This morning's Telegraph reported that Lord Steel - the former Liberal Party leader David Steel - faces condemnation from the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse.
It also said a committee of senior Lib Dem MPs and peers is being convened to discuss Lord Steel's future in the party once the inquiry's finding is made public.
The question at issue is Steel's failure to pass on Cyril Smith's alleged confession of abusing boys to the authorities.
After that the article quotes the inevitable 'friends' of Steel disparaging the inquiry.
As an antidote, let me point you to an interview with its chief psychologist, Dr Rebekah Eglinton:
Often we hear from survivors who disclosed the abuse as a child, but were met with disbelief or dismissal. This response is hugely damaging to self-esteem and trust in authority.
Some survivors told us it took a long time to feel worthy of a Truth Project session, having internalised a sense of being ‘not good enough’ or of minimising the true nature of the abuse perpetrated against them. ... This self-doubt and low self-esteem is a common legacy of child sexual abuse.
3 comments:
What has Rebekah Eglinton's comment got to do with David Steel?
The authorities knew all about Cyril Smith's confession long before David Steel became aware of it in 1979. What was there for Steel to "pass on" to them?
"After that the article quotes the inevitable 'friends' of Steel disparaging the inquiry.
"As an antidote, let me point you to an interview with its chief psychologist, Dr Rebekah Eglinton."
My point is that the inquiry is doing good work, despite what the inevitable 'friends' say.
Smith confessed to there being a police investigation not any alleged crimes. The allegations were dismissed by police. Was Steel supposed to establish his own police force to investigate?
This is utter nonsense.
Post a Comment