Talk:Cleveland child abuse scandal

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Not a daycare case

Deleted reference to "daycare hysteria". Cleveland did not involve a daycare centre and the reference to daycare centres makes no sense. --Biaothanatoi (talk) 05:01, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Additional info

I added more balanced info to this article, drawing on Campbell's 1988 review of the case. --Biaothanatoi (talk) 05:49, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] add cats

I have added cats to the article that fit. ResearchEditor (talk) 01:27, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV check

I have added the check notice since the content appears biased against the findings at the time about child abuse allegations. Much of that opposition to the allegations were led by Stuart Bell MP, and he succeeded in overturning the allegations along with many others. However, there is no mention of him in the article. To achieve balance the article should be amended in my opinion. Peterlewis (talk) 22:10, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Bell was a public advocate for the parents in this case, that's all. If you want particular information about him added to the article, then by all means, go ahead. However, a number of Bell's public statements in relation to this case turned out to be factually incorrect. For instance, a number of fathers accused in the case failed to inform Bell that they had prior convictions for child sexual assault.
Whilst the media vilified the doctors, Butler-Sloss' report concluded that the paediatricians diagnostic techniques were valid and evidence-based. Both Campbell and Richardson's books on the incident suggested that the media campaign against the pediatricians was a moral panic against a female doctor who touched kids bums as part of general medical checks.
This article is not a pulpit from which to reproduce Bell's incorrect claims. If you want information about his role in the incident included in this article, then go ahead. Simply restating information provided by Bell, which later turned out to be false, isn't so helpful. --Biaothanatoi (talk) 02:38, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

That sounds very POV and against the conclusions of Butler-Sloss. Where is your evidence for sexual abuse convictions against the parents? The whole point of Wiki articles is to give a balanced view of a topic. Sir Stuart Bell is a distinguished member of Parliament, and not some hack journalist. Peterlewis (talk) 15:30, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I own the Butler-Sloss report, and, to my mind, I'm accurately reporting the inquiry's conclusions. Please show me where I have made an error of fact.
Butler Sloss, p 36 "Among the famlies affected were those well-known to Social Services Department, with long-standing familiy problems and a history of social work interventions, but no previous allegations of sexual abuse. There were parents with previous convictions for sexual offences against children (Schedule 1 offenders). There were families with children who were failing to thrive".
If you think Bell should be mentioned here, then go for it. It's not an issue. You just need to ensure that you include Bell in here in a NPOV way. Bell was an advocate for some parents, but not all.
For instance, on p46 of the Butler Sloss report, one mother expressed gratitude to Higgs for diagnosing her child with sexual abuse, since her husband was a Schedule 1 sexual offender with previous convictions that he had hidden from her.
Butler Sloss p 46 "She said that Mr Stuard Bell M.P. had spoken to her husband and believd her husband when he said he had not committed sexual abuse. Mr Bell telephoned her and would not accept her point of view. She told the Official Solicitor that Mr Bell said: "the bairn's been told to say she was abused". He told her he had seen her Social Services file, which she found very upsetting."
So your "distinguished member of parliament" believed the word of a convicted sexual offender over his daughter, and his wife, and breached this woman's confidence by illegally accessing her Social Services file? Nice guy.
Bulter Sloss goes into great detail to document that many parents in the Cleveland case were pleased with Higgs and the doctors and social workers, and the report explicitly states that the media has driven a campaign of misinformation against the doctors and social workers. All I'm saying is that we should not blindly reproduce that misinformation here. --Biaothanatoi (talk) 03:34, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Source for information

This quote mentions a lot but has no reference

"Some parents in this case directly engaged journalists in contesting the child protection interventions. Media coverage focused particularly on a technique, known as reflex anal dilatation, that had been used to diagnose some children with sexual abuse. In only 18 of the suspected cases was anal dilation the only medical evidence of abuse, however, media coverage erroneously indicated that Higgs and Wyatt had relied solely on this indicator. The media also failed to report that many of the children's families had documented histories of abuse. Seventeen of the children lived with fathers or other relatives who had already been convicted of sexual offences, and several other children were outpatients after their parents had been registered as having harmed their children."

That paragraph has many allegations. A proper wikipedia entry needs references or else it deserves to be omitted. Teesside dazza (talk) 07:03, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

It comes from Campbell's book "Unofficial Secrets", which is referenced on the page. I'll dig up some page numbers. --Biaothanatoi (talk) 03:35, 6 May 2008 (UTC)