Show Hide image

In this week’s New Statesman | Why Britain and Germany aren’t natural enemies

A first look at this week’s magazine.

24 OCTOBER 2014 ISSUE

BRENDAN SIMMS: WHAT THE BATTLE OF WATERLOO TEACHES US ABOUT ANGLO-GERMAN RELATIONS

Plus

WILL SELF: LABOUR PEERS ARE A “WALKING SOLECISM” AND SHOULD LEAVE THE HOUSE OF LORDS

NAOMI KLEIN ON MOTHERHOOD AND CLIMATE CHANGE: “I WRITE ABOUT GETTING OFF FOSSIL FUELS AND THEN I PLAY WITH MY SON’S TRUCKS”

HELEN LEWIS MEETS TIM MINCHIN, SATIRIST-TURNED-SUPERSTAR

MEHDI HASAN: WESTERN PROGRESSIVES SHOULD BACK BRAVE KURDS

THE STRONG GROWN WEAK: JOHN BEW REVIEWS WORLD ORDER, HENRY KISSINGER’S “CLARION CALL TO THE WEST”

GEORGE EATON: DAVID CAMERON’S NEW IMMIGRATION PITCH COULD SPELL DOOM FOR THE TORIES

“MAD” TRACEY EMIN v “HOLLYWOOD” STEVE McQUEEN: MARK LAWSON ON A REMATCH OF THE OLD TURNER PRIZE RIVALS

 

COVER STORY: THE FIRST NATO OPERATION

The Cambridge historian Brendan Simms considers the course of Anglo-German interaction from the Hanoverian Succession of 1714 to the antagonism between the two countries in the European Union today. Before the First World War, Professor Simms points out, England and Germany enjoyed a mutual respect and admiration, and shared in a “common project to defend their own freedoms and the ‘liberties of Europe’”. Simms identifies the Napoleonic wars, when the King’s German Legion was part of the regular British army, as the high point of the Anglo-German project:

France represented an existential strategic and ideological threat to both parts of George III’s patrimony. Napoleon’s ambitions on the Continent were incompatible with the independence of Britain and the integrity of the electorate. His domestic programme struck at the heart of the old order in Germany and at parliamentary liberties in Britain. The battle against “French tyranny” thus became a common rallying cry.

Simms shows how the Battle of Waterloo – in which English, Irish, Welsh, Scottish, Nassauer, Brunswicker, Dutch, Walloon and Flemish soldiers fought side by side – was “truly the first Nato operation”. The bicentenary of the battle in 2015 will have relevance for the European project today, he argues:

Given the severe challenges the EU faces in eastern Europe and the Middle East, and the collective failure to address them by the eurozone generally and Berlin in particular, the King’s German Legion, and especially the 2nd Light Battalion, could serve as the model for a future European army.

 

THE NS ESSAY: WILL SELF

In a vigorous polemic for this week’s issue, Will Self argues that a misty-eyed affection for our “hazily numinous” constitution has degraded democracy, created an “elective dictatorship” and rendered parliament the “gentlemanly capitalist’s preferred club”. Self finds both sides of the political divide guilty:

It is customary for those on the left to view all the flummery and mummery of the British state as just something we accept as the price of rubbing along. Periwigs and coronets with baubles; black rods and white stockings – these are the froufrous that guarantee our commitment to good old British gradualism rather than the violent regime change that afflicts other countries. For myself, I have always considered anyone who espouses socialism styling themselves as a lord or lady to be a walking solecism – perhaps not on a par with a Holocaust survivor choosing to assume the title SS-Obergruppenführer, but tending in that direction.

Thoroughgoing reform of the principal state institutions is a vital first step towards constitutional change, he argues, and the House of Lords must be abolished without delay:

Why wait? Why don’t all those Labour peers who claim they’ve only taken their seats in the cause of such abolition use this historic opportunity to vote with their feet, renounce their titles and reconstitute themselves as a part of the constitutional convention? I cannot conceive of a more powerful statement in support of democracy; moreover, in so doing, these former lords and ladies would be rejoining the commoners whose rights they say they wish to uphold, and at the same time striking a potentially fatal blow at the elective dictatorship that has progressively degraded democracy, equality, liberty and any semblance of fraternity in this country since the passage of the Parliament Act in 1911.

 

MOTHER EARTH: NAOMI KLEIN ON PARENTHOOD AND CLIMATE CHANGE

Sophie McBain meets Naomi Klein, the left-wing activist and author of No Logo and The Shock Doctrine, to discuss her campaign to paint the climate-change debate red. In her most recent book, This Changes Everything: Capitalism v the Climate, Klein argues that the issue of global warming should be used to deliver a “killer blow” to the free-market world-view:

“I do view free-market ideology as essentially a cover story for greed,” she tells me. “I don’t think it’s an ideology that should be taken entirely seriously. I don’t think people come to it for the most part out of intellectual curiosity.

