A Hidden Accomplice

A hidden accomplice Following the death in prison of Myra Hindley the Moors Murderer, the veteran Labour politician Tony Benn was asked on BBC's Question Time by an audience member whether it would have been better simply to execute her instead of paying for her to languish in jail for decades. Benn responded that the one crime that is probably beyond the ability of any human to forgive is the murder of a child, but that the greatest mistake for a nation that has to endure the pain of such events is to give in to blind hatred. Far better, he said, to forget about Hindley and allow her life to have been one of irrelevance. These are undoubtedly wise words, timely, as once again we encounter the horror of an adult purposefully and deliberate killing a child for their own sexual gratification. It is doubtful that anyone could ever forgive this crime and few will be able to forget it either. Today the murderer of April Jones, Mark Bridger, will begin what will probably be the rest of a lifetime behind bars, just a brief review of the court case indicates that the police were dealing with a calculating and dangerous man, but another aspect of the case was continually mentioned throughout the trial and was scarcely raised as a contributory factor, and that was Bridger's drinking. Bridger was heavily dependent on alcohol and was consuming large quantities of beer, cider and wine at the time of the killing, the Guardian background feature on Bridger's Walter Mitty fantasy world mentioned drinking twice, but at no point (probably in the interests of securing a prosecution for murder) has anyone from the CPS or the media explored whether alcohol has had some part to play in this most horrific of crimes. The purpose of this article is not to provide this wicked and monstrous man with any form of mitigation, drunk or sober, there is no mistaking this act as a premeditated deed. However, if the relationship between alcohol and violence against children were isolated to this case we might reasonably call it an aberration, but evidence from the NSPCC tends to suggest that it is a contributory factor in most cases of sexual or physical violence against children. The World Health Organisation states that: "In London, parental substance abuse was a cause of concern in 52 per cent of families on the Child Protection Register, with alcohol as the principal substance used." This report refers to cases that range from neglected children in chaotic homes to a minority of others who are in direct physical harm. In the past few months murder trials have revealed that alcohol has been a contributory factor in the Philpott family murder and the horrific killing of schoolgirl Tia Sharp by her grandmother's boyfriend. In both the April Jones and Tia Sharp cases the media have been quick to highlight the downloading of child porn images as a main contributory factor, which it undoubtedly is. There is less desire to examine how the most accesible and widespread drug in the country affects the judgement of people who go on to commit horrific acts. Put simply, there seems to be no desire to question whether heavy drinking enables people to act out harmful and violent acts that may well have remained suppressed otherwise. The evidence would tend to suggest that alcohol has been a facilitating substance in these crimes and in other cases. Drunkenness in the home can often be the means by which dangerous people, friends of the family or acquaintances from the pub, are first brought into contact with children as judgement is impaired and the needs of the young take a back seat to the priorities of the drinker. Alcohol is a powerful, dangerous and addictive drug that cuts a bloody swathe through our communities year on year, and it is a drug that Britain's moral coward-in-chief David Cameron has backtracked on introducing minimum pricing over. Perhaps if we as a society were to have an open and honest debate about how much and how often this drug really harms our children, we might be less fond of trotting out pseudo-libertarian arguments about 'the drinker's right to choose', and be more concerned with the rights of children to happy, safe childhoods.

