Saturday, 19 July 2014

Effectively Tackled

The child protection charity The Lucy Faithfull Foundation is urging more responsible reporting of child sexual abuse issues and the efforts to address such abuse following the sensationalist approach taken this week by media outlets regarding St Helena.

The Foundation condemns such sensationalist editorial lines, given the potential negative effect that such coverage is likely to have on efforts to tackle and prevent abuse.

The challenges faced by St Helena are not exclusive to the Island. Child sexual abuse is an international problem, and while its precise manifestation is influenced by local factors, it should be a concern, and a priority, for all nations around the world.

Child sexual abuse is a complex problem, as we know only too well in the UK.

A community working to address it, and not simply talk about it, is not assisted by sensationalist media reporting which is only likely to increase people’s reluctance to come forward, talk about the problems and deal with the issues.

Child sexual abuse can only be effectively tackled through state and voluntary agencies working together and with the whole community with respect, sensitivity, trust and confidentiality.

The Foundation prepared a confidential report for the Department for International Development and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in May last year. It was subsequently shared with the St Helena Government.

The Foundation did not share the report with the media. An action plan is currently in place in St Helena which workers from the Foundation are helping to implement.

So we were right. Well, of course we were.

This thing in the Mail, written by someone who literally does not know where St Helena and Ascension Island are, has been made up out of thin air.

It is lies, and the Mail (whose business it was not in the first place) is going to have to explain to the PCC why it published it without, very obviously, having checked even so much as the most basic facts in it.

Whoever fed the Mail this stuff will almost certainly have been in breach of contract, and the Mail, with its "reporter" Louise Eccles, ought to be sued along with that person, as well as prosecuted for receiving as stolen goods any Lucy Faithfull Foundation documents that may have come into its and her possession.

But there were probably none of those. This whole thing was and is a work of fiction. Just ask the Lucy Faithfull Foundation.


  1. So David Lindsay thinks investigations into child abuse should be buried by the Government and newspapers should be sued for exposing them.

    What a fascinating insight into his view of child abuse and of a free press.

    His stuff on PIE was clearly all a fraud.

    At least we can see where state regulation of the press would lead very clearly...

    Burying files on child abuse worked out well for Parliament and the Catholic Church didn't it?

    You stupid prick.

    1. No, my stuff on PIE was absolutely true, and it is now universally acknowledged as such.

      Whereas this is absolutely false, according to the charity itself, which was invoked without its knowledge by the Daily Mail.

      To prison with Paul Dacre and Louise Eccles (there must be something), and bring back criminal libel.

    2. You are smarting, aren't you? This "story" was completely false and the Lucy Faithfull Foundation say so.

      It was probably just someone sacked for being incompetent or whatever and out for revenge. A competent reporter would have rejected it, a competent editor would have sacked any reporter who brought it to his desk. It should all come out in court.

      But bring back criminal libel, David? Really?

    3. If the current judicially imposed arrangement on privacy were enacted into the statute law, but with the burden of proof in libel actions placed on the plaintiff, then who could object to that? And why?

      Making the privacy law statutory as the price of reversing the burden of proof in libel actions. That would be the deal.

      But yes, if you libellously accused someone of a criminal offence, then, in addition to damages and costs, the court ought also to be able to impose a sentence up to the maximum for that offence.

      Thus, if this ridiculous Eccles non-journalist, who did not even know where the Islands in question were, had named individuals, then she would now be facing a maximum sentence of life imprisonment and a probable sentence of several years. As would Paul Dacre.

      What with the recess, there cannot be an EDM, or questions in the House, or whatever. But that just makes the Mail lucky. We certainly have people on the case. The Overseas Territories have very loyal and very powerful friends.

      As, come to that, has the Lucy Faithfull Foundation, which the Mail has certainly traduced and possibly libelled, seriously damaging its work on St Helena and Ascension Island.

  2. Bloody hell, if your activities over the last few days are what you do against a fairly young-looking journalist who writes something bad about the place you haven't lived since before you started school, what the hell would you do to anyone who wrote anything off colour about Lanchester? You have always been a good friend David, but like many good friends you are one baaaad, baaaad, baaaad enemy.

    1. a fairly young looking journalist??? what about her editor???? should he/she not be responsible as well??? Oh and lets see what about the thousands of islanders who now have their reputation destroyed????

  3. Jonathan Longwood19 July 2014 at 20:23

    Google St. Helena child abuse and what do you find? The Mail "stories", the Mirror and RT reprints from three days ago presumably before you had a chance to warn them off, and nothing else anywhere. I have also searched several other major news site and nothing, nothing, nothing. We are very lucky to have you on our side.

    1. You are right, the only other stuff is from the St. Helena Government and the Lucy Faithfull Foundation that have both strongly refuted the Mail report. Nothing else on Google at all. Someone has killed this "story" and if it wasn't the great man David Lindsay it was someone very close to him. Next time we hear any of this if we ever do, it will be when the Mail and this Eccles woman are in court. David Lindsay deserves a medal.

  4. Nothing in any of the Sunday papers, nothing on the BBC, this "story" is dead. Well done, Mr. Lindsay. You are a very great man.