h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Over the last few days the always charming Daily Mail have made something of an issue of labour shadow cabinet minister Harriet Harmann having once belonged to a freedom of speech group which granted affiliate status to an organisation supporting paedophiles. They have also accused her of trying to water down child pornography laws when she was in government. Shame they didn’t make a big fuss of it at time, really. Anyway, the thing is that I see that they’re vaguely trying to associate her with child abusers but I can’t see what, specifically, she is supposed to have done that is either criminal or generally wrong. The whole thing screams political agenda (labour are not the Mail’s party of choice) which is a shame, because child abuse should never be political. But the thing is, on the subject of what the Mail think and what Harriet may have failed to object to: I don’t care.
Let me be quite clear. I read about this story online last night, while sitting next to my wife, who finds falling asleep scary because that’s when her memories start to flood back. I’m not making an emotional trump card out of this fact, I’m just pointing out that I do know very well what the affects of abuse are on sufferers. I am not dismissing or diminishing the importance of this issue. Quite the reverse.
In the debate on child abuse there are two really key groups of people: victims and perpetrators. Plenty of other people exist in the vast grey area of ‘people who allowed it to happen’ but trying to pin all of them down would be like putting everyone who ever looked the other way while their neighbours were being illegally detained in front of a war crimes tribunal. It’s not going to happen, and it’s not going to help.
In terms of dealing with the past we have two jobs, then. Firstly, we find give victims the space to come forward, tell their stories and be heard and believed. Then we try everything we can to make them better, and support them throughout the healing process. This, sadly, is the easy bit.
The hard bit is trying to prosecute the perpetrators and punish them appropriately for their crimes. This needs doing firstly so that the public can get a full and proper understanding of what the victims have suffered, secondly so that the victims can have the opportunity for some sort of justice, and thirdly so that we can show these people that they will be exposed and they will be punished. There is no rug, and nothing will be swept under it. This is the hard bit. I mean, the easy bit is very hard, but the hard bit is hard because such prosecutions are damn near impossible to prove. I think it’s fairly well known that proving a rape is pretty tough, since it’s often one person’s word against another. With abuse cases the events often took place years, or decades, ago, and the victim was a child at the time and is quite likely to have mental health problems as an adult. These are not factors mitigating against the legitimacy of their claims, you understand, but factors that a clever barrister can use to suggest that they are confused or deluded or both. There have been a few big cases recently, but not that many actual convictions. There are thousands of victims though, many thousands, most of whom are not getting these trials and probably never will. So, Daily Mail, instead of shrieking about vile paedos (we all know they’re not nice, thanks) and using it to posture over people you don’t agree with, try to do these three things:
1) Remind people that victims who can’t prove their assault may still be victims ‘not guilty’ is not the same as ‘it never happened’
2) Abuse occurs very largely in domestic situations. We have had scandals in the church, in care and in the world of celebrity, but the public needs to understand that most abuse takes place with the context of a trusted friend or family member. This is very hard to hear, but sadly true
3) Help people to understand the impact of this abuse on the survivors. It is very complicated and confusing but the more people there are who understand what survivors are going through, the easier it will be for them to survive.
I know these tasks are very hard, but you are the biggest selling national newspaper in the country. You can afford top journalists who can tread through the legal minefield and make these complex points clear to your vast readership. And you do want to help, don’t you?

Well, they want to sell newspapers first, and make a profit for their shareholders. Sadly it's headlines which sell tabloid newspapers, not public-awareness campaigns.

This stance may well backfire on the Daily Mail. The subject isn't a political football, and I can't imagine any of the tories would make these accusations in parliament. It's just a subject nobody wants to be associated with, on either side.

But it's also rare that a backfiring campaign would harm circulation - very rare. I can only think of the Sun's comments about Hillsborough which had any sort of serious and long-lasting backlash.

Oh yes I agree, but I object to the mail -on others, to be fair- arguing public interest tosh while debasing important topics for their own political ends. I'd object less if it was blatant trash, rather than moralising trash.