New start, new challenge

Carol Hardy believes if her local Minister hadn’t the confidence to talk about and support her battle with alcoholism, her life would have likely taken a very different course. Her personal experience of the importance of being able to turn to religious leaders in the community, and for them in turn to feel they have the ability to talk about addiction, form part of Carol’s main aims as she takes up a new post with Living Room Cardiff. There has been a recent increase in individuals with addiction problems approaching the clergy and other church leaders for help and this is often the first time they have asked for help from anyone (NAADAC, The Association for Addiction Professionals, 2007). However, there is a significant knowledge and skills gap among clergy in regard to dealing effectively with individuals who have alcohol, drug and other addiction problems. Some clergy lack confidence and are not personally equipped to help individuals deal with deeply personal and disturbing problems. Carol, said, “Personally, I was fortunate. My Minister had a background in addiction issues. However, I know this was and is very much a rarity. The natural tendency amongst our religious leaders is to avoid getting involved in people’s personal business, but much of this is down to a simple lack of experience and confidence in dealing with addiction issues. “Part of my first duties will be to make contact will all denominations in Wales to pilot a course on how to improve skills in discussing addiction. I am looking for any support to kick-start the pilot, but the aim is to create a framework of courses and a handbook, the first of its kind to be published in the Welsh language. “As addiction problems increase, I want to ensure clergy understand the issues involved and are ready and able to respond appropriately in a timely manner.” ENDS For further information, please contact Rhodri Ellis Owen, Cambrensis Communications on 029 20 2570785 or rhodri@cambrensis.uk.com Notes to editor: Stafell Fyw Caerdydd/Living Room Cardiff, the community-based recovery centre for Cardiff and South Wales, is setting up workshops to upskill and increase the confidence of clergy and other church leaders throughout Wales, in how to respond more effectively with those addicted to alcohol and drugs (prescribed or illicit), or other harmful behaviours, within their congregations and in their surrounding communities.

