Question Time : the BBC, the media and the past, present and future, with regard to all our children.

Seriously, it's time The Guardian and The BBC reported on WHAT IS KNOWN about child development, intergenerational and historical trauma, PROPER child protection at the very roots of Society in terms of full support for families (be they in poverty, dual working parents/childcare, in 'stress' or suffering themselves from intergenerational trauma or dealing with psychological distress of any kind).

IT'S 100% CLEAR THAT INSTITUTIONS CANNOT DO WHAT CAN BE DONE AT THE FAMILY LEVEL. THEY HAVE FAILED TIME AND TIME AGAIN IN THIS REGARD. CHURCH AND STATE.

BBC : SHOW THE DOCUMENTARY "WHAT BABIES WANT" AS A STARTING POINT.

GUARDIAN : PLEASE GIVE SPACE TO OLIVER JAMES, SUE GERHARDT, JAMES PRESCOTT, SUE PALMER AND OTHERS SUCH AS THE FOUNDERS OF THE NATIONAL COALITION FOR CHILD PROTECTION REFORM

Last night on the BBC's "Question Time" Thursday 15th November 2012 (Corby) the Politicians were questioned on whether or not the story of the abuse of children was eclipsed by the story about the BBC. IT was surreal to see them do exactly what the questioner was pointing out - they spoke about the BBC, about false allegations and said nothing meaningful or nothing that showed they had ANY scientific or common sense understanding of the issue.

Two comments were revealing - Chris Grayling's Freudian slip about "a clip around the ear!" when defending SECRECY concerning allegations made against a teacher.... and Tessa Munt's comments that she taught her children that 'respect must be earned' which sounded like respect for children must be earned by children, which is part of the old-school Empire traditionalist approach.

Respect from children is dependent on the children themselves being treated with respect AT ALL TIMES, at home and elsewhere. This they learn by example, as they do empathy, honesty, courage and so forth.

The fact that Tessa Munt did not clarify what she meant, given the seriousness subject matter, is typical of un-thought, sound-bite, politics.

... and when a Paediatrician spoke out, briefly, on Question Time, one could see the pain, the sheer frustration in that man's face in regards to what I wrote above.... he is not alone in this.. and he was more or less passed over - Dimbleby as chairman of the panel, could have asked him to expand a little, as he was the only one who spoke who seemed to have a grasp on the realities.... this omission is revealing.

Even the 'liberal' political mindset is trapped in the past and refusing to address the present and all the more likely to undermine the future. 

Kindest regards

Corneilius

Do what you love, it's Your Gift to Universe

Wrong Word : "Oi Paedo!"

Paedophile : is a technical term, and piece of misleading use of language.

More correct would be 'manipulative or violent (child/minor) focused sex attacker': irrespective of who is being attacked, the choice to attack, to manipulate, to predate upon the other, is always, always equally evil.

This choice is made  possible only when the other, the person is transformed into an object, is de-humanised.

‘OI!  PEADO!” - the unsubstantiated internet.gossip allegations being promoted with some vigour ....

This is human evil….. and the beginnings of yet more human evil, ‘oi peado!’, followed by an assault, based on what evidence?

"..... don't like the look of that individual!"? "I heard that...."? "It's on the internet!"

(as opposed to "I found direct links to proven evidence that stands up on the internet, and then I checked them....")

One might comment that those people that enjoy or seek pleasure in violence, manipulation or predation are more evil than those who perhaps behaving thus because they ‘are doing a job’.  Soldiers?  Vigilantes? Prison Officers? Police?

The Stanford Prison Experiment - The Power of the Situation to de-humanise ...

Is the line between either of these definitions really real? Does the person on the receiving end care more which side of the line their attacker is on?

Dehumanisation can also find expression in the way an agenda driven analysis might attribute negative qualities to chosen opponents, perceived ‘enemies’, as a way of undermining how others perceive them..

I don't think this is something we can leave to just one sector of Society.

This 'issue' affects us ALL! In real terms, in the lived experience.

The issue, as I see it, is not just one set of actions, by one particular group of people, but an entire spectrum of behaviours that are almost Institutionalised in full, in the social structures that have emerged from the current Dominant Statist Culture.

They might appear to be many individual states, yet there are only states, no 'nations' in the distinct sense of an aboriginal 'nation'. There is a trans national myth of social organisation that seeks infinite expansion in a finite world.

All of these sets of relationships, personal and Institutional, have been adversely  influenced by the Power, (which David Smail calls 'distal power' - power beyond the average person’s ability to affect) so that a majority of living relationships end up becoming Power Relationships.