“I think it is a story that is incredibly convenient to elites because it rationalises extremely antisocial behaviour. It’s an ideology I don’t want to make peace with.”

Klein’s growing interest in climate change has coincided with first-time motherhood and she jokes that the two things are not always compatible:

Klein is married to the TV journalist and film-maker Avi Lewis and has a son, Toma, who is two years old and “absolutely truck-crazy”. She visibly cheers at the mention of him. “It’s been hilarious watching this thing evolve, as I’m writing about getting off fossil fuels and then I go downstairs and play with dump trucks.”

 

THE NS INTERVIEW: TIM MINCHIN ON WHY RELIGION IS THE ONLY TARGET WORTH TAKING ON

The NS’s Helen Lewis meets the composer-comedian Tim Minchin, who has recently broken through as a writer of blockbuster musicals, including the Royal Shakespeare Company’s Olivier-winning stage version of Matilda. Minchin’s aim is to use comedy to encourage a more rational world-view and his stellar success is now allowing him to set his satirical sights on bigger targets. Religion is top of the list:

In religion, Minchin has found the answer to his unique dilemma: that he had run out of upwards to punch [this refers to the satirist’s vocation and duty: to “punch upwards”]. In 2010, he wrote “The Pope Song”, which called the pontiff a motherf***er more than 40 times. This rampant offensiveness is part of the conceit – how dare people be more offended by a swear word than by the Catholic Church covering up decades of paedophilic abuse by priests? The song says, “. . . if you protect/A single kiddie f***er/Then pope or prince or plumber/You’re a f***ing motherf***er”. It’s not subtle, but it certainly makes its point.

Not all of his songs about religion are such brickbats. In 2011, a relatively innocuous Christmas song, “Woody Allen Jesus” (“Short and Jewish and quite political/Often
hesitant and very analytical”), got cut from The Jonathan Ross Show at the last minute. Minchin blamed ITV’s director of television Peter Fincham, writing on his blog: “He did this because he’s scared of the ranty, shit-stirring, right-wing press, and of the small minority of Brits who believe they have a right to go through life protected from anything that challenges them in any way.”

 

MEHDI HASAN: ARMING THE KURDS IS THE ONLY OPTION

In his Lines of Dissent column this week, Mehdi Hasan observes that with even George Galloway now arguing in favour of arming Kurdish fighters in the Middle East, it is time for western anti-war progressives to support intervention in favour of the revolutionaries defending the town of Kobane, in northern Syria, against the “theocratic maniacs” of Islamic State:

It isn’t a contradiction to be anti-war and left-wing at the same time as being pro-Kurd and in favour of arming the Kurds. I have been a long-standing opponent of western military interventions in the Muslim-majority world, almost all of which – from Afghanistan in 2001 and Iraq in 2003 to Libya in 2011 – have resulted in civilian bloodshed and terrorist blowback. But I’m not a pacifist. And to pretend that the response to the beheaders, rapists and slave traders of the self-styled “Islamic State” . . . need not involve an element of brute military force is either ludicrously naive or disgracefully disingenuous.

 

GEORGE EATON: THE POLITICS COLUMN

In this week’s Politics Column, George Eaton argues that David Cameron’s decision to pursue an immigration-centred campaign, both at next year’s general election and in the 20 November by-election in Rochester and Strood, is a high-risk tactic that could cost the Conservative Party votes:

If many Tories welcome this realignment, others regard it as futile. “If we make immigration the problem, people will always view Ukip as the solution,” warns one. Another says: “We tried it with those ghastly posters in 2005. It didn’t work then and it won’t work now.” Conservative moderates fear that Cameron has embarked on a battle he cannot win. Ukip’s brutally simple offer of EU withdrawal to regain control of the UK’s borders will trump whatever solution Cameron proposes.

The answer, writes Eaton, is to shift the debate back to the safe Tory territory of the economy:

Outplayed by Ukip on immigration and outgunned by Labour on health, the Conservatives desperately need to move the battle to their home ground of the economy. The most recent YouGov poll puts the party 16 points ahead here, the widest gap since the general election. That this has not translated into an overall poll lead is partly due to the continued fall in real wages and the Tories’ enduring image as the party of the rich, but also due to the diminishing importance that voters attach to the economy. As the UK has moved from rescue to recovery, the public has turned its gaze elsewhere: to immigration, to health, to personal finances rather than the nation’s.