NEGES O OBAITH

Sut gallwn ni ddweud ffarwel wrth un flwyddyn a chroesawu un arall sydd eto i ddechrau? I nifer, mae’r ateb yn syml, gyda hwyl sy’n ymylu ar hedoniaeth. Mae’r wythnos fwy neu lai rhwng Nadolig a’r Flwyddyn Newydd yn aml yn troi yn un parti hir. Ar gyfer y rhai sy’n gallu delio â chyfnod hir o yfed a dal i weithio ym mis Ionawr, gallwn ddymuno lwc dda i chi; mae cyflawni camp fel yna’n dasg anghyffredin iawn yn wir, oherwydd mae nifer eraill fydd yn cael eu gorchfygu gan dymor yr ŵyl a’r yfed y mae’n ei gynnig. Mae’r addewid arwynebol aml o amser da, ewyllys da a hapusrwydd yn aml yn syrthio o dan bwysau tymor y partïon i wirioneddau llai cyfforddus. Gall siom, unigrwydd a dicter hir-dymor hefyd atalnodi ‘amser hapusaf y flwyddyn’ ac mae digonedd o alcohol wrth law i leddfu’r poenau hyn ac, mewn llawer achos, eu gwaethygu. Felly, beth yw’r dull gorau o ymchwilio i’ch teimladau am y tymor a’r Flwyddyn Newydd? Mae’n bosibl mai drwy edrych yn ôl dros yr amseroedd lle’r ydyn ni’n byw, tra bod eraill yn ceisio negyddu pwy a beth ydyn nhw mewn alcohol, dim ond i ddiweddu’n cael eu goresgyn a’u niweidio ganddo, y gallwn ni weld yr ‘amseroedd da’ fel yr hyn ydyn nhw. Bob yn hyn a hyn, mae gwirionedd yn dod i’r amlwg sy’n chwalu’r propaganda sy’n ein hamgylchynu fel bwled a daeth un i’r amlwg ychydig cyn y Nadolig gan Sefydliad Iechyd y Byd. Ym mis Rhagfyr, cytunodd 193 aelod-wladwriaethau’r WHO yn unfrydol fod: "Defnydd niweidiol o alcohol yn bwysau iechyd difrifol a’i fod yn effeithio ar bron i bob unigolyn yn rhyngwladol.” Cyhoeddwyd hwn tra hefyd yn datgelu bod y cyffur yn lladd rhyw 2.5 miliwn o bobl dros y byd i gyd bob blwyddyn gyda 300,000 o’r rhain yn blant a phobl ifanc. Darllenwch hwn eto: 2.5 miliwn. Mae’n holocost cudd, anweladwy, trosedd yn erbyn dynoliaeth sy’n cael ei normaleiddio a’i drin fel busnes fel arfer; fel ffrwydradau tir. Mae’n siŵr bod pwynt wedi’i gyrraedd dros y byd i gyd gyda pherthynas dyn gyda’r ddiod feddwol na all gynnal ei hun pan fydd mwyafrif llywodraethau’r byd yn sôn am beryglon alcohol, mae’n rhaid ei bod yn amser i’r cyfoethocaf o’r llywodraethau hyn ddechrau wynebu’r anghenfil y maen nhw wedi’i greu? Tra bod lleiafswm y polisïau prisiau gwannaf wedi’u cyflwyno’n dawel gan ein llywodraeth, ni all unrhyw un fod â llawer o ffydd go iawn y byddan nhw’n cymryd camau difrifol i adfer rhywfaint o ddoethineb i ddeddfau trwyddedu Prydain. Nid yw’r ffaith bod ein meistri etholedig yn gwasanaethu’r rhai sy’n cyfrannu fwyaf at gronfeydd partïon gwleidyddol, prin yn syniad dadleuol, mae’n hysbys a phrin yn gyfrinach. Mae hyn yn golygu bod yn rhaid cael newid ystyrlon, fel mae wedi bod erioed, a hynny oddi wrth y cyhoedd. Mae’r fasnach ddiod wedi denu mwyafrif Prydain yn gyfrwys neu’n ddibynnol neu wedi cyfaddawdu, ond mae un ddemograffeg lle mae’n rhaid i ni osod ein gobaith, pobl ifanc. Mae’r defnydd o alcohol yn gostwng ymhlith pobl ifanc. Yn ddiweddar, roedd Alcohol Concern yn cyhoeddi ystadegau’n dangos bod y defnydd o alcohol ymhlith pobl ifanc 16-24 oed yn gostwng a bod llwyr ymataliad ar gynnydd, tuedd nad sy’n berthnasol i’r amseroedd anodd economaidd presennol ond un a ddechreuodd bron i ddegawd yn ôl. Er y gall alcoholiaeth achosi llawer o dristwch dros gyfnod y gwyliau, a gall achosi gofleidio’r byd yn waedlyd, mae’n glir bod rhywbeth wedi newid yn dawel, yn raddol ac yn anesboniadwy. I ble bydd hyn yn arwain y flwyddyn nesaf neu’r ddegawd nesaf? Beth all hyn wneud o’n cymdeithas? Pwy all ddod i’r blaen i ddangos i ni eu mawredd? Pwy fel arall fyddai wedi’i golli i ddibyniaeth? Bydd yn rhaid i ni aros i weld. Mae llawer i feddwl amdano'r Nadolig a’r Flwyddyn Newydd hon a llawer i obeithio amdano yn y misoedd i ddod. Rhaid i ni gofio am alcohol a dioddefwyr dibyniaeth a gwneud cyfraniadau bychan, graddol, ond bob amser hanfodol i fyd dynol mwy caredig a diogel yn 2013.

