embraced as a valuable aspect of our diverse society. Would we set up a team of detectives to chase after everyone who was in a gay relationship prior to 1967?

And all this before you even start to consider the well-known ‘casting-couch’ situations that were once accepted normality within the entertainments industry, a process that undoubtedly propelled numerous wannabee starlets (often willingly) towards fame and fortune in the past. I’m not saying any of this is right but I am asking, isn’t rather simplistic and somewhat naive to ignore or negate these additional factors?

Also, from a more pragmatic viewpoint, unlike the emotive views often expressed from our media which in-turn are fuelled by an often contrived public angst within social media forums, I’m also prompted to raise the following additional questions.

1. Could there be any merit in the (cynical?) suggestions raised and put forward by Peter McKay (see above)?
2. Haven’t we arrived here because many of the ‘standards’ of ‘acceptable’ behaviour are different today than they once were?
3. Isn’t this situation (partly) reminiscent of many of those well-published ‘travesties’ of justice. The type of case where a person convicted of a crime (soundly) in the past, subsequently has a sentence quashed years later, often due to advances in forensic science and/or DNA technology?
4. Irrespective of genuine victims feeling more comfortable about actually being believed now; how many have seized upon Yewtree as an opportunity to placate their feelings of self-deprecation and/or sense of being belittled or undervalued during an aspirational period in their life?
5. How many ‘victims’ have found an opportunity to punish an individual (or system) that has (in their eyes) failed them in the past in some way?

In summary; I don’t condone any abuse of power, position or status especially when it’s used for the forceful imposition of any unwanted sexual advances. I can however empathise with the emotional and/or physical pain some have undoubtedly experienced in the past (and since) because of Savile and others like him. I have no wish to discourage any genuine victim from coming forward with a complaint in the future. Indeed, I applaud and hold admiration for all those victims who have already found the strength to do so.

But as a final thought; could it be that our perception regarding the extent of Peadophillia in our society (then or now) is similar to our general perception of violent crime i.e. usually wrongly for a myriad of reasons, we genuinely believe there is more of it than there actually is?

Related articles

• Rolf Harris investigation into alleged sex abuse moves to Australia (independent.co.uk)
• Bill Roache: Coronation Street’s Ken Barlow charged with two counts of rape – Daily Mail (dailymail.co.uk)
• Freddie Starr rearrested by Jimmy Savile police (metro.co.uk)
• Stuart Hall: Veteran BBC broadcaster admits 14 counts of indecent assault (dailymail.co.uk)
• Rolf Harris in sex offence inquiry (bbc.co.uk)

Crime Statistics: Fact or Fiction?

Crime statistics for England and Wales show an 8% drop on police figures and a 5% reduction in the ‘official’ crime survey figures (source guardian.co.uk). That has to be good news - doesn’t it? We’re winning the ‘war’ against crime – aren’t we? How do we compare with the remainder of Europe?

As any previous visitors here will know; I’m one of those who is often sceptical about ‘official’ crime statistics (see example post) but I’m not alone with my views. Several others continually question the validity of our crime figures. In recent years, the Thin Blue Line Blog  has probably done more than most in its attempt to; comprehensively unravel all the ‘spin’ and book cooking disguising the true figures.

Crime statistics attempt to provide statistical measures of the crime in societies. Given that crime is usually secretive by nature, measurements of it are likely to be inaccurate…(wikipedia.org)

To be fair, our ‘official’ statistics in England & Wales are supplemented by the results of the crime survey; a process that since 1982, provides additional figures (designed) to supplement the actual number of crimes recorded by the police. The idea behind the survey is to provide a more ’balanced’ picture of crime trends (see crimesurvey.co.uk) by courting personal opinion and perception.

The overall picture, based upon both sets of data shows that; despite the downward trends, Britain still remains among the more violent countries in western Europe. Still a sad fact but thankfully, the statistical decline is more rapid here than anywhere else in Europe. So it appears that, mostly due to our media perhaps, we still have a tendency to inflate the true picture?

Statisticians say the crime rate has halved since it peaked in 1995 and appears to be at its lowest level for more than 30 years…(guardian.co.uk)

So if crime is actually falling, all we now have to do is reduce the fear of crime, whether or not that fear is based upon fact or fiction i.e. real or perceived. It’s something our police forces (and the government) have been trying to do for some time.

The fear of crime refers to the fear of being a victim of crime as opposed to the actual probability of being a victim of crime. The fear of crime is said to have been in Western culture for “time immemorial”…(wikipedia.org)

It’s an important factor that was also raised by Ally Fogg writing in The Guardian when he said; Crime is falling. Now lets reduce fear of crime - a nobel thought but is it one that’s actually viable? The Twitter notification informing the world about his article prompted me to reply in my usual cynical manner. 

Easy to ‘cook’ the books but mind engineering far more difficult (@DaveHasney)

Despite covering most, if not all the social, economic and scientifically derived factors leading to our ‘fear’ of crime in his article, Ally Fogg actually alluded to the fact that it is never easy to make significant in roads into this problem. Moving towards his summing up he said; “Psychology has taught us how cognitive biases skew our perceptions of risk.”

Crime (and anti social behaviour) are undoubtedly an important issue for all our communities; it’s one of the main reasons why we now have  Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships (CDRP). Groups that were established by the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 to co-ordinate action on crime and disorder. But more than ten years on since their inception, we still have that ‘fear’ in our communities.

