Introduction

Why should highly publicised child sexual abuse cases from decades ago remain important? Why should informed accuracy about them matter?

Because the way in which facts, or more often myths, about such cases are perceived is influential for decades – with a disproportionate, negative influence on public attitudes, on professional behaviour, and, it can be argued, on subsequent child law. The myths have fuelled suspicion, even denigration, of the social work and paediatric professions; increased the stress involved in child protection work; tightened legislation and practice in ways which make it harder to protect children at risk; and eaten into professional courage and confidence. The legacy of such cases not only influences opinion, but becomes the narrative of is true and what is false in sexual abuse.

For example, I and others working in this field continue to meet teachers, youth workers, children's panel members and social workers who still quote the Orkney child abuse case of 1991–92 as a reason not to ask a child if anyone has harmed them sexually, however disturbing the signs and behaviours may be. ‘The Orkney Report said we mustn't – didn't it?’ Actually: no, it did not.

Thus it remains important to analyse individual, highly publicised cases, to check the facts, and to ask if lessons drawn, influenced by media coverage, are soundly based or not. If they are not, then the lessons drawn from them – such as undue caution and timidity against exposing sexual abuse – now need to be revised too. It is also important to ask whether major child abuse inquiries – often instigated after such high-profile cases – can benefit children at risk, unless in their remit and conduct children's own safety and protection are central, including the children at the centre of the case.

This chapter argues that the Orkney child abuse case remains widely misreported and misrepresented. When criticism of clumsily precipitate professional practice is justified, as it was there, people are more likely to believe untruths as well as truths about the cases, leaving a legacy which is unprotective of children.

By repeatedly publicising misrepresentations, and by omitting significant elements of this case, the media were key players in the presentation of Orkney, as they were in Cleveland.