Message of hope for 2013

How do we say farewell to one year and welcome another yet to start? To many the answer is simple, with a merriment bordering on hedonism, the week or so between Christmas and New Year often turns into one long party. For those who can handle such a prolonged bout of boozing and still function in January, we wish you good luck; to pull off such a feat is rare indeed, for there are many others who will be defeated by the festive season and the drinking it offers. The often superficial promise of good times, intimacy, good will and joy give way under the pressure of the party season to less comfortable truths. Disappointment, loneliness and long simmering resentments can also punctuate the 'happiest time of the year' and alcohol is on hand in vast quantities to medicate these hurts and in many cases to exacerbate them. So what is the best way to explore how we feel about the season and the New Year? Possibly with a sense of reflection on the times in which we live, while others are trying to negate who and what they are in alcohol, only to wind up being defeated and harmed by it, we can see the 'good times' for what they really are. Once every so often a truth comes to light that punctures the propaganda that surrounds us like a bullet, and one was supplied just before Christmas by the World Health Organisation. In December the WHO's 193 member states agreed unanimously that: "The harmful use of alcohol is a serious health burden, and it affects virtually all individuals on an international scale." They announced this whilst also revealing that the drug kills some 2.5 million people worldwide every year, of which 300,000 are children and young people. Read that again: 2.5 Million. It is a hidden, invisible holocaust, a crime against humanity that is normalised and naturalised and treated as business as usual; like land mines. A point surely has been reached globally with mankind's relationship with intoxicants that cannot sustain itself, when most of the world's governments speak out about the dangers of alcohol it must be time for the wealthiest of those governments to start to take on the monster they have created? Whilst the most diluted of minimum pricing policies have been gingerly introduced by our government, one can scarcely have any real faith that they will take serious action to restore some sanity to Britain's licensing laws. That our elected masters serve those who donate the most to their parties’ funds is hardly a controversial idea; it is well known and barely secret. That means that meaningful change, as it always had done, must come from the public. The majority of Britain has been skillfully seduced, addicted or compromised by the drinks trade, but there is one demographic where we must place our hope, young people. Alcohol consumption is falling amongst young people, Alcohol Concern published statistics recently showing that amongst 16-24 year olds consumption of alcohol is going down and abstinence is on the increase, a trend that is not related to the current economic tough times, but one that began nearly a decade ago. Whilst alcoholism might cause much misery over the holiday period, and might cut a bloody swathe across the globe, it is clear that something quietly, gradually and inexplicably appears to have changed. Where will this lead in the next year or the next decade? What might this make of our society? Who may come to the fore to show us their greatness and majesty, who otherwise would have been lost to addiction? We shall have to wait and see. There is much to reflect on this Christmas and New Year, and much to hope for in the months to come, we must remember alcohol and addiction's victims and make our own small, piecemeal, gradual but always essential contributions to a kinder, saner more human world in 2013.

Can we celebrate? Not yet....

Do we celebrate? Not yet.... This week, in curious synchrony, the government wavered on the regulation of two out of control industries in Britain, the newspaper industry and the drinks industry. The former of the two, whilst rotten to the core, has yet to prevent itself as a major public health hazard, the latter, statistics show, certainly is. Part of the art of politics is giving the appearance of action, and in relation to the alcohol trade, David Cameron has excelled. He has imposed a minimum pricing of 45p per unit on alcoholic drinks, evidently having been shown evidence-based research that shows a clear causal link between cut price alcohol and crime. The fact that this is an initiative from the Home Office makes the government's concerns all the clearer, the cost of disorder in our towns and cities is huge, and many people have been denied the right to enjoy public places of an evening, as they have become drunken battlefields, all in the name of brewery profits. When the matter was left in the hands of former Health Secretary Andrew Lansley, the minister acted less like a man charged with the nation's well-being and more like a front man for corporate interests. He announced that he was not interested in regulation, but in working with the drinks industry to find an answer. In effect, he proposed self-regulation for an out of control industry, sound familiar? Self-regulation, as we all know is a code for 'let them do what they want and when there is a real problem, refer to an obscure industry code', but clearly in the eyes of the PM, determined to cut public spending, something further had to be done. The eye watering sums that the public purse now has to pay to police Britain's alcohol problem, and the crippling effect on the NHS, not to mention the countless cases of personal misery and the estimated 20,000 death toll every year seems to have prompted Cameron to partially act. The word partially is used here because one statistic the Prime Minister and Home Secretary would have been given whilst deliberating on this issue, again drawn from evidence-based research, is the recommended minimum price of 65p per unit, which campaigners and researchers all argue would make a considerable dent in the crime and death rates caused by drinking. This is not to say that the 45p minimum pricing is unwelcome, all moves towards a sensible and more humane way of dealing with alcohol have to start somewhere, but the question of where it goes from here is pertinent. Minimum pricing can either stay at the rather modest 45p while drinks companies find a way to undermine it or challenge it in the courts, and it might be the temptation of ministers eventually to kick the legislation into the long grass and for a future government to quietly dismantle it. If the people whose lives have been ruined by cut price booze, who's communities are unrecognisable, or who are simple just tired of indirectly subsidizing vast multinational enterprises by paying for the clean-up job after the profits of drinking have been privatised and the costs have been socialised, if these people continue to doggedly demand change, we may make it to 65p yet. Here's a final question: Why do drinks manufacturers and retailers object to minimum pricing? Won't this put up profits? Petrol companies and utilities continually rub their hands with glee when the minimum commodity price for fuel inches up every year. Drink is not like any other product, even though this issue is skirted over, it is highly addictive, and whilst this or next year’s profits for brewers and distillers might be unaffected, the steady disincentive over time to drink excessively, will eventually lead to less excessive drinkers, where the lion’s share of alcohol profits come from. The problem drinker is the mark in this particular game and the drinks industry knows it, we have scored a paper thin victory this week towards protecting that drinker, but don't be fooled, this is just the beginning of a long journey, not in any sense a destination.