The next natural question to ask is, are they actually achieving what they set out to do? If so, it’s not that apparent. It’s probably the reason why so many similar questions are raised (but usually only partly answered), by sociologists, criminologists, politicians and journalists ad infinitum.

The prevailing mood is always that the world is going to hell in a handcart, and woe betide any political candidate who suggests otherwise…(Ally Fogg)

The majority of these ‘crimes’ (perceived or real), may well be ’low level quality of life issues’ however; they still serve to continually blight many of our neighbourhoods. In addition, they still ruin people’s lives and probably more important now than in the past, they also have a substantial financial impact upon the public and private sector purse. Hundreds of thousands of pounds in lost revenue and (arguably) wasted expenditure trying to combat them, are continually flushed down the public service drains of our society each year.

The total cost of violence and crime to the UK economy is estimated at £124bn per annum. To put that in perspective, a further 50% reduction in crime would cover the cost of every hospital built-in the country over the past 13 years…(guardian.co.uk)

These financial figures are even more worrying (and annoying) when you consider; we’re continually trying to rectify problems caused by a relatively small minority in our society. Financial impacts aside but with self-preservation of party political popularity no doubt to the fore; it’s hardly surprising that successive Governments have not only set targets for reducing crimes such as burglary, robbery and car theft, but for some time now, they have also aimed to reduce the fear of crime.

Now I’m not one of those who is easily swayed in his opinion or beliefs; especially not when it comes to the emotive type of media headlines so favoured by our tabloid journalists. I can also read between the lines of often politically biased broadsheet  journals. As it would appear many commentators to Fogg’s article were prone to mention. Ergo, I’m not one of those who’s perception is as a consequence of our media.

I fully understand all the ‘tricks’ of the trade utilised by police forces and politicians to artificially illustrate the realities of crime. I live in probably the ’safest’ area of England & Wales (according to crime statistics) but I still continually see, hear about and take note of many of the criminal and/or anti-social realities impacting upon our society. I also have a pretty good handle on how police resources are deployed to deal with many of those issues.

I know that perception and reality are often at odds with each other however; despite a still relatively small number of ‘crimes’ per capita, crime actually rose almost year on year between 1950 and in 2004/05 (civitas.org.uk). Strange how after an almost tenfold increase in that time (see graph), we’re suddenly expected to believe crime is decreasing year on year. It’s also hardly any wonder that, irrespective of numerous ’satisfaction’ surveys, the word on the street (rightly or wrongly) is, “our police are failing us!”

Despite all the contrived spin designed to mitigate against the general (but hopefully mostly unfounded) perceptions about our police, the public rarely see police officers these days, let alone experience any personal interaction with them. When they do, it appears that with far too much regularity, their experience often leaves a sour taste. I’ve said it in the past , perhaps the police are the engineers of their own demise?

When communities are continually ‘sold’ high expectations about the capabilities of their police, and those massively reduced resources can’t physically match up to that expectation, is it any wonder we’re unintentionally generating negative perceptions about policing capability?  And what they [the police] are doing about crime.

There are those who will argue that policing is more of a scientific and intelligence lead process today, it’s not just about visibility and response times. It is a combination of proactive and reactive methodology. I agree but I also worry that; far too often it appears the ‘proactive’ aspects are little more than short-term operations for PR opportunities and the ‘reactive’ part, well that is often late or (sometimes rightly) not delivered at all.

Add a widely held negative perception of policing, to a predominant (unfounded?) belief we live in a society of high crime levels and you have a recipe for a pressure cooker of public angst. But policing and crime, or indeed the fear of crime, are only the window on the actual problems. It is far too simplistic to lay all the blame at the front door of your local Police Station (always assuming you can actually find one).

As I’ve pointed out before, with regular monotony; political spin, PR hype and ‘cooking’ of records will never realise the actual results we’re continually striving to achieve.

If we compare ourselves with other countries or with our own history, the crime rate is high… Rather than making it seem that people are in the grip of irrational fears and implying that these fears are whipped up by the tabloids, the Home Office could more usefully direct its energy at reducing crime and recognising the objective seriousness of the situation…(civitas.org.uk)

To find the real answers to the problems resulting from crime, we need to examine the very foundations of our society. Wealth (or lack of it), parenting skills, quality of education, health and wellbeing and yes policing, along with the remainder of the Criminal Justice System, all have a part to play in crime reduction. Their actions/inactions all have an impact upon the stability of our social framework.

There is no quick fix available and certainly no immediate personal kudos to be gained here for any senior police officers, Police & Crime Commissioner or politician. That’s a fact they would all do well to remember. We need to invest more time, effort and public cash, into the root causes of crime. Always assuming we really want to see some tangible results. Or, could ”reducing the fear of crime” be just another example of political spin?

Whatever your perceptions of crime, the closing lines of Crime Watch which went something like - “Please remember, violent crime is actually much rarer than a lot of what we show, please do not have nightmares, sleep tight” – are relevent here!

Related articles

• Crime is falling. Now let’s reduce fear of crime | Ally Fogg (guardian.co.uk)
• Is UK Crime Falling? (britishvlogger.wordpress.com)
• Crime Figures Lack Validity – Reclassifying ‘Crimes’! (brianrobertssociology.wordpress.com)
• Media Impact on Crime and Fear (kdizaei.wordpress.com)
• Pom-poms ‘help reduce fear of crime’ (bbc.co.uk)