Child Protection, Not Collusion

Published date01 December 1991
DOI10.1177/026455059103800427
Date01 December 1991
AuthorGeoff Merrick
Subject MatterArticles
219
mould
to
which
Cameron
so
rightly
objects.
He
will
learn,
in
time,
that
his
non-conformity
will
get
him
nowhere
and
he
will
find
himself
happier
in
a
more
constructive
environment.
It
is
so
sad
that
this
should
be
so.
The
Probation
Service
needs
those
of
his
critical
and
revisionist
stance.
I
think
we
make
a
fundamental
error
in
looking
to
senior
probation
manage-
ment
as
the
reactionary
brigade.
Pro-
bation
officers
have
always
(happily?)
referred
to
themselves
as
’officers
of
the
court’.
Here
is
their
downfall
for
they
become
subservient
to
the
most
reactionary
group
in
the
country.
Until
we
recruit
magistrates
and
judges
from
those
who
take
the
trou-
ble
to
study
and
understand
criminal-
ty
(within
its
political
context)
and
the
effect
of
sentencing
then
we
are
wasting
our
time.
Those
who
come
by
chance
to
the
role
(just
another
version
of
our
discredited
honours
system)
or
because
they
are
senior
lawyers
and
who
always
expect
our
’yes,
sir/no,
ma’am’
response
cannot
lead
a
con-
structive
Probation
Service.
(You
will
point
me
to
exceptions
to
my
stricture
and
I
gladly
admit
that
some
exist,
but
their
numbers
are
infinitesimal
within
the
full
ranks )
If
anybody
(other
than
a
probation
officer)
seeks
confirmation
of
what
I
state,
then
let
them
attend
a
probation
liaison
committee
and
pick
the
flavour
which
is
bland
to
the
point
of
absurdi-
ty
because
no
realistic
discussion
takes
place
-
there
is
no
’meeting
of
minds’.
’.
John
Pottinger
Middlesbrough
Child
Protection,
Not
Collusion
As
deputy
warden
of
a
Bail
Hostel,
I
read
’Working
with
Unconvicted
Sex
Offenders
on
Bail’
(PJJune
1991)
with
great
interest,
these
being
professional-
ly
uncharted
waters.
One
immediate
cause
for
concern
in
adopting
bereave-
ment
theory
is
the
legitimacy
of
casting
someone
charged
with
sexual
abuse
as
powerless
victim,
with
no
control
over
their
situation.
This
can
risk
colluding
with
denial
and
can
entrench
an
abuser
in
distorted
thinking.
The
abuser
must
feel
that
’you
know’.
You
may
be
his
last
hope,
despite
his
continual
denial.
Similarly,
to
presume
that,
because
someone
is
up
for
a
’first’
offence
of
an
incestuous
nature,
they
are
not
potentially
abusive
to
other
children
is
naive,
given
the
cyclical,
long-term
nature
of
sexual
abuse.
Though
there
is
much
controversy
over
the
effectiveness
or
value
of
work-
ing
with
unconvicted
offenders,
I
per-
sonally
feel
that
it
is
a
vital
point
of
which
to
engage
the
individual.
It
is
almost
classic
crisis
intervention
and
can
help
to
form
a
strong
working
rela-
tionship
between
the
counsellor
and
the
offender.
There
is
also
a
critical
period
in
which
a
lot
of
ground
work
can
be
done
before
the
re-
entrenchment
in
denial
and
the
re-
assembling
of
incredibly
well-
developed
self
defence
mechanisms
can
take
place.
If
the
staff
group
in
this
position
are
in
a
state
of
awareness
and
adopt
a
cohesive
policy
of
treatment
it
can
be
very
productive.
If
the
abuser
can
draw
support
and
comfort
from
the
staff
(as
opposed
to
collusion
and
sym-
pathy)
he
can
form
the
basis
of
a
trusting
relationship
which
can
be
the
start
of
the
painful
process
of
self-
discovery
and
ultimately
the
full
awareness
of
the
consequences
of
his
actions.
This
is
a
long
hard
road,
lit-
tered
with
denial,
minimalising
and
distortion,
which
needs
a
patient
but
unblinking
approach
from
those
who
offer
to
help.
You
must
not
collude,
you
must
always
keep
child
protection
as
the
ultimate
aim.
The
ground
rules
for
the
offer
of
help
need
to
be
clear.
If
it
is
in
a
pre-
conviction
setting,
any
offer
of
counselling
has
to
be
made
with
a
clear
knowledge
that
work
done
will
be
recorded
and
the
progress
or
lack
of
it

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT