Beware the Bogeyman
Q. how did you goe? Whatt doe you Ride upon? A. I Rid upon a stick or poale & Good & Osburne behind me we Ride takeing hold of one another don’t know how we goe for I Saw noe trees nor path, but was presently there. when wee were up.
Examination of Tituba, Salem Witchcraft Trials, 1st March 1691
The greatest criticism made of the family justice system is that it is blind. That is not to imply that it is impartial; the system is blind because it makes its decisions in darkness, barricaded against external scrutiny and without evidence or research. As a result we can still encounter CAFCASS guardians quoting John Bowlby (see Chapter Six) as if he were not long discredited; we must still listen to Women’s Aid citing Twenty-Nine Child Homicides as if Lord Justice Wall had never produced his damning refutation (see Chapter Nine). It is not as if there isn’t any evidence or research available, though there are large gaps in our knowledge, and in particular we don’t know what happens to children who are subject to intervention by the family courts – the greater problem is that the system doesn’t pay attention or give credence to the research that is available, and prefers to stick to what is comfortable and familiar, however much it may be rooted in bigotry. As a result there are few reliable guidelines, practice by CAFCASS and social services varies widely across the country and court decisions continue to rely on myth and supposition.
Campaigners accuse social services of using controversial or even fabricated ‘syndromes’ peddled by self-promoted ‘expert witnesses’ in order to wrest children from their parents. Forensic diagnostic tests which are revered as cutting-edge science one year are revealed the next to be nothing but mumbo jumbo and careerism, such as ear-print identification, the ability accurately to determine the age of bruises, bite-mark analysis, the ‘law of three’ (which maintained a third child death in a family is always murder), cadaver-detecting dogs (used in the Madeleine McCann case), recovered memory theory, and radiological interpretation of metaphyseal fractures (Wrennall, 2010).
A 2012 study of expert psychologists revealed huge problems with the system: two thirds of their reports were judged ‘poor’ or ‘very poor’; two fifths failed to conform to the Civil Procedure Rules for layout and content; 20% of the authors were inadequately qualified for the role expected by the court, and another fifth exceeded their professional competence, even straying into the remit of the judge; fully 90% were not practising psychologists – as the expert witness scheme requires – and were earning a living writing reports to suit the demands of social workers, meaning that courts could not rely on them as experts in their fields able to advise on current best practice and research (Ireland, 2012). Children have been torn away from their families on the basis of a report without the author ever having met them; there are stories of social services commissioning successive reports until they get one which justifies the removal of the children, they will then rely on that report’s author to the exclusion of others. One psychiatrist, Dr George Hibbert, was under investigation after earning £460,000 a year writing dubious reports on parents which had enabled social services to remove hundreds of children.
The allegation that a parent has ‘shaken’ their baby is a good illustration of how prejudice is allowed to trump hard evidence. In fact, social services are on very uncertain ground if they make this charge: it is a diagnosis made only of very ill babies, or made post mortem. A syndrome is simply a diagnosis which cannot be made on one clear piece of evidence and which must therefore depend on demonstrating the presence of two or more from an often disputed list of symptoms, any one of which can be indicative of something else when taken in isolation. A conventional diagnosis of shaken baby syndrome usually depends on the identification in the child of all of these three symptoms: retinal haemorrhage, subdural haemorrhage and encephalopathy (which is itself a syndrome). A review ordered by the Attorney General concluded that, even where this triad was present, shaken baby syndrome could not be diagnosed with confidence unless there were a previous history of injury such as severe bruising, broken bones or abuse. Medical staff should also look for other indicators such as neck injuries and bruising caused by gripping: shaking a child sufficiently to make its brain impact with the inside of its skull should cause significant bruising. Experts are not agreed on shaken baby syndrome and there are numerous controversies; in the notorious Louise Woodward case in the US experts appeared for both sides and gave entirely conflicting testimony; even the 8 physicians for the prosecution could not agree.
