It takes a special courage to do what these abuse victims did

Herself and I have the same discussion in January each year. It involves me sitting at the desk looking at a computer screen – with the screen about as blank as the look on my face.

For the life of me I can’t understand how you can ‘bin’ something which effectively doesn’t exist but who am I to argue. I sat at this desk the other morning going through all the bits and pieces that I’d written during the previous 12 months having to decide what should be kept and what must face the mysterious fate of everything subjected to the dreaded delete button.

The point of writing all this is to explain how I chanced upon what I wrote exactly 52 weeks ago and, without going into detail, part of it referred to the very real climate of fear which exists in the minds of many when they are dealing with a States department.

It’s fine for the likes of me and others who have sufficient self confidence because we have known for very many years that we’re not going to bullied or browbeaten – something which, before the objections from pinstripes come flooding in, was a good deal more common a few decades and more ago than it is today. With very few exceptions, I’d say that the vast majority of us are extremely helpfully and courteously treated by staff at all States departments and many of those employees put up with a good deal more than they should in the way of rudeness and abuse.

All that aside, I thought of that climate of fear when I read the report on the sentencing of that dirty old pervert Ralph Mauger – I make no apology for using that expression for that is precisely what he is – and wondered what manner of fear his three victims had gone through in the years between them being indecently abused when under the age of 14 and last week when he was sentenced.

All very well, I thought, for the Royal Court to find that the offences themselves were at the lower end of the scale and that there were mitigating circumstances, but what about the years and years of misery suffered by those three women?

I’m sure that most of us have recollections from long ago that we’d prefer not to have – things done either to or by us (and I have several in both categories) that in all honesty we’d rather not remember. Imagine, then, the sort of recollections of those who were abused as young people and who cannot rid themselves of those memories. Living hell is the phrase which springs to mind.

I wasn’t in the Royal Court and so I didn’t hear the evidence against Mauger or the mitigating circumstances which were referred to. I just hope the men and women occupying the Jurats’ seats took as much notice when determining his sentence of the length of time the victims suffered as they did of the assertions that the offences were at the lower end of the scale and there were mitigating circumstances.

It’s a pity the wink he gave towards the press bench as he was led away wasn’t seen by the Court. I know people who’ve presided over hearings in that place who would have taken an extremely dim view of such utter contempt.

As to Mauger’s victims, all I can do is echo what the police and the NSPCC said about their courage in coming forward and reliving in a room full of strangers their ordeals. It takes a special type of person to do that and, just as I have done in the past with others of equal courage, I salute them.

MOST of those I talk to in our corner of the pub reckon that lot in the Big House made their customary pig’s ear of the debate – which never actually took place – on what to do about their pay rise.

While I get fed up with people still labouring under the wholly erroneous impression that our elected representatives decide themselves what they are going to be paid – they don’t and haven’t done so for ages – I get equally irate with the amount of debating time devoted to the internal machinations of the Big House.

It was interesting to read what happened last time all this debated when five of them refused to take the rise and a further eight decided to give the money – £800 a year – to charity. While I generally believe that anyone’s financial affairs are their own business, I accept that there are some which should be in the public domain and our elected representatives fall into this group.

I have a measure of sympathy with what Sadie Rennard was trying to achieve but talking publicly about her being accosted at the pre-first sitting church service by (presumably) a Member accusing her of ‘stopping our pay rise’ actually achieves nothing. If she wants to sound off about her colleagues in that manner then surely we have a right to know who she’s talking about. I actually would like to know the name of the Senator, Constable or Deputy who said that to the St Saviour Constable.

At the moment suspicion falls on all her colleagues and if she is so concerned about standards and the image portrayed to the general public by at least one of her colleagues then she should name and shame.

In the meantime, let someone propose that the list of who gets paid what becomes open to public scrutiny.

And finally,

In calling for good manners between two groups of sea users, Arlene Maltman is chancing her arm. I wish her every success because I’m told it’s time someone said something.