Assault and sexual exploitation of children, or the murder of civilians, including children, by military, the willingness to really heavily harm another, or to kill to get one's perceived needs met,  as acted out by individuals or groups or Institutions.... these are extremes of that spectrum .....  of power relationships – as opposed to empathic relationships, a spectrum that ranges from close intimacy to the collective interactions that are expressed in healthy psychologically social, cultural, and organisational behaviours.

The other end of the spectrum of Power Relationships is, for me at this time, describable in a speculative manner, as a kind of starting point description:

So here goes: behaviour that may be the expression of social and experiential distress, and that has an adverse affect on others only because it appears or presents as petty bickering, jealousy, sullen-ness, sulk, mind-games, sexism, thoughtlessness and whole host of other variations on psychological distress languaging.  The person is unhappy. And needs support and help, appropriate attention.

In between we have a range of permitted behaviour that is expressed all too clearly in our history texts, our newspapers, our entertainments, notably, war, invasion, infinite growth empire/economies, militarised police FORCE, and 'non-permitted' yet fairly widespread organised violent crime (which in some cases is linked to wars pursued by Institutions of State), gang wars, organised group violence of any kind, domestic abuse, bullying.... it's all linked. Some is ‘good’ Some is ‘bad’.

IT’S ALL HARMFUL. EXTREMELY HARMFUL!

I think that to address one serious area of this harming dynamic one has to commit to  addressing the holistic image, the whole picture of a Dominant Culture in psychological distress  - to also see how this 'fits in' in a cultural sense.

This means to me that when I can fully humanise the victimiser, to fully humanise the survivor, not to excuse anything, certainly not to mitigate the trauma and what followed, and humanise what that MEANT to the survivor, the person who was victimised,  and to fully understand these events and what may have lead to them, in order to securely find a societal pathway to prevent further victimisation. This is not a single issue.

 Wherever it occurs. Starting with myself.

Let me address the behaviour, and see the human being as human, through broken, damaged and dangerous; part of my family.

One I must stop from any further damaging behaviour.

Can I see the 'enemy' as a human being, and not a monster. It makes it easier, I think, to look at the behaviour, to look at the experiences of people and assess what one finds, honestly.

It doesn't diminish the horror, the revulsion, the sheer visceral anger and shock we all naturally feel, up close to such behaviour - until we are de-humanised : that is what military training tries to do, certainly in terms of the 'enemy'. Veterans appear to 'get over it', mostly.

It doesn't mean not being angry, not feeling the rage, suppression. for me, it means choosing not to cause harm whilst feeling the anger, the rage, the frustration.

Fully conscious. Fully aware, Alive.

For me, this is all about the David Icke, Rense, Jones stable of publishing that hypes the horror, insinuates and alleges, and present no credible attributable sourced EVIDENCE for their claims,and worse, they rarely speak of the world of child development, trauma studies, intergenerational behaviour patterning, the study of the development of empathy and it's biological functioning, which it appears is our natural optimal.

Why?

Surely if there's proven evidence, then the two go together: if one is committed to resolving the issue.

The Institutionalisation of Power Relationships across Society, from violent abusers in 'care homes', 'prisons', 'schools', the office  bully, to warring states, the disruption of the child mother bonding essential to the development of empathy, as a socio-cultural structures is a crucial matter.

Address that and the rest will flow from there.

This is not to be taken to mean mitigating the needs of those being victimised or of Survivors. The two go hand in hand.

The latter being the more immediate need.

There is time then to deal with the former matter in depth, over time.

Kindest regards

Corneilius

Do what you love, it's Your Gift to Universe

Power or the children's best interests?

If mothering was truly respected in our Society or Culture, and recognised as the central crucible of the psychology of the adult world, which it is, then the concept of a 'working mother' would not exist : mothering (and all parenting) would be seen and valued and understood as a primary, not a secondary activity, at the very centre of our Society..... or in other words, the children's welfare would be our primary Scoietal concern, in both the short term and long term.

The phrase 'the working mother' would be seen and be understood as an oxymoron.

The various Government initiatives to 'get mothers back to work' are not designed for the best interests of the children, the parents or our society : they are designed for the best intersts of 'the economy'. This always means the best interests of profit, power and great wealth.

Irrespective of peoples lack of knowledge, the degrees of social conditioning we all endure and the all too common reflexive, reactive objections to the central point I am raising, which others such as Sue Gerhardt and Oliver James and James Prescott have examined in great detail in their work, the fact remains that the psychology of the adult world is both revealed and perpetuated in how the adults relate to and treat children.

Adults whose natural needs as children have not been fully met will express that loss in many ways, not least in repeating aspects of the behaviour that lead to their own loss when they too become responsible for children, either as parents, or teachers or celebrities... and punishing them or 'correcting' them or nudging them is not the way forward.