A well-reported case featured the triad plus metaphyseal fractures; Jayden Al Alas Wray had died aged 4 months and his parents were charged with murder; a second child born during proceedings was taken into care. A more detailed post mortem revealed a severe vitamin D deficiency (rickets) and that poor medical attention had contributed to the death. The parents were acquitted in 2011, and after further legal proceedings the child, Jayda, was returned to her parents (LB of Islington v Al Alas and Wray, 2012).
Similar controversy surrounds Münchausen’s Syndrome by Proxy (MSbP), which is an attempt to provide a hypothesis for why a parent harms their child. The syndrome was first described by Professor Sir Roy Meadow and used in a number of high profile trials, including those of Sally Clark, Trupti Patel and Angela Cannings, all of whom proved to be innocent, contrary to Meadow’s evidence. The theory was also taken up by Dr David Southall. Both men were subsequently discredited; Meadow’s wife exposed him as a woman-hating misogynist who saw MSbP everywhere; appropriately he had played the part of the witch-finder Judge Danforth in an amateur production of Arthur Miller’s The Crucible (Cohen D. , 2004).
MSbP is at best speculative. The harm must still be proven, and the parent must be demonstrated to be the perpetrator if social services are to take away the child. Any matter brought before a court of law must be determined simply by the facts, not by supposition and speculation. No court of law should make a diagnosis of MSbP until the many disagreements and confusions surrounding it are resolved. Firstly, there is no clear definition of MSbP: in Meadow’s original definition the mother’s intent and her denial are taken as indicators; a later definition – referred to as Factitious Disorder by Proxy (FDBP) – considers the induction of symptoms as indicative. A third disorder – Paediatric Condition Falsification – was added in 2000. Secondly, it isn’t clear whether MSbP is a diagnosis of the parent or of the child. In Meadow’s definition it was the child; in later definitions it is the parent.
In addition to the use of manifestly false techniques, non-contentious techniques such as DNA testing and fingerprint matching can be misapplied and falsely interpreted. Other data – such as the microbiological evidence in the Sally Clark case – can be withheld from the court. Certain injuries – metaphyseal fractures, for example – are taken to be ‘pathognonomic’ (especially characteristic or diagnostic) of child abuse, but the ability of an injury to provide evidence of its origin is disputed. It is dangerous to form an opinion before all the evidence is in: it reveals a sloppy way of thinking which renders the collection of further evidence superfluous. By labelling certain injuries ‘pathognonomic’ the medic is pre-judging the outcome of proceedings.
Expert witnesses are employed by the courts not merely to give evidence within their specific field of expertise, but also to interpret that evidence and to give what amounts to a verdict. This role is properly that of the judge and lies beyond the expert witness’s remit and competence. Any diagnosis of abuse, non-accidental injury, MSbP, shaken baby syndrome, etc, goes beyond mere presentation of evidence and usurps the role of the judge, coroner or jury by an ‘expert’ who is not legally trained and does not have all the relevant information to decide whether the threshold criteria have been satisfied. Uncritical over-reliance on expert evidence discredits and undermines the system and exposes weaknesses which only systemic reform can eliminate (Wrennall, 2010). Beyond question child abuse must be treated seriously by social workers and the courts, but these examples show how social services prefer to work with the controversial and the nebulous rather than with hard evidence, elevating briefly fashionable theories to the status of scientific fact. An allegation of MSbP is not in itself evidence, it is simply a short-cut for the incompetent and the idle, applying the MSbP label to a woman is prejudicial: it judges her guilty without seeking or analysing the evidence against her and risks exposing the child to greater harm by being put into care. Similarly shaken baby syndrome seeks to explain a child’s death when the evidence to do so is inadequate.
The following is perhaps the strangest story in the history of British social work. In 1987 Elizabeth Butler-Sloss completed an inquiry into the allegations of sexual abuse made by two consultant paediatricians, Dr Marietta Higgs and Dr Geoffrey Wyatt, against the parents of 121 children in Middlesbrough in the former county of Cleveland (Butler-Sloss, 1987). The two doctors had relied solely on the modish but now discredited theory of reflex anal dilation (RAD) to diagnose sexual assault. This involved forcing an implement into a child’s anus and photographing the results; some children were subjected to this procedure up to 17 times.
