I know that Micheal Le Vell was accused of raping a child, while putting a teddy over her mouth. I know what he is alleged to have said. I know in quite grotesque detail, and I don’t know because the complainant told me. I know he had a fag outside the courtroom. I saw that. Again, the complainant didn’t show me, nor did the CPS.

The damage done to Micheal Le Vell’s reputation was not done by the complainant, nor was it done by the CPS. It was the media. The case was not unusual, nor was the outcome. The reporting of every graphic detail, for tabloid readers to be sexually stimulated by, was not done by the complainant, nor by the CPS. The trial was held under a microscope so tabloids could sexually excite their readers with graphic descriptions of child rape while feigning disgust and projecting that disgust at Le Vell.

Today the press is disgusted that the case ever went to court. Disgusted that a historical child abuse allegation, with little forensice evidence either way, was allowed to reach the court. Disgusted that someone talking about abuse in the past would be allowed to make that allegation. Disgusted that his reputation may be damaged. Because of what they did.

Because they pored over every detail in the hope of sexually titillating their readers with descriptions of child rape and holding up a new PAEDOPANIX bogeyman to distract from their continued sexualisation of children and presentation of young girls as a sexual ideal.  All grown up, and flaunting those curves,

The victim blaming they are now engaging in, attempts to place responsibility for their need to provide sexually titillating child abuse stories, on the person who made the allegation against Micheal Le Vell. He is now a hero, rescued from HER clutches, from the mean old CPS who prosecuted. They want questions asked about why we in fact prosecute child abuse, as they develop amnesia about the acres of graphic detail of child rape , the details editors wanted for their readers to masturbate over.

This has always been how we report child abuse. I managed to write about child abuse quite adequately without ever resorting to gory and titillating language. But I was never writing about child abuse so someone could get an erection over my writing. I worked for Childrens Services,  not the tabloids.

I did have to spend my life worried that my name would end up in the tabloids, should a case blow up and a child get hurt, because the systematic erosion of child protection the tabloids have demanded, prevented me from acting. The same tabloids who have spent recent weeks sexually titillating their readers with descriptions of child rape, accusing me of being responsible should I fail to be psychic and prevent the actions of someone else. Perhaps my name or address would be revealed by The Sun, as social workers before me have experienced.

A not guilty verdict for him, is not the same as a guilty verdict for her. A not guilty verdict for him is not the same as him being victimised. The burden of proof ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ is extraordinarily difficult to meet, even in child abuse cases with fresh evidence. For child protection proceedings we know that  that burden of proof is inadequate and use ‘on the balance of probability’. Noone in the court was responsible for the action of the press. Because of the media’s irresponsibility, justice cannot be done in this case. Not justice for Micheal Le Vell, nor for the woman who made the complaint. That is neither of their responsibility, nor is it the responsibility of the CPS.

Advertisements