 

Plus

Books: John Gray on the disturbing moral universe of the pioneering American horror writer H P Lovecraft

Public art and personal stories: William Cook on Gillian Wearing’s A Real Birmingham Family

Let there be light: the NS film critic, Ryan Gilbey, on Mr Turner and Effie Gray

Pediment stroking and melodrama: Rachel Cooke reviews the BBC’s Gothic art and architecture season

Ian Steadman talks to the venture capitalist Peter Thiel about dreaming big

Kevin Maguire’s Commons Confidential: rumours of a safe seat for Euan Blair – and the Ukip interloper on the front bench 

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

In focusing on the famous few, we risk doing a disservice to all victims of child sexual abuse

There is a danger that we make it harder, not easier, for victims to come forward in future. 

Back in the 1970s when relations between journalists and police were somewhat different to today a simple ritual would be carried out around the country at various times throughout the week.

Reporters, eager for information for their regional newspaper, would take a trip to the local station and there would be met by a desk sergeant who would helpfully skim through details in the crime Incident Book.

Among the entries about petty thefts, burglaries and road accidents there would occasionally be a reference to an allegation of incest. And at this point the sergeant and journalist might well screw-up their faces, shake their heads and swiftly move on to the next log. The subject was basically taboo, seen as something ‘a bit mucky,’ not what was wanted in a family newspaper.

And that’s really the way things stayed until 1986 when ChildLine was set up by Dame Esther Rantzen in the wake of a BBC programme about child abuse. For the first time children felt able to speak out about being sexually assaulted by the very adults whose role in life was to protect them.

And for the first time the picture became clear about what incest really meant in many cases. It wasn’t simply a low level crime to be swept under the carpet in case it scratched people’s sensitivities. It frequently involved children being abused by members of their close family, repeatedly, over many years.

Slowly but surely as the years rolled on the NSPCC continued to press the message about the prevalence of child sexual abuse, while encouraging victims to come forward. During this time the corrosive effects of this most insidious crime have been painfully detailed by many of those whose lives have been derailed by it. And of course the details of the hundreds of opportunistic sexual assaults committed by Jimmy Savile have been indelibly branded onto the nation’s consciousness.

It’s been a long road - particularly for those who were raped or otherwise abused as children and are now well into their later years - to bring society around to accepting that this is not to be treated as a dark secret that we really don’t want to expose to daylight. Many of those who called our helpline during the early days of the Savile investigation had never told anyone about the traumatic events of their childhoods despite the fact they had reached retirement age.

So, having buried the taboo, we seem to be in danger of giving it the kiss of life with the way some cases of alleged abuse are now being perceived.

It’s quite right that all claims of sexual assault should be investigated, tested and, where there is a case, pursued through the judicial system. No one is above the law, whether a ‘celebrity’ or a lord.

But we seem to have lost a sense of perspective when it comes to these crimes with vast resources being allocated to a handful of cases while many thousands of reported incidents are virtually on hold.

The police should never have to apologise for investigating crimes and following leads. However, if allegations are false or cannot be substantiated they should say so. This would be a strength not a weakness.

It is, of course, difficult that in many of the high-profile cases of recent times the identities of those under investigation have not been officially released by the police but have come to light through other means. Yet we have to deal with the world as it is not as we wish it would be and once names are common knowledge the results of the investigations centring on them should be made public.

When it emerges that someone in the public eye is being investigated for non-recent child abuse it obviously stirs the interest of the media whose appetite can be insatiable. This puts pressure on the police who don’t want to repeat the mistakes of the past by allowing offenders to slip through their hands.  And so there is a danger, as has been seen in recent cases, that officers lack confidence in declaring there is a lack of evidence or the allegations are not true. 

The disproportionate weight of media attention given to say, Sir Edward Heath, as opposed to the Bradford grooming gang sentenced this week, shows there is a danger the pendulum is swinging too far the other way. This threatens the painstaking work invested in ensuring the public and our institutions recognise child abuse as a very real danger. 

Whilst high profile cases have helped the cause there is now a real risk that the all-encompassing focus on them does both victims of abuse and those advocating on their behalf a fundamental disservice.

As the public watches high -profile cases collapsing amidst a media fanfare genuine convictions made across the country week in week out go virtually unannounced. If this trend continues they may start to believe that child sexual abuse isn’t the prolific problem we know it to be.

So, while detectives peer into the mists of time, searching for long lost clues, we have to face the unpalatable possibility that offences being committed today will in turn only be investigated fully in years or decades' time because there is not the manpower to deal with them right now.

So, now the Goddard Inquiry is in full swing, taking evidence about allegations of child sex crimes involving ‘well known people’ as well as institutional abuse, how do we ensure we don’t fail today’s victims?

If they start to think their stories are going to be diminished by the continuing furore over how some senior public figures have been treated by the police they will stay silent. Therefore we have to continue to encourage them to come forward, to give them the confidence of knowing they will be listened to.

If we don’t we will find ourselves back in those incestuous days where people conspired to say and do nothing to prevent child abuse.

Peter Wanless is Chief Executive of the NSPCC.