The terms of reference for the inquiry were narrow – ‘To examine the arrangements for dealing with suspected cases of child abuse in Cleveland since 1st January 1987, including in particular cases of child sexual abuse, and to make recommendations’ – and Butler-Sloss hid behind them, making no attempt to determine whether the alleged abuse had occurred and whether the diagnoses were accurate. She did nothing to halt the escalating witch-hunt and left the way clear for the feminist sisterhood to state that the sexual abuse of children was rampant; Labour MP Clare Short asserted that 10% of all children, two thirds of them girls, were being sexually abused by their fathers. She offered no evidence – there is none – but myths like this stick and come to influence policy and legislation. The feminist journalist Beatrix Campbell wrote tendentiously,
Not in 100 years had patriarchal society been so profoundly and publicly confronted by the scale of men’s sexual abuse of children. Male sexuality was the problem, but in the great sex scandal of the 1980s that had become almost unsayable (Campbell B. , 1988).
Butler-Sloss found the consultants had ‘acted properly’ and contradicted the view of the judges in the original cases who had considered the technique controversial, despite their dismissal of cases involving 96 of the 121 children. She blamed the crisis on the lack of proper understanding between each involved agency of the role played by the others, on the lack of communication between agencies, and on the differences of opinion by middle managers which affected those on the ground but were not recognised by senior staff. Some balance was provided by another Labour MP, Stuart Bell, in his book When Salem Came to the Boro (Bell, 1988). Bell regarded the episode as hysterical and rejected the feminist claims – a position for which he was vilified at the 1987 Labour Party Conference. History has proved Bell correct: the epidemic of similar cases predicted by the feminists did not materialise, the only child abuse was that perpetrated by the doctors and social workers. Bell’s comparison of the crisis with the Salem witch trials of 1692 – which led to 150 arrests and 24 executions – was apt: the similarities are many and disturbing, not least the prurient search for the Devil’s Mark, or the fact that two Middlesborough defendants hanged themselves.
The Children Act was already well under way by the time of Cleveland, but the scandal changed the course of the Act and ensured that private law measures would be heavily influenced by new public law principles. The allegations, though false, distorted the actuality of child abuse and persuaded legislators of the dangerous falsehood that abuse within the family was more often perpetrated by fathers. Stuart Bell’s comparison was also prescient: the Cleveland case was to prove exceptional in that it involved no allegation of ritual or satanic abuse – that development was still to come.
The hysteria had begun in Canada in 1980 with the publication of a book, Michelle Remembers, which was presented as a biographical account of the recovery of suppressed memories (Pazder & Smith, 1980). Michelle Smith, the American patient of her co-writer Canadian psychiatrist Dr Lawrence Pazder (whom she later married), alleged religiously inspired abuse, rape and sodomy which call to mind scenes from De Sade’s 1791 novel Justine, but her claims were subsequently refuted. In California in 1983 members of the McMartin family, who ran a preschool day-care centre, were accused by a psychotically disturbed mother of sexually abusing her 2-year-old son. The child was subjected to relentless interrogation by a social worker, Kee MacFarlaine, and the ‘expert’ Dr Padzer was called in. Parents involved set up the Believe the Children advocacy organisation centred on the tenet that children should be believed without question. The trial ran from 1987 to 1990 and was the longest and most expensive of its time, costing local taxpayers $13 million; all charges were eventually dropped. The trial revealed 3 features which would become familiar in later trials,
- Alleged ‘satanic’ activity such as the use of underground tunnels or ability of abusers to fly, and the butchering and cannibalising of infants;
- The gathering of ‘evidence’ through the unremitting interrogation of children and use of leading questions;
- The total lack of corroborative forensic evidence (and the withholding of any contradictory evidence from the defence).
Altogether, across the USA and Canada, there were more than 100 such trials; lakes were dragged, fields were bulldozed in the fruitless search for evidence of child sacrifice. Comparable ‘moral panics’ spread rapidly to other countries following publication in 1987 of a list of ‘indicators’ including the killing of babies, animal sacrifices, drinking blood, eating flesh, witches, snakes, monsters, ghosts and being taken to strange buildings, tunnels or caves.
