Wider issues raised by Savile case

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/oct/26/wider-issues-jimmy-savile-case

Version 0 of 1.

Simon Jenkins (The Savile witch-hunt sets us on a path to paranoia, 24 October) could not declare that Savile is "dead, damned, gone forever", or talk in terms of "honest mistakes" or "restrictions likely to be out of all proportion to the harm they seek to avert" if he had any serious understanding of the damage done to individuals by sexual abuse, particularly in childhood. Or, indeed, of the impact of such damage on public health and society at large, as anyone working in the mental health or criminal justice fields, and for organisations such as Samaritans and the NSPCC, will testify.

This failure of understanding was no doubt at the heart of why so many people in institutions such as the BBC, the NHS, and organisations in the voluntary and charitable sectors did not take appropriate action over the rumours and allegations. It continues to this day, so that, for example, Jeremy Paxman on Newsnight can scoff at the idea of "tittle tattle" being passed by the CPS to other agencies, in cases of sexual abuse which are deemed not robust enough to proceed to court. The revelation will be shocking to those who believed there was already an obligation on agencies such as schools, police and social services to share information on any such allegations, however unproven. It is a national scandal that public and charitable institutions failed to protect children over an extended period, failed to act on clear signals that abuse was taking place, and failed to share information that might have brought the perpetrators to justice sooner, or at all, in the case of Savile. Isabella Stone Matlock, Derbyshire

• With hindsight it is possible now to put BBC managers under huge pressure in relation to a story whose main elements took some time to coalesce (Comment, 25 October). But this is counterproductive, for while the BBC was involved as Savile's employer, it would not be the only organisation that simply did not know how to deal with the signs and signals coming its way over a long period of time.

For, although the spotlight is on the BBC, there is also the wider question of the recognition of paedophiles as a sexual orientation in society as a whole. There has historically been a tendency to see the population as dominated by heterosexuals, with a minority of other orientations situated only vaguely and uncomfortably inside our wider peripheral vision. Perhaps the long-term effect of the Savile row will be to encourage analysis and understanding of the true sexual orientation of those whose main preference is for children.

We can be fairly sure that paedophiles exist at all levels of society. Some hold positions of power and influence and are as skilled as Savile in deflecting inquiries and suspicions. Thus, even where the press may expose their behaviour, it is unhelpful to splash "evil pervert" over the front pages. I suspect this approach simply encourages a dismissal of paedophiles' behaviour into the deeper wells of our public consciousness and morality. Because we have not recognised paedophilia as a main sexual orientation for a certain proportion of the adult population, we are unable to deal with it when incidents of abuse against children occur.

Once the BBC, the police and the Commons select committee have completed their investigations, it would be wise to have a more open discussion at national level about paedophile behaviour and exactly what to do about it. Elizabeth Oakley Bury St Edmunds, Suffolk

• Once again the excitement of the hunt for organisational retribution has diverted all attention away from the victims of an abuse scandal. Savile's victims, like all those of sexual, physical and emotional abuse, will have had their lives wrecked by what has happened to them. Providing them with care and support is difficult, expensive and long-term; much easier to have a short-term scandal in the headlines than deal with a lifetime of consequences. There isn't much evidence that the British are any good at this sort of caring – indeed, government advice is being watered down, and the charities on which the problem is dumped are increasingly starved of funds. Can we not put some of the energy currently being released into constructive care rather than destructive finger-pointing? Robert Goundry Leamington Spa, Warwickshire