WHY THE CSA INQUIRY IS BOLLOX

As for the CSA Inquiry etc - all BOLLOX. The majority of the child abuse that went on in the 60s/70s/80s, was carried out by employees of local authorities who had care and control of vulnerable children.  That is, orphans and those rescued or seized from 'dysfunctional' families.    

In the orphanages, the religious institutions, approved schools and the childrens' homes,  abuse was common day to day practice.  By their very nature these care homes were designed to attract the very worst of human behaviour. Can you imagine the paedophiles, the sadists and the psychopaths salivating as they read the job description?  'you will often have sole day to day and pastoral care of 12 children of different ages who have no parents or anyone who will believe a word they say'.  Every industry attracts psychopaths, but sadly, the care industry more than most.     

But here's a thing, and here's why the CSA Inquiry is bollox.  Of all the abuse that was inflicted on children in care, the Government, the MSM, all the do gooders and even the public (because they are being steered that way), have focussed on the titillating SEXUAL abuse.  And let me be honest here, those of us who were being battered and forced to scrub floors through the night, envied that tiny few who were being groomed and showered with privileges. 

Abuse was rife during those decades because all the cogs were in place to support it.  Every society, even the richest, has vulnerable citizens to take care of - and they will usually opt for the cheapest and most inhumane method as long as it looks as though they are doing their duty.  Which is where the Church steps in.  Not only did they relieve the local councils of their burden, they vowed to rehabilitate the offspring of the undeserving poor and turn out obedient citizens with a healthy respect for authority. 

The Child SEXUAL Abuse will never focus on the real abuse that was going on, because those floodgates would turn into a tsumani.  Basically, it is saying, it is OK to whip children, lock them in cupboards, make them wear rags and degrade them, but for fuck's sake don't embrace them.  It should all be laughable, because it is the deviant far right, trying to out deviant the even further far right. 

So far the armies of 'investigators' are only interested in targets who's names will attract tabloid headlines.  If the dirty old git who stuck his hand up your kilt, hasn't had at least a one man show, forget it.  And we're not interested in the bus driver who said you had nice tits when you were 12 either.  However, if the perp has any connection to a political party whatsoever, even leafletting, pull up a chair.  

For the survivors who have come forward, there is nothing in it for them but a continuation of their trauma and pain.  There won't be any payouts, there won't be any 'justice'.  At the moment, they are being used as willing pawns in a very sick game, the only healing they will get, will be in using that 'sixth sense' to help protect others.

Zero children are being protected by this ongoing money pit,  and God knows there are enough kids desperately in need right now.  Nothing will be learned because the investigators are ignoring the bleeding obvious.  The authorities, all of them, placed the care of their most vulnerable children into the hands of psychopaths,  Some of whom were sexually attracted to children, but most were bog standard sadists. 

The only lesson to be learned from the entire sorry saga, is that carers, not just of children, but also of the elderly and the disabled should be psychology screened during the interview process and the means to do this already exist. Anyone who has ever worked in the care industry will have encountered
co-workers (happily a minority), who's attitude towards their clients was less than humane. Unhappily for me, and I am sure many, my constant challenging of 'rules' and whistleblowing, cut short my own, much loved, employment as a  support worker.  I tried to do as a co-worker, good friend, and very wise woman advised, which was, not make waves, because ultimately the clients wouldn't have us anymore.  We sort of felt that our being good, would make up for the bad, and I'm sure a lot of carers out there will recognise that sentiment. 

In the above instance, the system beat me.  They broke me, quite literally, made me question my own sanity.  I survived because I turned to the internet and read everything I could on 'bullying in the workplace'.  Without any hesitation, I thank those brave enough to tell their stories, and the analysts and psychologists for explaining it.  At some point I will give an account of the experience, tis a struggle though, the memory still has the power to traumatise me!  Mostly guilt, because I felt as though I had abandoned those dear, sweet people I cared so much about.

But I digress.  Seeking out those aged, and probably infirm, abusers is pointless.  They were taking advantage of the system that existed at that time.  Hopefully, throughout the rest of their miserable lives, they were never able to hold such positions of power again.

The CSA Inquiry, are not making headlines such as 'Fred the Milkman, age 89 once exposed his John Thomas to a schoolgirl', because apart from a few old biddies saying 'Ooer, 'ave you read about old Fred, what was he like, ha ha', nobody could care less.  Some might say that's because Fred the Milkman didn't work in childcare.  But isn't it also possible, and far more likely, that the victims were also abused by people who didn't work in childcare, who weren't once famous, or who never held political office?  Are those memories less traumatic, equally traumatic, more traumatic, or inconsequential?