In the UK allegations of ‘satanic ritual abuse’ (SRA) first emerged on the Broxtowe estate in Nottingham in October 1987; 10 adults were charged with 53 offences against 21 children; it was considered the most serious case of sexual abuse within an extended family ever seen in Britain, and long sentences were imposed. A subsequent report by a ‘joint enquiry team’ (JET) revealed a familiar pattern of bombarding witnesses with leading questions until they capitulated and said whatever their interrogators wanted to hear. As with other inquiries, the social workers refused to cooperate,
As you will recall when the Joint Investigation Team was set up there was a great deal of sensitivity regarding their role and I was assured by yourself and the Director that the workers were not being investigated, rather that the evidence/information was being reviewed. If that is the case then I cannot see why information regarding the model/style of the workers needs to be looked at and as such I have instructed the [Senior Social Worker] not to hand over that information (Nottinghamshire County Council, 1990).
The JET revealed that Ray Wyre, referred to in court as ‘Mr W’, a self-promoted ‘expert’ brought in to advise social services, was in reality a social worker with no medical training. When the team interviewed the adult witnesses, against the opposition of the Nottingham social workers, they withdrew their testimony. The report concluded there was no evidence for the alleged abuse, and that the type of ritual abuse alleged probably did not even exist; instead, they observed—
rigid preconceived ideas, dubious investigative techniques, the unwillingness to check basic facts, the readiness to believe anything, however bizarre, the interest in identifying prominent people, with widening of the net to implicate others and the unwillingness to accept any challenge to their views.
The staff of Nottingham social services were now promoting themselves as experts in satanic ritual abuse, giving advice to other departments and making presentations at social work conferences. The report warned that if the spread of this ‘belief system’ were not checked it would lead to grave miscarriages of injustice and to a modern witch-hunt. Tragically, instead of being circulated, as the health secretary, Kenneth Clarke, directed, the report was suppressed through the insistence of Judith (Dawson) Jones, the social work team leader and partner of Beatrix Campbell. Belief in SRA spread unchecked, gaining support from credulous journalists including Campbell and Esther Rantzen. A High Court injunction secured by Nottinghamshire County Council prevented publication on the internet and the report was not released for 7 years.
The next drama, covered up for 16 years, started with three boys and a girl removed from their parents in Rochdale in the spring of 1990. Over the summer 12 more children were taken, amidst allegations of black magic and devil worship. A High Court injunction, costing taxpayers £82,100, barred the media from reporting on the case or interviewing anyone connected with it. The council spent a further £38,473 to prevent the naming of the social workers involved. After a 47 day hearing in 1991 twelve children were returned home, but not the original four who remained in care until they were 16, whereupon they immediately returned to their parents.
The South Ronaldsay scandal began in February 1991 when the children of a single family from a remote island in the Orkneys were taken into care and transferred through a series of foster homes. Nine more children were subsequently taken. Fixated and bullying social workers led by Liz McLean, who had also been involved in the Rochdale case, questioned children for hours until they produced the ‘correct’ responses. The case against their parents collapsed after 5 weeks and the children were returned home; an inquiry into the case cost £6 million.
