probably gonna have to lawyer-up with this one
Got this week off. Don't like working in November, so it's like an annual ritual for me. either one or two of the four weeks I have off. it's nice, it's usually always open and it gives me a leg-up on the Christmas shopping.
I saw Panorama last night. A 30 min expose of child-abuse rulings and safeguards, primarily in schools, following the Saville affair. The interesting thing about the 30 minutes of interviews and stories was that several different schools, when faced with abuse of pupils by teachers or priests chose to hush up the stories, silence the kids and relocate the molesters. As far back as Victorian times. One matron noticed such admission by several boys, took her evidence to the head of the school and never heard a word. it was only her persistent follow-up to another Board member who acted was the affair ever uncovered and the police called in.
There are two schools of thought on the reasoning for this.
[Note. before I continue I think child-abuse is EVIL. I hold no love, tolerance or understanding for the abusers and if I had my way I have them locked in garrets like highwaymen. As long as they are guilty by LAW. Not by the court of public opinion or the redtops. Just being clear, please don't sue]
1. Back in the day, in the UK when the majority of these cases were going on children were not seen as beautiful and unique snowflakes. They were not cossetted, nurtured and protected from everything including themselves. This is both a blessing and a curse, and from someone who can remember the eighties with startling freedom of a childhood spent in rivers, marshes and up trees I think it is a lost art and one we're unlikely to see again. Children were treated like mini adults. And, accordingly they weren't always believed when their tales went beyond the usual fantasy stories that all kids tell. I think also back in the fifties and sixties (when Saville's reign was peaking) Britain was still clinging to its imperialistic, Victorian past. Where the establishment was more important than the individual. They didn't want their schools or hospitals to be tarnished by scandal so they kept everything quiet. the feelings of the individual mattered little because of the numbers. "The needs of the many" as Spock would quote.
I'm not sure if this was good or bad, it just was. It was bad in today's society, but so is hitting your kids, and I was whacked as a child and a few of my peers were whacked harder. The sins of the past were exactly that. This is why there is such a thing as a statute of limitations. Though I guess it doesn't apply in this instance (nor should it. Just being doubly-clear).
2. The other instance still exists today.
Outsiders. "Airing the dirty laundry". It's farcical that we jeer at celebs for going on about their extramarital affairs or latest conquest (I'm looking at you Jordan) but then get all outraged at some cover-up or scandal involving real people (Hillsbourough for example). The human action is not specific to the content. Human beings don't like it when their personal dealings are exposed to criticism. In ANY circumstances. NHS whistle-blowers involve the police and the media, good luck trying to get a job afterwards. Why? they've done the right thing, haven't they? They've saved patients, saved lives, yes but they've put those with power in a bad position and those people won't forget. And humans are vindictive.
From healthcare to politics, from the police to the schools. You deal with your problems in-house. Privately. Getting the police or the media involved does nothing good.
The Panorama program noted that several countries have adopted a candour approach to child-abuse (meaning that if you knew about the abuse but did nothing you could be charged alongside the abuser). My job operates a similar system as part of my nursing contract, but the law itself is not used in the England yet. Though it is in place in the USA, Canada, Australia and Ireland. Though it give a weak excuse to not implementing the program I think it's not going to be used in the UK for a totally different reason.
The UK operates a quid-pro-quo society in its halls of power. Insider knowledge and favours are the credits in good business. Charlie Brooker did an interview with an American journalist 2 years ago where she noted how different her trade is across the pond as to here in the UK. The biggest example being the use of the anonymous sources in breaking news. Rare in the USA as the journalists have to reveal their sources for the sake of credibility, here it's common to see "A police source said" on the front page of most papers.
Why?
Because no one wants their name attached to anything, regardless of its accuracy when it comes to reporting. not only from outsiders, the in-house blowback could be damaging to their career. You DO NOT talk to outsiders on matters that don't concern them. Because the risk to the relationships you've taken years, sometimes decades to nurture will be damaged. and that's more important than the individual. Even sometimes if that individual is a child.
