Introduction:'Disclosure' is a term that is used to describe the communication of previously secret, or private evidence of events, or circumstances. It is a legal term that describes the transfer of information from one side of a legal conflict to another. Our use of the term is mainly limited to the disclosure of abusive, neglectful, or prejudicial behaviour of any kind, which results in an imbalance of power, used to obtain physical, emotional, psychological and economic advantage over others, or to 'exclude' them from reasonable access to resources, against that person's wishes and reasonable needs. Disclosure, in the above respect, is the reporting experiences & events and the supply of evidence, to an appropriate agency, or institution. This can be the Police (999 & Police Station); Vulnerable Adults Unit (Police Service); Child Protection Service (Social Services / Health / Police); Social Services - Child & Family Services; Any Health or Social Service Agencies you are already involved with; CSCI - (for people in Residential & Nursing Care, Obtaining Home Care, or a Professional, Community Service). The appropriate agencies are listed on this web site and Local Contact Numbers are available from any Local Authority & Health Service Office, Police Station and Telephone directory. What follows is not essential reading but it can help (if necessary, with assistance from someone who is more comfortable with this kind of subject). If you are having problems getting the help you feel you need, the information here may help you understand why you are having these difficulties. This is not down to you, it is a minefield. To be better informed of the 'realities' of services and the support available, will give you a better sense of control over your life and the whole process of getting support needed. The information here relates to any abuse, prejudice and injustice you are experiencing, anywhere and by anyone, including 'institutions'. If you are getting the help you need then this section will not be so critical but may make interesting reading. These systems and services are far from perfect and can be disappointing and frustrating. Communication can break down and prejudices can creep in. If you understand what is happening you will be in a better position to argue your case and challenge decisions that are made without your full agreement, or 'inclusion'. If you have had good experience, let us know how this was achieved. We will pass the suggestions on to others. Professionals may find this section helpful to understand the misunderstandings that do arise, actually and distressingly, quite frequently. This abuse and prejudice we are considering, can be perpetrated by an ordinary person, people in powerful positions, or by self appointed, controlling cliques, who use manipulative, dishonest, intimidating, aggressive, or violent attitudes and methods, for the 'illegitimate' control of others. It is abusive in that it is not a freely agreed, is not one of a number of legitimate options, and is not part of a legally 'contracted' arrangement. It puts people at some physical, emotional &/or psychological and economic risk, risks that can be manifested as a form of 'distress'. It is behaviour that diminishes a person's dignity It has little to do with size & gender alone, although both size and sex, of any dimension or persuasion, can be used as an 'abusive instrument' to intimidate and control. It exists everywhere and is extensive and institutionalised, affecting most ordinary people at some level, whether recognised and disclosed, or not. It really is endemic and the chances are that we are all guilty of perpetrating such abuse at some time, or tacitly allowing it to happen. Once we are aware of the mechanism and existence of abusive behaviour we have responsibility to disclose this. Some of you coming to this section will have considered, or will have tried, to give 'disclosure' concerning abuse to yourself, a child, a disabled person, an older person, a colleague, client, patient, etc. If this was successful you may have visited this section for academic reasons. If it has failed and you were frustrated by the difficulties you faced and the treatment you, or others received, you are probably visiting this section to see how you can change this situation, or make a successful 'disclosure' of an abuse. If there is a mismatch between your reported experience of abuse and the agencies understanding and interpretation of what abuse is, this can lead to a failure of service. Please read this section, and others that are referred to, along with the links we have supplied. Hopefully you will gain some insight and encouragement how to proceed more successfully against the prejudicial odds you have previously faced. If in your reading, you recognise other inhibitions to disclosure, prejudices, or examples of injustice that you are aware of, please let us know by email, or phone me. If you need further advice about more specific issues, please, again, feel free to communicate with us. Mot failures of service to people who are abused are not intentional but once effective communication has broken down it can be difficult to get it started again. This information may help. Why are some people reluctant to 'Disclose' abuses?The 'physical' abuse that is exhibited by a 'large male' is the typical caricature of abuse. It is so well established that large, muscular men can often just flex their muscles to get some measure of control over others. This is used effectively as 'bouncers' and in intervention in physical conflicts. Some big men are abusive. If the abuse is grossly physical in character, there can be very clear evidence that will stand up in the eyes of police and courts. This is why they are an unreasonable, primary focus for abusive behaviour. An actual assault, followed with the continued 'physical' threat, can act as an inhibition to disclosure. Sadly, it is so well established as a caricature that big men who are defending themselves, even verbally, against subtle, humiliating abuses and manipulations, are often put at a disadvantage. They can be accused of being abusive in their righteous stand against humiliation and even against physical abuse perpetrated towards them, even by quite aggressive women. If they react physically, they have effectively lost social credibility, however abusively they were provoked. This situation can also be an inhibition to the person disclosing, especially with the prevailing macho attitudes of men towards men. "He is bigger than me", can be a the prejudicial defence and as such, can have prejudicial effects. People jump to conclusions. Being big & muscular, wearing a hoodie, having a shaven head, having a broken nose, talking in a low gravelly 'common' voice, living in 'social housing', walking with a drunken gate & slurred speech (which can also be due to disability) can be indicative of someone who is abusive, if there is evidence that they are. These reactions and prejudicial attitudes to anyone who does not conform to the normal expectations of society can become institutionalised in systems and these pre-judgments can cause injustice in term of wrongful accusations and inhibitions to them disclosing. The above problem is also true, to some degree, with larger women. There are jokes about the large woman who bullies and intimidates the small husband. Mostly these are good fun and reflect, once more, the choices made (however difficult to understand at times), by people in relationships. Unfortunately this use of humour to 'exemplify' abuses can misfire and reinforce stereotypes and even counter-stereotypes. These stereotypical prejudices are very strong - they existed before the joke, like in the case of 'mother-in-law jokes'. But the joke belies a generally established social