Recent events demonstrate quite clearly that The BBC and The Vatican quite obviously do not hold the welfare of children at the centre of their deliberations, as is the case for many of the 'great institutions' of our Society...

It is the way Institutional Power is mediated to protect it's power and self image that most needs to change. David Smail pointed this out in a cogent essay, "there's no such thing as Society". Well worth reading.

I say this because the messages Institutional Power(s) transmit to parents are a huge determining factor in how parents organise their lives, and to date no Institutional Power has supported Natural Parenting to the degree our innate biological psychology demands, as to do so would lead to the demise of the POWER of the Institution. This is clear to any who examine their own lives, let alone the lives of the Powerful, with any degree of honesty and empathy.

It is the Power that is protected, time and time again. And that is a psychological immaturity. To see Power as more important than function is deeply dysfunctional.

Kindest regards

Corneilius

Do what you love, it's Your Gift to Universe

An open letter to the media, the BBC and all others concerned with the issue of child abuse, and in particular concerning the reportage of the Jimmy Saville case….

An open letter to the media, the BBC and all others concerned with the issue of child abuse, and in particular concerning the reportage of the Jimmy Saville case….

To whom it may concern,

The most frequent word being used to describe those who have been abused, harmed or assaulted by Jimmy Saville is ‘victims’, rather than the term ‘Survivors’ which we Survivors ourselves prefer to use.

There is a qualitative difference between the two words – one implies weakness, the other strength.

The etymology of the word ‘victim’ and its link to the word ‘victor’ is interesting, and worth reflecting upon. The victor tends to justify any abuses they perpetrate, or harm they cause, and thus they minimise the meaning of the lived experience of those amongst the ‘defeated’.

Yes, Saddam was a monster – yet did the Iraqi people deserve what was visited upon them by the International Community in the name of removing this monster?

Madelaine Albright’s infamous comment on the sanctions that preceded the removal of Saddam, was that “the price was worth paying – we think the price was worth paying.”  A price paid not by her, not by the US Government, or any other, not even by Saddam, but by the Iraqi people and their children.

There is also the use of the phrase “victim consciousness” which is often used to denigrate those communities and cultures who have been subject to massive and long term trauma and who come forward and seek acknowledgement of their stories as human beings, (rather than the simple and cold historical facts and statistics), from the inheritors of the Powers that traumatised them.

They are asked to ‘get over it’ – ‘ old history, not our ‘fault’, ‘things are different now’, ‘can we please move on’ etc etc….

These phrases are used to deflect honest reflection upon what has happened, and what the long term and present adverse affects are in meaning, and in the lived experience.

Vulnerability is not the same as weakness. One cannot describe the boys and girls assaulted by Jummy Saville as being weak, and ascribe that value of weakness to them as a quality they expressed that led to their abuse. One cannot in all fairness ascribe the value of weakness to those who suffer from the adverse affects of intergenerational trauma. Vulnerability is closer to the truth.

To Survive trauma and abuse most often means to live past the events themselves, scarred and wounded, and to slowly and painfully try to re-assemble oneself so as to continue to live as best one can.

Often this has to be done without adequate support or understanding from those closest to the Survivor, let alone the wider community and Society. This takes a formidable  unacknowledged strength.

Not all Survivors make it, and it’s not through weakness that this happens. It’s through vulnerability, and through that heart breaking sense of abandonment that comes with denial, that comes with the all too common reflexive unwillingness of Society to accept that a pillar of Society could behave in such manner, a refusal to believe the Survivor because it threatens the projected image and self image of what are held to be central tenets or solid Institutions of Society.

”How could someone who did SO MUCH GOOD do so much evil?”

A Survivor would never ask that question in the way the media has framed the reporting of that question. A Survivor would never ask it in that tone of bewilderment.
 The Survivors of Jimmy Saville's abuses are not concerned with the reputation of the BBC, as much as they are concerned with truth, recovery and restorative justice and the protection of present and future children.

So I am calling on all media, and anyone else concerned with these matters, to cease using the word ‘victim’ to describe those who were abused, and to use instead the word Survivor.To attribute strength to those who come forwards, and to those who are unable to come forwards, just for their willingness to continue living and coping with what they have been through.

I would also add that using the word ‘victimisation’ to describe the abusers actions towards the vulnerable is more reliable and accurate. The victimiser alters the reality of the abused. The victimisers is the culprit.

Finally, I note that in all of the reporting, the stories and histories of Survivors appears to be being screened out. This is a grave omission. It cannot, and must not stand if truth, justice and genuine resolution is the intent of those who are writing and acting on this matter. Kindest regards

Corneilius Crowley

Kindest regards

Corneilius

Do what you love, it's Your Gift to Universe