It isn't good or bad, it just is. Humans are secretive and personal by nature. To have a completely open society would be devastating. Sometimes some things have to be conducted in the shadows. Otherwise the system could not run as it does.
The current situation with Dolphins LT Jon Martin is a case in point. Martin abruptly quit the team 10 days ago. Got up from lunch in the cafeteria one day, went to his locker, picked up his stuff and left. Why?
Apparently LG Richie Incognito had been bulling and threatening Martin for the best part of 2 years and the guy just couldn't take it anymore. Incognito has now been suspended but what was interesting was the reaction from media and public. Some blamed the culture of the league, others the closed-door policy of the NFL locker room for stoking this atmosphere of bullying and intimidation. Others still blamed Martin himself for blabbing to the media like a child running to the teacher and not "maning up" and taking Incognito on behind the proverbial bike-sheds.
Martin broke the code of omerta. Silence. and many voices within the league (all speaking on condition of anonymity, see above for my opinions on that one) are heaping scorn on him for not dealing with it in house. Meanwhile the Dolphins have just lost two-fifths of their O-line halfway through a season, so no-one's happy in Miami right now.
Was Martin right? I don't know. Should he have manned-up and belted Incognito? O-linemen are trench-fighters, they are mean and nasty and are expected to be so. Incognito has a rep a mile long for being an asshole but as one source said "He's an asshole but you want him next to you in a bar fight, guy's as tough as nails". Should the other linemen performed an intervention? Got them to sort their differences in private? It's a pity because the horse as definitely bolted on that course of action. Incognito will unlikely play again, certainly not in Miami, but the same could be said for Martin, the victim in all of this. He aired the dirty laundry to the voracious American media. How can anyone on that team trust him now? If he leaves I hope he comes to Pittsburgh. They need a LT in the WORST way.
In closing. The decision to whistle-blow is with the individual themselves. They must decide if talking to outsiders is worth the blowback, stigma and reaction from peers. Laws to protect whistle-blowers are still flimsy, and no law exists to stop people "not liking" a person for reasons they'd rather not disclose.
I saw Panorama last night. A 30 min expose of child-abuse rulings and safeguards, primarily in schools, following the Saville affair. The interesting thing about the 30 minutes of interviews and stories was that several different schools, when faced with abuse of pupils by teachers or priests chose to hush up the stories, silence the kids and relocate the molesters. As far back as Victorian times. One matron noticed such admission by several boys, took her evidence to the head of the school and never heard a word. it was only her persistent follow-up to another Board member who acted was the affair ever uncovered and the police called in.
There are two schools of thought on the reasoning for this.
[Note. before I continue I think child-abuse is EVIL. I hold no love, tolerance or understanding for the abusers and if I had my way I have them locked in garrets like highwaymen. As long as they are guilty by LAW. Not by the court of public opinion or the redtops. Just being clear, please don't sue]
1. Back in the day, in the UK when the majority of these cases were going on children were not seen as beautiful and unique snowflakes. They were not cossetted, nurtured and protected from everything including themselves. This is both a blessing and a curse, and from someone who can remember the eighties with startling freedom of a childhood spent in rivers, marshes and up trees I think it is a lost art and one we're unlikely to see again. Children were treated like mini adults. And, accordingly they weren't always believed when their tales went beyond the usual fantasy stories that all kids tell. I think also back in the fifties and sixties (when Saville's reign was peaking) Britain was still clinging to its imperialistic, Victorian past. Where the establishment was more important than the individual. They didn't want their schools or hospitals to be tarnished by scandal so they kept everything quiet. the feelings of the individual mattered little because of the numbers. "The needs of the many" as Spock would quote.
I'm not sure if this was good or bad, it just was. It was bad in today's society, but so is hitting your kids, and I was whacked as a child and a few of my peers were whacked harder. The sins of the past were exactly that. This is why there is such a thing as a statute of limitations. Though I guess it doesn't apply in this instance (nor should it. Just being doubly-clear).