Social workers in the Welsh county of Dyfed had attended a ‘training programme’ in 1989 run by self-styled SRA ‘expert’ Ray Wyre (who was also responsible for introducing SRA hysteria into Australia); they returned to Wales eager to find evidence of SRA for themselves. One social worker began to interview a child referred to as ‘Jason’ who had been taken into a foster home after his parents separated. Over the course of 28 interviews, some lasting most of a day, social workers became convinced Jason and other children they questioned had been abused by a paedophile ring. At the end of 1992 thirteen adults were arrested and eighteen children were taken into care. The trial didn’t begin until October 1993; most of the witnesses were children. Such was the public reservation now about satanic ritual abuse that it was not mentioned in court and the ‘evidence’ was restricted to allegations of violent abuse. Both of the only two adult witnesses testified that their evidence was false, and extracted under relentless pressure from social workers. Six of the accused were released, and yet, despite the complete absence of corroborative forensic evidence, six were found guilty by the jury and sentenced to 15 years; only one was found not guilty. It was a sickening travesty of justice. Bizarrely the judge, Mr Justice Kay, wrote to the Home Secretary, complaining the child witnesses had been subjected to ‘prolonged and distressing cross-examination’, and yet theirs was the only evidence offered. It was a tenet of social services that children don’t lie about abuse, and yet one child, protesting his father’s innocence, was cross-examined and accused of lying for two hours. Appeals were launched in 1994 and some convictions overturned; Jason, the child whose ‘evidence’ had started it all, committed suicide at the age of 11. There was a further episode in Lewis, Scotland, in 2003. Eight adults were charged, but 9 months later the case was dropped. Angela Stretton, a woman with learning difficulties who had made the original allegations, later admitted she had simply said what the social workers had bullied her to say.
By the time Ray Wire died in 2008, aged 56, this former probation officer who had once trained as a priest was fêted by the Guardian as a ‘trail-blazing therapist’ (Marriot, 2008) and by the Times as a ‘leading expert on sexual crime’ (The Times, 2008). His opinion – which he gave evangelically – was sought on all major sex crime cases including Fred and Rosemary West and the disappearance of Madeleine McCann and he was a frequent expert witness in court. None of the fawning obituaries mentioned his SRA episode, his lack of qualifications, or the harm caused by his doctrine.
One of the strangest aspects of this episode to understand is how British left-wing lesbian feminism contrived to get into bed with American far-right pre-millenial Christian fundamentalism. Encouraged by films such as Rosemary’s Baby, Christian fundamentalists had been obsessed with satanic ritual abuse since the 1960s; by the ’80s the belief that satanic abuse was taking place on a huge scale was widespread. Meanwhile, feminist loathing of straight sexuality led to crusades against pornography and, in the 1980s, against incest, particularly between fathers and daughters. Following the Cleveland RAD Scandal the acceptance of widespread anal rape of girls by male paedophiles really flourished. The religious fundamentalist belief in ‘pure evil’ was easily absorbed by lesbian feminism which regarded the family as the source of women’s subjugation, heterosexual women as complicit ‘handmaidens’ to the patriarchy and children as parasites. The mother/child bond is a mystery to childless feminists who either idolise it (heterosexual Germaine Greer) or regard it as an obscenity (homosexual Beatrix Campbell).
These twin myths, of witchcraft and incest, came together as a single conspiracy theory around 1987, egged on by credulous newspaper editors like Peter Preston and Alan Rusbridger. Beatrix Campbell was one of its principal midwives; the ‘Satanic panic’ (Victor, 1992) gave her the opportunity to promote her vision of a world in which the family is an institution devised only for the abuse of children, and the state is justified in taking children away from their families, by force if necessary, because all mothers are intrinsically mad and all fathers Satanically sodomise and sacrifice their children. Campbell wrote,
What is so hard about contemplating the prospect of grown men dressing up in daft costumes to invert the meanings of the dominant faith; organising rituals to penetrate any orifice available in troops of little children; to cut open rabbits or cats or people and drink their blood; to shit on silver trays and make the children eat it (Campbell B. , 1990)?
Needless to say, there was never any evidence forthcoming that 4,000 children were sacrificed each year (as self-appointed SRA ‘expert’ Diane Core of Childwatch believed), or for any other assertion. This circumstance was explained by claiming all evidence had conveniently been erased by Satan. While the religious fundamentalists eventually accepted they had been duped, the feminists clung to their faith, above all because of their sacrosanct dogma that a child’s evidence must always be believed: questioning the SRA theory would cast doubt on all allegations of sexual abuse and a vital pillar supporting feminist hatred of the nuclear family would have crumbled (Jenkins, 1992).