prejudice, which can put either party at serious risk, because of prejudice and attempts to counter a prejudice. It is difficult to decide these things at first glance and often there is not time to 'investigate' these situations fully. The vulnerable person, seeking to disclose, can find this difficult. The fact is it can be the Large Woman, or the Skinny Man who is being abused. In either case there are strong social inhibitions to disclosure. Inhibitions laid down by prejudiced cultures. Either party can be inhibited in disclosing for all the reasons described above. Unfortunately, this and other caricature can result in prejudiced interpretations of 'disclosures' and can lead to injustice and even serious physical, psychological, emotional and economic risks to the person who is actually being abused. Abuse needs to be recognised as possible, whatever the size and gender of the people involved. Intelligent investigations of evidence will usually show what the situation is, but you first have to get to that point of disclosing. If there is competition for disclosure it is the abused who is most likely to delay. It is good advice to disclose, whatever your expectations, declaring your fears of reprisal, and or not being taken seriously. It is important to 'get on record'. The human features and fashion statements described above are sometimes 'uniforms' for some abusive people. For others it is just a fashion statement with 'attitude'. For still others, it is due to a disability, the effects of cancer treatment, the results of personal distress, due to social deprivation, need for an identity, etc.. We are all prejudiced, lets face it. There is no shame in recognising our prejudices, only in perpetrating them for the purpose of abusing and maintaining a prejudice towards others. Once recognised it has to stop. The only legitimate intolerances are those expressed towards abuse, injustice and prejudice. Some Risks Increased with the Recognition of the Benefits of Disclosure:To complicate things further, with the growing recognition of the abuse of men; abusive men (who 'may' be larger) can cleverly feign the fact that they have been 'humiliated' & physically abused, as an attempt to 'hide' more 'subtle' abuses that they perpetrate on another. Once an imbalance of power is established they are able to manipulate by intimidation, with occasional 'torturous' (leave no marks) assaults. Those that have been here will know what I mean. This pattern of deception & abuse is not gender specific though. This kind of injustice has always been there to cloud the issue. Its existence also puts Men's legitimate disclosure at risk - Legitimate disclosure must continue though. Although these 'head games' usually come to light when investigated properly, in the mean time, within any kind of relationship, it can be very disabling to the person considering 'disclosing' abuse. 'Head games' like this undermine people's confidence, especially if the abuser has 'set the scene' with friends, family, or colleagues (as they often have). It can even involve dishonest disclosures to doctors, social workers and other officials. Again, there will be those of you who have been there, male and female, who recognise this scenario. This style of abuse knows no social boundaries. It disables disclosure. Again, the advice is to disclose. Get it on record and eventually the evidence will mount up. Add to this the fact that these kinds of games are actually very common, even within police, health & social services. It may even be that you, like many of us, have played these kinds of mind games yourself. They bully, undermine confidence, generate mental illness and sometimes kill (suicides are a common result). Justifying suicide by saying it is due to personal weakness is abusive in itself, sadly challenged too late. This is another 'defence mechanism', because we know this possible outcome. Hopefully we have learned, from our experiences, that they are not worth playing, but this subliminal 'guilt' can still get in the way of acknowledging their potentially abusive nature and even their real abusive effects. The fact that we have made errors is no good reason to avoid disclosing an abuse, whether to yourself, or concerning someone else. Just because what is considered by some as 'low level' bullying and abuse is recognised as common, does not mean its is acceptable. Just because you have previously received (or fear you may receive) a poor response from the institutions, is no reason not to disclose. Institutionally, some abuse and bullying is seen in this way, this attitude is erroneous. Early disclosures should be accepted & recorded respectfully, even if this means additional paperwork and only limited actions. Some institutions have an unofficial 3 reports trigger to investigation, unless there is evidence of serious imminent physical risks. Your disclosure is essential to the potential future safety & security to yourself and others. The fact that it is on record, even if no immediate action is taken, provides cumulative evidence of a developing problem. In making such a disclosure, make sure you clearly state all the risks to yourself, or others, including mental distress. If the person has already made false counter accusations, which we know happens, it is important that you also get your position recorded, with written evidence, calmly and confidently, so as to counter their dishonest disclosures. These more subtle, torturing forms of abuse are difficult to evidence. They are perpetrated by men & women in every possible kind of situations, from kids and family, in commerce & industry, even within community & governmental institutions. When these effects wear thin the abuser often shows their true colours and is identified. Sometimes they proudly boast their potency. Sometimes it is used as entertainment between friend, or in the media. Bullying can be made entertaining. Mean while, these successful forms of manipulation cause untold misery, impede corrective justice and perpetrate further injustices. We are not talking about the occasional jests here, this is persistent, determined loss of dignity. Ignore the apparent social pressures to keep quiet at the earlier stages, as soon as you are just more than suspicious, point out to someone in authority that you have concerns and would like their advice about how to proceed. If that does not work, go to the next level of authority, remaining calm and determined to have it on record. At this second stage, always outline the problem in writing, backed up by giving as much detailed evidence as you can. If you are unsure of your ground, the evidence that you present can help the person in authority to decide if there is an issue. Try to get a written answer. Insist even. If the problem continues, then persist with this strategy until the problem is taken seriously and dealt with in some way that removes the intimidation, abuse, injustice, or prejudice. There may be procedure that are required to be followed. Take formal action if you feel the problem is being swept under the carpet, or is being justified. The written reports you provided and the responses, are 'evidence'. Use these. This is why it is important to disclose the developing problem from early on. The purpose is to stop abuses before they become serious problems. The process is to stop abuse, not punish, that is for others. If there are unacceptable repercussions, to disclosures, report these in the same way, remaining calm and polite as you can. People can be judgmental because of their own fears and prejudices. If the behaviour you are complaining about is physically abusive in 'any' way; if it is felt to be humiliating and degrading to you and is not stopped when you request; if it is disabling of you being able to undertake your job, or go