Child sex abuse survivors: a dangerous precedent to withdraw funding

 

_DSC9895

Graham Wilmer, head of the Lantern Project charity Picture reproduced courtesy Rory Wilmer Photography

CROSS POSTED ON BYLINE.COM

The recent media row over the alleged therapy techniques used by the abuse survivors charity, the Lantern Project, which led to the withdrawal of funding is a dangerous precedent.

The row pushed essentially by two newspapers by the Sunday Times and the Daily Mail ( see article here) could have much wider implications than just in the Wirral where the charity is based.

Essentially the allegations centred around two high profile survivors Esther Baker and one known as ” Darren” . Esther’s allegations are currently being examined by Staffordshire Police in a very detailed investigation which  has already led to one arrest and another person being interviewed under caution.

I am not going to comment further on the investigation particularly as the Solicitor General, Robert Buckland, has warned the media of ” the risk of publishing material that gives the impression of pre-judging the outcome of the investigation and any criminal proceedings that may follow, or which might prejudice any such proceedings.”

Indeed I am frankly surprised that both papers thought  they could comment on an active police investigation by casting doubt on the credibility of a survivor and perhaps there may be a case of drawing this to the attention of the Attorney General.

What more concerns me is the decision of the Wirral Clinical Commissioning Group to withdraw substantial funding for the charity in the wake of the Sunday Times allegations.

The reduction appears to be part of a £20m cut affecting other services but by withdrawing the £150,000 and stating firmly they disagree about the use of the therapy -Unstructured  Therapeutic Disclosure – which some people think can cause the medically  unrecognised false memory syndrome- is specifically aimed at cutting support to survivors. As it says “There is no recognition or recommendation of this approach by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE).” And it questions whether the Lantern Project has the skilled staff to do this – even though the charity itself refers people back to the GPs in these cases.

However the effect of the withdrawal of the money  is not confined to just two high profile survivors – one of whom-Darren – doesn’t seem to have received the therapy anyway.

It turns out that the charity has been helping  at least 200 to 400 other families and provides or did provide a website forum for some 1000 survivors in the area. Wirral, faced with these other cuts, is not going to provide any money to other organisations – even if they could provide the services, which they can’t anyway.

Also its stance on staff could have implications for other groups that provide counselling to survivors.The Wirral decision on staffing required could provide an excellent excuse for a cash strapped NHS to withdraw support from other charities by saying they should employ psychotherapists as well as trained counsellors. And it is clear that the NHS is going to face a grim winter just providing  basic high profile services to the elderly and sick.

Those who have been concentrating on attacking the charity for supporting these two high profile cases seem to be totally unaware of the effect on other survivors who will now lose support.

They have not entirely been successful either. Norfolk Police Commissioner’s Office which is distributing the £7m to survivors organisations earmarked by the home secretary, Theresa May, is NOT withdrawing money from the Lantern Project, despite being briefed by Wirral CCG. And subject to a professional audit will continue to do so next year.

And the Daily Mail and Sunday Times coverage has had an unintended consequence- the Lantern Project has received £55,000 in two large donations from survivors or their families helped by the project. The money is part of  large compensation payments awarded by the courts on other cases taken up by the Lantern Project.

This means that the charity can continue to do some – but not all of its work. But the damage to services helping survivors has already been done.

UPDATE Dec 13: Since publication of this blog the Sunday Times (see below) has withdrawn its allegation that Esther Baker received the controversial Unstructured Therapeutic Disclosure at the time she made allegations of child sexual abuse. This does cast some doubt on  Wirral’s decision to withdraw the money.

sunday times correction

 

9 thoughts on “Child sex abuse survivors: a dangerous precedent to withdraw funding

  1. Reblogged this on n=all and commented:
    David Hencke gives his views regarding harassment campaign targeted at Lantern project founder Graham Wilmer and the staff and users of the Project.

    “Those who have been concentrating on attacking the charity for supporting these two high profile cases seem to be totally unaware of the effect on other survivors who will now lose support.”

    Like

  2. Pingback: Child sex abuse survivors: a dangerous precedent to withdraw funding | tragichorus's Blog

      • I do. Given what I’ve discovered about this ‘firm’ I’m of the mind there should be arrests and possible prosecutions for mis representing their qualifications, accreditation and registration. It’s a family run racket and given time you’ll have to accepted that even you have been hoodwinked. Their connections throughout this whole saga are at best dubious. But you carry on. I’ve seen it all before.

        Like

  3. Maybe there now may be some funding left to support the surviving families of false accusations and wrongful convictions that have occurred due to the horrific stories of these fantasists being published in the media and creating public mayhem. Scaremongeriing the general public and creating even more abuse

    Like

  4. I don’t know why you call False Memory Syndrome ‘medically unrecognised’, when the vast consensus of opinion among psychologists supports it. For a good layperson’s introduction to the research and some telling case histories, you might like to read Mark Pendergast’s Victims of Memory. For works by academics, I suggest the following.

    Remembering Trauma.Richard McNally
    Making Monsters.Ofshe & Watters
    Remembering our Childhood Karl Sabbagh

    There are many more works I could cite. You might also find interesting Spectral Evidence (Johnston), an account of the pivotal US court case which did much to discredit the idea that patients could recall in therapy abuse for which they had previously been totally amnesiac. Indeed, the latter concept is now confined largely to self-help books and fringe practitioners.

    Like

  5. Pingback: Spin vs Truth (round 100) -Numbers | Real Troll Exposure

    • Your point aimed at the Lantern Project is not unique. It applies to all small charities and also to all small businesses such as partnerships and limited companies which only have to produce limited accounts. If you are criticising this set up you must call for the annual accounts of all small charities and businesses to have to declare full audited accounts ( at present they are exempt) which will make you very popular with millions of people.Also just for the record I am also exempt as a sole trader.
      I suspect this has nothing to do with current charity law but part of your campaign as your headlines suggest to troll the work of the Lantern Project because you don’t like it.

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s