A final report was commissioned by Virginia Bottomley, Secretary of Health and Education, from Jean La Fontaine. She found nothing to substantiate the allegations, ‘no bodies, no bones, no bloodstains, nothing’ (La Fontaine, 1994); she offered an explanation, ‘Sympathetic acceptance of a story slides easily into a curiosity to hear more. When the listener is eager to hear more, gratitude for support may impel the young person to… find ever more dramatic memories to recount.’ The Satanic panic went underground: all but the most fundamentalist believers dropped their belief in the supernatural but retained their evidence-free conviction that child abuse was rampant. The Believe the Children ideology continues to dominate social work; advocates of SRA like Beatrix Campbell and Norma Howes (the social worker credited with introducing SRA to Britain) never renounced their views and still headline feminist conferences. The increased public profile afforded evangelical social work – Britain’s last defence against the Satanic hordes – led to an increase in funding and an explosion in numbers. The enduring legacy of this episode was the introduction into social work of concepts like ‘emotional harm’ (secularised spell-casting) and ‘multiple personality disorder’ (secularised demonic possession) and the unconscious adoption by gender-feminists of religious fundamentalist vocabulary. The crusade against child abuse has replaced religious faith and become the supreme ethic of society, driving its moral reorganisation and creating a consistent need for personifications of evil.
Once the RAD and SRA scares had died down social workers were still on the lookout for six impossible things to believe before breakfast; RAD continued to be used at least until 2008 and belief in SRA continues, promoted by the Bowlby Centre (established to preserve the work of John Bowlby), Dr. Valerie Sinason (psychoanalyst, psychotherapist and conspiracy-theorist) and David Icke (footballer, Green Party spokesman and convinced that mankind is ruled by 12-foot shape-shifting reptiles). Believers in SRA such as Sinason and Dr Kirkland Weir remained popular as expert witnesses in the family courts, often offering their views on matters beyond their professional competence.
Sinason was back on the SRA bandwagon in 2013 claiming that paedophile Jimmy Savile had also been a Satanist with his own candle-lit temple in the bowels of Stoke Mandeville Hospital (Fielding, 2013). ‘Operation Yewtree’ involved the investigation of large numbers of historic allegations – some going back decades – of elderly male ‘celebrities’, and some dead ones. Associated investigations are on-going. The alarming feature, which tied it to other witch hunts, was the pledge made by the police that they would always believe what ‘victims’ tell them. With the media, MPs and charities like the NSPCC and NAPAC (National Association for People Abused in Childhood) jumping on the bandwagon the only certainty was that allegations would increase. Many, if not most, of the allegations, often more than 50 years old, were without evidence and could not be proven, despite the belief of the police that the sheer number of allegations was evidence enough. As we saw in Chapter Eight, sexual crimes require no evidence. Peter Spindler, the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) Commander who led Operation Yewtree, clearly failed to comprehend the implication of the word ‘alleged’ when he said,
We are dealing with alleged abuse on an unprecedented scale. The profile of this operation has empowered a staggering number of victims to come forward to report the sexual exploitation which occurred during their childhood (Rayner, 2012b).
Spindler had formerly been in charge of an MPS child abuse team and had sent its members on a Satanic ritual abuse awareness course run by self-proclaimed survivor, Lee Moore (Black, 2013).
The burden of proof has fallen on the accused to prove their innocence; it cost Eddie Shah £700,000 to counter a false allegation of rape. 83-year-old Stuart Hall was blackmailed into confessing to charges of indecent assault and gaoled for 15 months when an apparently spurious charge of rape was suddenly introduced by the CPS, which equally mysteriously disappeared once the confession was secured. Normally his relatively petty misdemeanours – touching a 17-year-old’s breast, kissing a 13-year-old, putting his hand up a 16-year-old’s skirt – would not have been prosecuted, certainly not half a century later. Numerous celebrities – all men – were questioned or arrested; some were released on bail, the charges against others were dropped, some were re-arrested. The joint report by the MPS and NSPCC relied heavily on the number of alleged victims – 589 – rather than solid evidence,
taken together their accounts paint a compelling picture of widespread sexual abuse by a predatory sex offender. We are therefore referring to them as “victims” rather than “complainants” and are not presenting the evidence they have provided as unproven allegations (Gray & Watt, 2013).
The operation was severely criticised, not least for allowing ideologically-driven pressure groups like the NSPCC and NAPAC to influence the progress of a police investigation; it was a ‘runaway train’ and the police operated an ‘arrest first, gather evidence later’ policy (Martin A. , 2013). Yewtree undermined the rule of law and turned policing into entertainment; it was a ‘prurient charade’ (Hewson, 2013a): a crude cultural ‘carnival’ (Betts, 2012) in which the icons of our childhoods became the scapegoats of today; it put the past on trial, judging the hedonism and sexual license of the 1960s and ‘70s by the questionable moral standards of 2013; it appeased the media demands for blood, but it wasn’t justice. Police and charities usurped the role of judge and jury: in Savile’s case there was no evidence and no trial. None of the allegations needed to be proved beyond reasonable doubt, and complainants were infantilised by introducing the principles of child welfare and ‘therapeutic jurisprudence’ – which long ago ditched the presumption of innocence – into criminal proceedings. In the therapeutic model the predetermined outcome outweighs due legal process. An unnamed barrister was quoted saying,
This country is now completely fucked-up over anything to do with accusations of abuse; it’s produced a licence for the individual to get compensation and for charitable organisations to bleed people dry, all in the name of protecting children.
Everyone is afraid to criticise today’s abuse gravy train for what it is and the built-in bias of the police and CPS has provided both the perfect blunt weapon for anyone looking to take revenge against someone they don’t like and a simple way for opportunistic individuals to make some money (Peytors, 2013).
LB of Islington v Al Alas and Wray,  EWHC 865 (Fam) (High Court April 19, 2012).
Bell, S. (1988). When Salem Came to the Boro: the true story of the Cleveland child abuse crisis. Pan Books.
Betts, H. (2012, December 07). The search for paedophiles is more carnival than witch-hunt. The Guardian.
Black, T. (2013, July 01). Jimmy Savile: the Satanic panic resurrected. Retrieved from Spiked Online.
Butler-Sloss, E. (1987). Report of the Inquiry into Child Abuse in Cleveland.
Campbell, B. (1988). Unofficial Secrets. Virago.
Campbell, B. (1990). Seen but not heard. Marxism Today(November).
Cohen, D. (2004, January 23). He Doesn’t Like Women, Says Ex-Wife. Evening Standard.
Fielding, J. (2013, January 20). Jimmy Savile was part of satanic ring. Sunday Express.
Gray, D., & Watt, P. (2013). Giving Victims a Voice. London: Metropolitan Police Service & NSPCC.
Hewson, B. (2013a, May 08). Yewtree is destroying the rule of law. Retrieved from Spiked Online.
Ireland, J. (2012). Evaluating Expert Witness Psychological Reports: Exploring Quality. Preston.
Jenkins, P. (1992). Intimate Enemies: Moral Panics in Contemporary Great Britain (Social Problems and Social Issues). AldineTransaction.
La Fontaine, J. (1994). The Extent and Nature of Organised and Ritual Abuse. London: Stationery Office.
Marriot, E. (2008, August 8). Obituary: Ray Wyre, Trail blazing therapist with a unique approach to sex offenders. The Guardian.
Martin, A. (2013, August 22). Jim Davidson WON’T face court over sex assaults claims by ten women. Daily Mail.
Nottinghamshire County Council. (1990). Revised Joint Enquiry Report. Nottingham.
Pazder, L., & Smith, M. (1980). Michelle Remembers. Pocket Books.
Peytors, R. (2013, August 17). False abuse allegations may increase after new guidelines. Retrieved from The Opinion Site.
Rayner, G. (2012b, October 19). Jimmy Savile: police launch criminal investigation after victims claim some abusers are still alive. Daily Telegraph.
The Times. (2008, June 30). Obituary: Ray Wyre: expert on sex crimes and police advisor. The Times.
Victor, J. S. (1992). Satanic Panic: the creation of a contemporary legend. Open Court Publishing Co.
Wrennall, L. (2010). Paid Pipers: confronting the problems associated with experts in the justice system. Journal of Social Criminology( Spring/Summer).