about your life with dignity, enjoying all the basic right that are generally recognised by all those around you; it is abusive and you are entitled to make a stand against it. Disclose to the appropriate authority and persist until the abuse stops (and justice is fulfilled). Get it all on record. It has an effect & is your entitlement. It also your right to get a clear response and appropriate action taken. The relief of the distress you are experiencing is worth the early embarrassment, fear and initial prejudicial responses. People eventually respect such actions and it encourages others to stop such behaviours. Your experience is not a sign of your weakness, in many ways it is a sign of your integrity, social fairness, sense of justice. Their actions a often the expression of the person's jealousy for your greater trust in yourself; openness, trust and respect for others and your normal, positive attitude to life. It is basically an abuse of your openness, trust and integrity. Institutional Prejudice & Abuse; How this happens. The next sections is here to help you understand how these kinds of prejudices can arise and become such a problem for us all, leading to injustice and abuse. It is not essential reading and the main point are summarised at the end. Understanding the way institutions work and how they can reflect political and public prejudices and also institutionalise other 'professional and academic' prejudices, will help you understand the difficulties you have been experiencing in getting help now, or in the past. It is the various institutions in our society that lead opinions and attitudes, good and bad. Government, Political Parties, News Media, TV, Theatre, Commerce, Stock Exchange are all forms of institution that generate ideas, philosophies, attitudes, caricatures and prejudices. At a more local level the Service Institutions of Health, Social Services, Police, Housing, Education, then incorporate their own institutional and personal prejudices (often called theories) and judgments, passing these on (often innocently) to the community, or reinforcing stereotypes and prejudicial attitudes. Out of these come ordinary peoples attitudes, modified by experience and their own prejudicial interpretations, who then go to work for these various institutions. This is the cycle of the development of institutional prejudice, which are often 'cleaned up' and rationalised forms of those found so widely in our communities. The most insidious forms of institutional prejudice are those that are established as 'theories' which are taken as proven. This is demonstrated in the practice of 'experts', who will use sometimes sound and sometimes erroneous theory, interpreted to support their personal prejudices. We are all prone to forms of social pressure and intolerance. We are all guilty, to some degree of prejudice & ignorance of our effects on others, especially if these are culturally learned & established pattern of behaviour. Those who are most sensitive to this are less likely to produce prejudiced and distressing effects, but this personal insight is also more likely to inhibit then in making complaints, especially if people point fingers at their small errors, to justify their own more abusive actions. This happens at every level in our society and in every walk of life. There are no boundaries to it. We now know this for fact. This tendency, of people who are more aware of their social effects, is the desire not to offend or antagonise others. This is often described as a weakness, whereas, it is actually the inability of others to accept criticisms of themselves, their institution, or profession. More socially sensitive people are able to detect this & tend to hold back. If you have this tendency to be apologetic, you are not alone, on average it is a feature of roughly half the population. Institutions tend to structure & control the means of communication and also the complaint process, in ways that determine what is accepted and the form it can take. We trust and go along with this and get a reduced service without effectively registering our dissatisfaction in our own terms, which reflect the true nature of prejudice and abuse. There is a more general problem within Institutions, especially those that are subject to persistent complaints, or are under a directive to be 'more inclusive' (as they are now). Institutions will occasionally invite service users, family carers and others, to contribute to discussions about future service developments. There is sometimes a filtering out of real choice, by providing re-planned, multiple choices options, decided by staff, or selected representatives of service users. These 'summary' forms of choice are only legitimate at the final stage of a decision process, where all the 'open' options and supportive evidence has been presented and considered, equally by all sides of the service. Institutions behave very much like individuals. If we sat around analysing ourselves too much (as some do), this can make life unbearable. If people occasionally, politely told each other how behaviour can be irritating, or that some comments are prejudiced, this would become a normal expectation. If this is done too intensely, life would again be unbearable and the effects would be counter productive. For this reason the process of improved understanding & reduced prejudices (which cause injustice), is a slow and legalistic process. Institutions, for all their current failings, are still the best channel for adjusting attitudes and practices. Once these are properly in place, institutions are good at maintaining this as the new 'status quo'. For this to happen international and national legislation is constantly seeking ways of removing injustice and abuse. At the same time national governments implement new laws to give themselves and their institutions greater power. There is a constant struggle for balance. Unfortunately, these progressive and retrogressive laws can be widely interpreted and the spirit of their intention can be lost. It is all our responsibilities to seek to ensure our fundamental 'rights' (which we now legally have) are protected. Acknowledging the existence of prejudice & abuse is problematic for some professionals and more particularly for many managers of institutions. The defensiveness and denial is largely because it is very difficult to acknowledge the abusive character of existing 'normal' behaviours & attitudes, some of which are deep rooted and 'institutionalised'. They often become inherent in the way the system operates, established over generations as acceptable conduct, with convincing rationales. They are often 'yesterdays' good practices having become distorted and misunderstood with time, adjusted to suit the 'system' and the individuals working within it. Our most powerful institutions have developed from largely male dominated, 'paternalistic' systems. Although the early forms of 'institution' may seem very outdated now, they were actually designed to 'help' people in the style of 'family care' of the time. Their style is outmoded by today's standard and incorporated many notions that are now accepted and unacceptable, but they were not intended to be abusive and disabling. In parallel, there were well established 'care' organisations, provided largely by women, operating in very traditional roles of the time (nursing, social care & social welfare). Such roles, being limited to and expected of women, is rightly frowned on now. These systems and institutions were intended to be 'enabling' and so they were by the standards of the time, compared with pre-existing, more disabling systems (See Recent History). As the institutions were replicated and subsequently changed hands, new people taking control of them, new knowledge gained, they sometime evolved into new, improved forms of institutions. Sometimes, however, they fell into the hands of those wanting power, control and wishing to save money, or regress to earlier ways of thinking and doing, rather than towards real community improvement, inclusivity and personal empowerment. This corrupted and distorted the original institution's objectives, often using very convincing rationales that had popular but highly prejudiced credibility (racial, gender, ageist and other social stereotypes). Some of this distorted rationale included quasi-scientific evidence and arguments, which largely re-enforced the status quo. Most scientist are critical of these quasi-scientific assertions and most Philanthropist, Radical Thinkers and Social Reformers would be horrified at how their original ideas and objective have become corrupted, remained without improving upon, or failed to progress further. This process has gone on right up until the present day and will continue to the future. Some of the less savoury and less beneficial, disempowering feature are so well established and defended, it can be almost impossible to disentangle the bad practices from the good. The reporting of official actions does not show up the institutionalised failures. People are often not aware of them as failures and are genuinely surprised when they are pointed out to them. It is often only when there are repeated complaints, as people gain confidence, that these errors are eventually recognised. Even training can fail to put the finger on the problem. Training is interpreted in the context of the existing 'system' and does not replace it. Training is often provided by people who have been educated in the same systems and influenced by working practices, while they were practitioners. Training is often a requirement of Policy Directive and about Policy Directives, with pressure to keep within this brief. Self reflective thinking is required but critical thinking about the institution is not encouraged and sometimes inhibited. Thereby training just becomes another layer of bureaucratic procedures. Another tick in the 'completed' box. Underlying attitudes remain unchanged with new knowledge is adjusted to reinforce the existing practices with nominal understanding to the new information. Recording styles within institutions are prescribed, whatever the practices. If there is not a box for it it is not reported. If there is one it is often left blank initially. If policy insists on its use, it is filled in nominally, to cover themselves. "Is everything ok", "Are you happy so far?" This often produces an uniformed "No Comment", or other innocuous report. There are strong vested interests and prejudices that make some changes ineffectual, even when legally required. It is not always the inflexibility of managers at fault, but can equally be a small group of entrenched 'local civil servants' who baulk at change and sabotage, or corrupt these required changes. This is not always conscious and deliberate though. This is a feature of negative industrial relations, researched by Professor Elliott Jaques of Brunel University, in his studies of Institutions in the 1950's to 1980's. It is an aspect of resistance to change and is a common feature of statutory institutions. This kind of resistance is partly a natural human inclination, partly legitimate 'caution', that is usually a beneficial characteristic of institutions, but it is further reinforced by those wishing to retain the illegitimate power and control they were able to exercise under the established regime. People hate criticism and often hate to criticise, yet constructive feedback helps us improve systems to everyone's benefit eventually. Mostly, people just hate any change. Of course, some managers are conscious of these abusive & prejudicial styles and they try to counter them. Others will attempt to defend them as legitimate (depending upon their persuasion). There will be others who blindly defend the indefensible, by maintaining their established position as 'experts', unable, or refusing to see a problem. In many, if not most instances, the problems are only partly recognised and the prospect of confronting the problem, with the industrial relations issues that it entails, is daunting, especially if there is a resistance on the part of other professional to express concerns & provide evidence. The problem with these 'defensive' situations is that there will a tendency to justify all regressive & prejudicial practices and 'hide' the shortfalls amongst the general difficulties produced by 'limited funding' (which will always be there). Attempts to prescribe practice, by way of detailed Policy documents, is usually counter productive. Any detailed 'directive' is open to wide interpretation and often gets distorted to a paperwork exercise. As long as something is 'reported' in the required style, it is assumed the practice was conducted in the required style. There is, of course, no basis for assuming this to be the case. This distortion only comes to light when a serious problem arises where the 'recording' proves inadequate to explain the 'witnessed' institutional practices and the potential risks. As criticisms and complaints are increasingly being made the problem becomes recognised, especially if there is a legal action. This often leads to further written 'directives', Policy and further forms, and substantial, costly overreaction, usually of a rather superficial nature. The underlying attitudes & styles of working remain; cluttered up with yet another layer of dust collecting paperwork and less time and resources to do the real job. The basic understanding and change of attitude, that is required, becomes smothered. New people coming in get their instructions from those in place, there is no time to read the hundreds of thousands of words in Policy documents, even if it was clear and unambiguous what its purpose was. Remembering the content is impossible for most people. Getting the new, appropriate, fundamental understanding usually requires a fundamental overhaul of all the established assumptions and practices. The gradual reformation of institutions can be effective but when this fails, radical transformations are needed, where all assumptions, old & new, are challenged and tested anew. This is what we mean (on this web site) when we speak of 'Radical Reform' and 'Radical Practice'. It is commitment to be 'critical' and reflective' about our own individual practices and critical and reflective about the institutions way of working; Its effect on the people we serve; The increasing distortions and inhibitions to efficient and economic practice, and; The regular analysis of methods of working and attitudes, including corrective training, efficient and effective two way communication and a "No blame, No Shame", approach to initial problems, as they are identified. This style of working, with the fullest inclusion of the people being served, would reduce recording to the essential requirements to assess, plan and inform of any significant changes and increased risks. This would free up time for direct work with people, who will increasingly be served, satisfied and protected,. This would reduce the need for 'Incident Reports', early and otherwise unnecessary increases in levels of support, because the number of 'crises' will reduce, placing fewer, unplanned demands on resources and less likelihood of criticism and litigation. This said, there will always be unforeseen events and mistakes. These are normal risks that should be included in any care planning. This sounds an almost impossible task, at first glance, but is actually a solvable problem. It requires motivational styles and 'inclusion' of people, in real terms. People get excited and feel part of things. They gradually feel a sense of value and respect. This new practice and attitudes become established as part of the evolving, modern institution. The new style of good practice and attitudes become institutionalised, only to be 'tweaked' periodically, by fundamental overhauling process that people become increasing used to and comfortable with. It is at these times that new Ideas can be tested and implemented, advancing the service. There is no room for stagnation of services. Technical advances are dramatic, the required social advances are pathetic. Community education and early 'enabling' interventions are practically non-existent. The demands are constantly increasing and are predicted to continue to do so. It is time to think outside our little boxes, reduce dependency and advance the facilitation of those who want to help themselves, in their own ways, with resources and advice provided as needed. It is sometime cheaper to send people on a cruise holiday, all services included, than to support them in a residential, or nursing homes. It is cheaper and more beneficial to send kids to private residential schools than to keep them in care of various kinds. It can also cheaper and beneficial to children and wider families, to provide additional, supervised financial support and additional resources than for the children removed to care, or fostering. We tend to get stuck with more of what we have, often seeing improvements as 'unfair' on other members of the community. Well the rot has to stop somewhere at some point. Prejudice stops us seeing the social causes that we all contribute towards and stops us looking at constructive ways of making good the damage done in previous generations. Not to do so will cost us more, in financial terms and in terms of direct impact on the local communities, economies and individual security. Injustice and prejudice, in case some have not noticed, produces further prejudice and injustice. The bullied don't become bullies, others redirect their angst in the abused name. They are good at it and copy the example of the powerful individuals and nations. Vulnerable Adult and Child Protection processes. These problems we have been considering are partially compensated for by Vulnerable Adult and Child Protection processes. The requirement to ensure there are at least two people present at any 'disclosures' and that the gender of the investigators is considered. The more structured way of investigating 'Vulnerable' adult and child abuse cases is much more balanced. There is a clear, consistent approach that is respectful of the alleged abused and the alleged perpetrator. When done correctly, it is an information gather process. Every attempt is made to be fair and sensitive to the vulnerable person. This is more likely to remove prejudicial reaction to 'superficial' evidence and seek to find the underlying character and full features, of any potentially abusive relationship. It should make disclosure less intimidating for all. Not all behaviour is 'wilful', or deliberately spiteful. Sometimes neglect and abuse can be due to some measure of educational and social ignorance, or the consequence of the unacceptable (and even 'symptomatic', or uncontrollable) behaviour of the person who is the 'subject' of abuse and neglect. i.e. the identified 'Vulnerable Person'. It can also be the result of inadequate support to the person who is becoming 'neglectful', or abusive. This may be because they have made a commitment to stick with someone, or the family, or have a felt duty, or responsibility to persist, no matter what. It can be due to the other person's psychological and emotional manipulations (previous or current,; Adult and Child) to 'hold on' to a person, largely against 'both' sides better interests. People get trapped & neglected. The consequences can become damaging to all. All this can be considered more fully within the Vulnerable Adult What is considered to be Abuse? The term abuse is a difficult one. Its meaning drifts and can be misused. For instance, two people who are constantly battling with each other, who live their lives in constant conflict and hit out at each other. They are obviously being abusive to each other but there may be an apparent balance in the relationship. Both appear equally culpable perpetrator and victim. Some people even take this to sexual extremes. Is it Abuse? We will see. Now personally, as a social psychologist, I would judge this to be unhealthy and can be quite dangerous, but if it is those peoples entitlement, within the limits of law and in private, to 'enjoy' whatever makes their lives meaningful, I can not really judge them on this alone. This situation changes, however, as soon as it has an impact upon anyone who is 'vulnerable' in some way. This may be a child (or children), or an Adult who is deemed to be, or by virtue of mental illness, or disability, becomes vulnerable and who then suffers consequences of the conflict. Perhaps even the impact upon an elderly relative who subsequently comes to live with them and is persistently subjected to the unavoidable consequences and stresses of the conflict. Situations and circumstances change but people's behaviour rarely changes to accommodate to this, even if there is an initial attempt to do this. Unfortunately, even in these mutually accepted circumstances, with no vulnerable person or child present, there can be a gradual, or sudden, change in the balance of power, where one or other become 'abused against their will'. It is a very difficult one to untangle. With intelligent investigation it is even possible to identify that an imbalance of power did exist, in some form, from the beginning. Abusers can be very powerful in creating relationship scenarios where their partners is gradually trained into a role, groomed and then progressively and increasingly abused, only to realised this further down the line. Also, if one of these protagonists ceases to understand the rules of the conflict for any reason, or is subsequently unable to comprehend the risks and consequences, or changes their mind and is disabled from withdrawing from the situation, they can be deemed to be 'abused'. We are all entitled to reflect upon our situation and recognise the inherent dangers, having at a previous time accepted them. This is part of the learning process. We sometimes realise that we are not adequately respecting our individuality and want out. Children who find themselves in a family where there is constant physical violence in their presence, within their hearing range, or in any way that causes them distress, are also 'vulnerable' and the situation is deemed abusive towards them. They will say as much. The violence may be from either parent, or both. Where it is from both, there can be little conclusion than to recognise the children are not safe without intervention. The Adult and Child situations have to be considered separately. The 'abused' parent needs to consider their own position and that of the child's. It may be futile to expect the abusive parent to recognise the damaging effect upon the child. There is then the problem of the 'freedom of action' of the abused parent. This will so much depend upon the wider family and social context and how manipulative the abuser has been. Some abuses are so disempowering that the abused is psychologically and sometimes socially paralysed. Abusers are quite capable of completely undermining the credibility of the abused person, referring others to the 'evidence' they have 'generated' to support their case. It is little consolation to the eventual outcome for children involved but the abusive person can even 'win' custody of children by effectively 'psychologically and emotionally' destroying their partner. The situation with argumentative relationships is slightly more problematic. Being loud and expressive is often a cultural characteristic. Where both parents have a balanced relationship, in terms of power and influences, and if 'natural' anger and frustration is periodically vented in the context of affection and humour, children often cope with this well. In some cultures, the safe expression of frustration is acceptable and is balanced by great demonstrations of public affection and reconciliation. This can be described as a 'latin', or Mediterranean style of family dynamics, although it should not be seen as stereotypical. In these circumstances, children can see the normal social processes in their full spectrum. By contrast, anger, frustration and argument without the balance of affection, humour and reconciliation is distressing and damaging to a child. Even in argumentative families, where there is an absence of affection and reassurance, such situations are plainly distressing and can be identified, where the child expressed this distress in any way, as abusive towards them. This situation is very common in many cultures where relationships have broken down, or are in the process of breaking down. For others it is a way of life. By stark contrast, the quiet, relatively 'civilised', private discussions of parents, in the absence of the children, can also be problematic. A child will often know something is wrong, because of the lack of more public communication and affection between parents. This 'strained' relationship can even have impact on the naturalness of the affection and attention shown to the children. Children are usually very sensitive to such things, certainly more that us adults usually are. Such 'private' conversations, overheard by a child eavesdropping, can actually be more distressing than the occasional public outburst of frustration. If these conversations are barely audible, but agitated intonation of voice is detectable, this does not help. Children fill in the details for themselves. It is not unusual for children, in these strained, subliminal circumstances, to conclude that it is them being talked about. Often they will hear their name mentioned. They will hear references to problems and difficulties, etc. They often feel responsible for the conflict and failures, having associated their name with 'problems'. Another type of family situation that can be very damaging is one where the parents have ambitions for their children. Ambitions that are essentially their own frustrated ambitions. The child's own identity can get lost. If this is accompanied by little, often subtle 'put downs' and criticism the child become insecure. Sometimes these are not so subtle. Once a child's insecurity is established they are open to any 'suggestions' including those that are supposedly said in 'jest', or as 'corrections': "You silly child", "Look what you have done now", "Why are you always so naughty". "You have let me down again", "You are such an embarrassment to me", "You are just like your dad (mum)". They get worse: "You are a Jonas", "You little tart", "If you do that again I will kill you", "You can go and live with your Father / Mother", "You have got a problem child", "If you don't do what I tell you can go into care", "You little bastard, you will wish you were never born". I will stop there with specific illustrations. These are actually bad enough, because they are believable to a child. The expressions and put downs can be far less subtle and can include encouraging children to be abusive to other children, partners, ex partners, teachers & neighbours. Abusive Adult behaviour is bad enough to live with but with the active encouragement and manipulation to abuse others, is setting a child up to fail miserably and often creates a sense of guilt in later life that has serious impact upon their ability to establish and maintain relationships. These are just a few of the ranges of adult behaviours that have caused serious trauma and distress to children and to the adults that they grow up to be. These are not the worst examples. Gross sexual abuse is now accepted, although when I discussed the subject with professionals over 30 years ago there was uproar. The figures I presented then are now generally accepted as being representative. 10% 'hard core' and up to the 30% mark for substantial & significant levels of inappropriate touching and sexualised commentary (not including normal, balanced flattery, teasing and playful flirting). This covers the whole age range up to16 years and includes males and female 'victims'. In addition to this, we could include some measure of more extensive inappropriate sexual behaviour and comments towards under 16's, especially (but not exclusively) by young and older males, at significant levels down to the ages of 13, with declared interest by men to men, in particular (some married and with children) in having sexual relationships with girls as young as12 & 13. Women may have a similar insight into the expression of sexual interest in young boys. I have seen evidence of it but not enough to quantify it. There is also the increased sexualisation of children in fashion and the media, on the pretext that children are 'sexual beings'. They are, of course, but only practicing, not inviting. They do this naturally and don't need unhealthy adult encouragement to foster this natural development. I have tried to get institutions and professionals to understand this trend and the risks it involves, both in 'promoting' more adult like sexual behaviour and in 'excusing' the behaviour of sexual predators, including those who defend this trend. What I have described above may appear, to some (both those who have been abused and those professionals considering abuse), to be rather extreme. I promise you, they are not as those who have experienced these effects will attest. Police and other professional do meet some pretty horrific situations and many professionals hear the stories of people who have had dreadfully abusive histories. Some are argued to be exaggerated. Well, most are described in terms of the impact they 'felt' and that is the important measure. Most situations, however, are 'shades of grey' in the middle. Somewhere between the the rather strange 'normal behaviour' of people in different kinds of 'balanced' and 'agreed', personal, professional and economic relationships; and the contrasting, clearly abusive and physically, emotionally, psychologically and economically damaging misuse of power, roles, status, duties and responsibilities. Here is often an obviously 'collapsed' & brutalised and even dead victim. Some miraculously survive without serious damage. Its a lottery. These are all significant reason why people should come forward but are equally significant reasons why people delay coming forward and 'disclosing' the abuses they experience, observe, tacitly neglect, support and even perpetrating at times. The case of out and out physical abuse, with bruises and broken bones seem obvious enough but even these can create problems for investigators, social and health care workers. Some natural effect and conditions produce similar physical symptoms, but these can also be used to mask abuse. There have been serious miscarriages of justice and injustices in such cases because of simplistic reactions to 'physical' evidence and avoidance of the more problematic, psychological and emotional evidence. Someone coming forward with a genuine story and evidence of abuse often fears the reaction they will get, or the criticism that may fall them if their fears are 'formally proven' to be erroneous, or misplaced (logically proven - not necessarily wrong). These fears are real and the result of reported miscarriages of justice and castigation of those who make disclosures that cant be adequately substantiated. This is due to what I call 'active' ignorance. For their own subconscious and other wise hidden, or dishonest reasons, the institutions sometimes reject the subtle evidence in favour of the concrete. To use an IT adage. IBM don't make the best kit but no one was sacked for buying IBM. This means that cases of injury that can be explained by known conditions, or accidents are taken as abuse because of prejudicial perspectives on the parents and their explanation, alternatively real cases of abuse are rejected because of lack of physical evidence, in spite of gross psychological and emotional evidence. If a person is a victim of relationship violence and have children, they may fear they will have them removed to care, or access denied. These injustices do happen and the delay can act like a self fulfilling prophesy. Abusers set people up to fail and systems fails to understand (or acknowledge) the powerful effects of the associated psychological and emotional abuses. Help & sensitivity is needed and intermediate solutions found. The subtler, clever, subliminal, torturous, humiliating behaviour that often accompanies physical abuse in some form, is the powerful component that can disable even the most intelligent and sensitive of people. In fact, in the most aggressive forms of 'mind games' and 'emotional manipulations' there need not be any actual physical torment. Ask anyone who has been abused what part this plays in their distress and disablement. These situations can have just as profound effects of any child's healthy development, if they are directly, or indirectly subjected to these forms of torment. Female police officers and military recruits of both genders, frequently speak of the the conspiracy of silence that surrounds their abuse, by mostly male officers. This is the character of institutional abuse. The behaviours are entrenched and usually started as a humorous, agreed 'adult play', used to harden people off. These initiation forms of 'physical torture' and 'mind games' has been abused for years. It is widely recognised. Times have changed, so has the character, background and purpose of the people entering these services. There are a wider range of personalities, physical sizes, genders and sexual orientations. This variety adds strength to the newly identified purposes of police and militarily services. Such 'exclusively' macho behaviours are now increasingly inappropriate and often contradictory to modern policing and military objectives and methods. The conduct of those who have to face the 'heavy end' of conflict situations, who amongst themselves, with mutual agreement, with clear rules, assessed risks and recognition of their individual, relative strengths and weaknesses, engaging in recreational play, legitimate exercises, or real social conflicts, is not abusive of itself. The undertaking of these exercises without recognition of 'differences', or without an appropriate 'balance' of risks and without a context of mutual agreement; largely for the purpose of humiliation and the wheeling of illegitimate power, is abusive. Its further use for the purpose of 'silencing' those who wish to speak up about abuses is doubly abusive. Now you may know why your intuition, or previous experiences have lead you to delay going to the authorities and disclosing the abuses you have experienced in one way or another. Your suspicions are correct. There are powerful, often small minorities of abusive and dishonest people in any service, who may wish to protect their position. They can even have some sway over the vast majority of good people who just want to do their job in peace. This said, the likelihood that you will be dealt with inappropriately, even if this had happened in the past, is relatively small. The procedure have been tightened up and the chances of meeting a single or a pair of people who will not deal with you sensitively is now quite low. There are some simple guidelines to follow but you will have to find the confidence to take this action for yourself in the end. You are the most important person in this situation. You are considering 'disclosing' something that is seriously affecting you and probably many others. You don't have to do any of this alone though. Record everything that has happened to you. Give dates, hospital visits, names of people you have told. Take photographs with your own, or a friends camera, or mobile phone. If you go to hospital and the abusive person accompanies you, signal that you need some private space. Tell the person to record your comments, even if you ask them to not show signs of this knowledge, or not to call the police. It all needs recording for the future. Plan and get advice if you have time, decide when your are going to take action. If a serious abuse happens and you get the chance, take action immediately. If you can see what is brewing you will have more time to organise the arrangements for kids, where you will live and how you are going to go about sorting this out. Lots of things can complicate these arrangements. It is sometimes not as simple as ordinary people realise. That is not their fault. Find people who are willing to accept where you are coming from and will work with you to sort things out in preparation for the decisions and actions you eventually need to take. See the section on: Surviving Abuse and Surviving Systems to get a clearer picture for yourself of what is happening and to explain to others what the difficulties are. Whether you take action now, or some point in the future, get someone to go with you. If this was not possible, ask fro an 'appropriate adult' to be present, if you expect that there will be any difficulties in your expressing yourself. A duty solicitor is another possibility. Make yourself a safe as you need to be and 'disclose' the past events and also your fears of 'any' retribution you may reasonably expect, on the basis of that past experience. Language Meaning, Thoughts and Feelings:You know, language is a strange thing. It is a means of communication and has clearly understood meanings and definitions; a well established grammar and we all assume, very often, that what we say, if we say it carefully enough, will have unambiguous meaning and understood by most people to mean to them what they mean to ourselves (and our lose friends and family). In part recognition that this is not always the case, we sometimes (but not always) qualify this general understanding by saying that some words have 'connotations'. That is, that they can also carry other, wider, or even narrower meanings, in addition to the defined one(s). Yes there are also, often more than one defined meaning. In expressing language, as spoken, there is also some potential ambiguity, because some words that sound the same, have different spellings and therefor have quite different meanings and connotations, firstly when written, and even wider potential for varied understanding and misunderstanding when spoken. Basically, by 'connotation'; we understand that differing meanings are understood when words, or phrases, are expressed in: a) different ways; b) for differing purposes; c) with different intonations; d) with differing emphasises; e) for different intentions; f) in different parts of the 'sentence'; or g) in differing interpersonal & social contexts; h) as a second, rather than first language; i) with different dialects, j) with different variations for the purpose of poetic licence, k) variations and distortions for youth, or other subcultures; l) and with different non-verbal clues. I could also give other variations and distortions, like the change (particularly of written meaning) over time. Else where we may discuss this and the other variation, for the purpose of understanding confusion in 'institutional' operations and understanding. These are the deliberate and confused understanding; by Managers, workers, users, observers and translators of the very specialist, 'institutional' forms of language, with their often deliberate 'double meanings'. You may wonder how we ever get to understand each other? Well, the fact is, outside of everyday conversation, of which only a small part of the meaning is carried by the actual 'words', there is often considerable misunderstanding and that would explain many of the arguments and struggles that people and institutions have with understanding and respecting each others position and circumstances. Language is and 'active', or dynamic system of understanding. It actually requires conscious attention by both the speaker (writer) and the listener (reader). It is possible that people get too lazy or complacent in their understanding of what they say or write and in what the hear and read. Sometimes this is not too important, sometimes it is critical and crucial (as in the Law, Politics, Diplomacy, Science and some forms of Technology - all of which are important in Professional Health & Social Care work). In developing language we also develop 'thought' that has the 'language' as a means of playing with ideas, concepts, expressions of feeling and of description and determination of facts. These can have different intended meanings for different people and can be conveying entirely 'new' concepts, 'new' perspectives that those currently in use and understood. Understanding & Misunderstanding in 'Disclosures' Understanding & Misunderstanding in 'Disclosures', of Fact and Experience; especially in relation to 'very personal' experience, with substantial emotional content and reaction, that may have limited public experience and understanding: There are distressing incidents and events in our lives that can be difficult to express, or to talk about. Unless you have experienced this, it can often be difficult to understand why this would be the case. Sometimes it is even difficult to understand ourselves. When we do start to understand the experience and develop the language to express it, this understanding can be a very 'personal and individual' understanding. It may allow us insight into the experiences of others, but this will always be limited. If it gives us an adequate language and understanding, we may at least be able to 'disclose' this experience to others, either so that we can get help with dealing with the underlying 'feelings' and distress, or so that we can get some appropriate 'social action'. The reasons for being 'inhibited' in this way are varied. It may be because it is dealing with sensitive and private areas, like sex and sexuality. It could be because we were young when we had these experience and did not have an adequate understanding or language. There are times when a set 'procedure' for dealing with a problem, issue, or disclosure is quite appropriate and helpful. One important time is when we first attempt to describe to someone else and incident that has happened that has caused us concern, but that we are not fully confident is what it is, or how to express it. It is so easy to 'lead' someone, when they are in distress and finding it difficult to express themselves. There is a subtle difference between '1) Supporting, Encouraging and Giving Guidence', and 2) 'Guiding, Directing and Giving Suggestions'. Neither is wrong, or right, but: The former (1) is more appropriate for helping someone to express and describe, in their own words and from their own particular experience, an event and experience that needs clarifying in their own words and expressing in their own terms. The latter (2) is more appropriate in response to someone who has asked for help to deal with a problem that they have adequately identified and understand, but for which they would like suggestion as to how to proceed. Disclosure of Abuse:Disclosure is a word, like many, that has 'special meaning' and connotation in Legal and in Emotional terms. The term has a special meaning in Law, in that it describes a particularly difficult communication, or expression of events, experiences and consequences which result from highly emotional and often confusing, distressing, confounding and ambiguous experiences. In disclosing very sensitive information, it is now recognised what kinds of distress that this can cause. There are new procedures being developed and new skills being learned, to make this more acceptable. These skills will be gradually transmitted through policing agencies and social services and mental health services. It is important that you recognise and communicate the difficulties you believe you will have when talking about what has happened to you. In these teams there is a better understanding of the kinds of problems that people have to face when they are within an abusive relationship. These teams recognise much more the effects of Psychological and Emotional components of abuse. It is possible for any of us to 'loose mental capacity' when under severe distress and this is appreciated. They can skilfully help you get to the 'facts' that are needed. Sometime we are so caught up in the situation that we loose awareness of some of the things that are happening. We often 'understate' the situation when we are trying to be 'fair'. The abusive person often 'overstates' their own all edged position. Specialist teams have heard it all before. They are less fooled by the lies and deceit.  This section is in a stage of preparation.
| NOTE: This Document is still at some stage of development. You are invited to respond and comment on its content and its logic. If you return to the document at a future date, you will be able to see its continued development, hopefully reflecting your own and others commentary. I thank you, in advance, for any contribution that you make. Please also feel free to visit and contribute, in any valid way, to these and other social issues, through our Forums. There is also a Chat Room and protected Chat Space for more serious group discussions and individual counselling. Please feel free o use this space for your legitimate activities. Copyright: Although you will see very few reference to other formal writings in this document, I acknowledge general recognition to the discussions and debates that I have had with students, practitioners and clients over the years. Most of the ideas and theory has evolved through this rather pragmatic process (operational research), rather than any formal reading. If any content of this document describes concepts, theory, or ideas that have been established else where, (prior to my writing, either here or else where - in part or in full), I acknowledge their entitlement to claim them as their intellectual property for financial purposes, if they can evidence this. I also reserve the right to retain them as my intellectual property, with due recognition to those who have made direct contributions, including other writers, should I identify such a past influences. Other than this, I invite you to share and copy any content, to the benefit of intellectual debate and the benefit of individuals and groups, without restriction, other than it be used for constructive purpose, in the wider context of my writing. Should you wish to use any material presented here 'as is', I ask that you then make reference to myself and the web site. The 'Reading Date' would be a useful 'publishing date' for the Current Edition. 1980 is the core publishing date for most of the basic ideas and theory (unless stated otherwise). This 'Reading Date' may be an important part of this 'reference', as the document (by its 'internet fluid' nature) will be constantly changing and this may affect meaning and interpretation, for those following up on such a reference at a later date. Thank you for your cooperation. TRC. eMail: terry.couchman@visitweb.org |