2. The other instance still exists today.
Outsiders. "Airing the dirty laundry". It's farcical that we jeer at celebs for going on about their extramarital affairs or latest conquest (I'm looking at you Jordan) but then get all outraged at some cover-up or scandal involving real people (Hillsbourough for example). The human action is not specific to the content. Human beings don't like it when their personal dealings are exposed to criticism. In ANY circumstances. NHS whistle-blowers involve the police and the media, good luck trying to get a job afterwards. Why? they've done the right thing, haven't they? They've saved patients, saved lives, yes but they've put those with power in a bad position and those people won't forget. And humans are vindictive.
From healthcare to politics, from the police to the schools. You deal with your problems in-house. Privately. Getting the police or the media involved does nothing good.
The Panorama program noted that several countries have adopted a candour approach to child-abuse (meaning that if you knew about the abuse but did nothing you could be charged alongside the abuser). My job operates a similar system as part of my nursing contract, but the law itself is not used in the England yet. Though it is in place in the USA, Canada, Australia and Ireland. Though it give a weak excuse to not implementing the program I think it's not going to be used in the UK for a totally different reason.
The UK operates a quid-pro-quo society in its halls of power. Insider knowledge and favours are the credits in good business. Charlie Brooker did an interview with an American journalist 2 years ago where she noted how different her trade is across the pond as to here in the UK. The biggest example being the use of the anonymous sources in breaking news. Rare in the USA as the journalists have to reveal their sources for the sake of credibility, here it's common to see "A police source said" on the front page of most papers.
Why?
Because no one wants their name attached to anything, regardless of its accuracy when it comes to reporting. not only from outsiders, the in-house blowback could be damaging to their career. You DO NOT talk to outsiders on matters that don't concern them. Because the risk to the relationships you've taken years, sometimes decades to nurture will be damaged. and that's more important than the individual. Even sometimes if that individual is a child.
It isn't good or bad, it just is. Humans are secretive and personal by nature. To have a completely open society would be devastating. Sometimes some things have to be conducted in the shadows. Otherwise the system could not run as it does.
The current situation with Dolphins LT Jon Martin is a case in point. Martin abruptly quit the team 10 days ago. Got up from lunch in the cafeteria one day, went to his locker, picked up his stuff and left. Why?
Apparently LG Richie Incognito had been bulling and threatening Martin for the best part of 2 years and the guy just couldn't take it anymore. Incognito has now been suspended but what was interesting was the reaction from media and public. Some blamed the culture of the league, others the closed-door policy of the NFL locker room for stoking this atmosphere of bullying and intimidation. Others still blamed Martin himself for blabbing to the media like a child running to the teacher and not "maning up" and taking Incognito on behind the proverbial bike-sheds.
Martin broke the code of omerta. Silence. and many voices within the league (all speaking on condition of anonymity, see above for my opinions on that one) are heaping scorn on him for not dealing with it in house. Meanwhile the Dolphins have just lost two-fifths of their O-line halfway through a season, so no-one's happy in Miami right now.
Was Martin right? I don't know. Should he have manned-up and belted Incognito? O-linemen are trench-fighters, they are mean and nasty and are expected to be so. Incognito has a rep a mile long for being an asshole but as one source said "He's an asshole but you want him next to you in a bar fight, guy's as tough as nails". Should the other linemen performed an intervention? Got them to sort their differences in private? It's a pity because the horse as definitely bolted on that course of action. Incognito will unlikely play again, certainly not in Miami, but the same could be said for Martin, the victim in all of this. He aired the dirty laundry to the voracious American media. How can anyone on that team trust him now? If he leaves I hope he comes to Pittsburgh. They need a LT in the WORST way.
In closing. The decision to whistle-blow is with the individual themselves. They must decide if talking to outsiders is worth the blowback, stigma and reaction from peers. Laws to protect whistle-blowers are still flimsy, and no law exists to stop people "not liking" a person for reasons they'd rather not disclose.