Addiction, corruption and a necrophile nation

When the great psychoanalyst and voice of 20th Century humanism Erich Fromm coined the term necrophile, it had a very different meaning than that which is associated with it today. Fromm was talking about a malaise that existed in the human character, the desire to replace that which was living with that which was dead. This obsession that can be seen all around us, from the environment and the way we consume to the economy, and to our personal and emotional lives deep within. Few better examples of this can be seen than in the manner in which British parliamentarians have this week tripped over themselves to facilitate corporate greed and to expose an entire generation to new and powerfully addictive forms of high street gambling. We, as a nation are being governed by a parliamentary class that is putting the needs of the material, or as Fromm would have argued, the dead, over the needs of the living. In the UK today there are, so latest figures suggest, half a million people addicted to gambling. The prevailing orthodoxy from both political parties is that the profusion of book makers using the new super addictive fixed odds betting terminals is the result of consumer choice, a magical term that can take any noxious trade and give it an air of respectability; the logic, if followed to its conclusion, is that any nation not based on such laudable principals of market democracy is in some way less free. In order for this shaky argument to hold water the idea that gambling is addictive needs to be quietly dropped, as with smoking, the corporate power behind gambling know full well that for many punters, choice is but a memory. We are constantly told that any limitations placed on socially toxic enterprises such as book makers will result in waves of job losses, but the economic reality is actually quite different. With book makers sucking thousands of pounds out of deprived areas on a daily basis, with little or no real economic or social value being added back to the community, it is excessive gambling that impoverishes the community. Imagine the money wasted in book makers, feeding the addiction and suffering of a gambling addict, actually spent on goods and services on the high street. Our parliamentarians have long been lobbied by gambling industries of one type or another, be they in the City of London or at Newmarket Races, but now the scale of addiction in society demands that there is some kind of leash placed on these most secretive of vested interests. If parliamentary democracy in Britain is to truly revive itself from its currently tarnished state, the necrophile mentality and the power of lobbying and money must be countered, however the Department of Culture, Media and Sport have recommended precisely the opposite. In an act of breath taking irresponsibility, it has recommended lifting the cap on the number of FOBT machines in any one bookmakers, allowing an unlimited number to be deployed. Parliament is due to adjudicate on this matter in the next few weeks, and seems likely to repeat its tired old mantra of individual choice, instead of taking responsibility for the great crisis of addiction that consumes the very citizens it proclaims to represent and protect.

Jimmy Savile

JIMMY SAVILE Dychmygwch hyn: y diwrnod y datgelwyd y sgandal am y cannoedd o droseddau a gyflawnwyd gan Jimmy Savile yn erbyn plant ac na chafwyd eu herlyn na’u cosbi, bod papur newydd yn cyhoeddi’r pennawd canlynol: "Unigryw! Dyn yr oedd pawb yn amau’n gryf ei fod yn baedoffeil, er mawr syndod, yn baedoffeil." Er mawr sarhad i Stryd y Fflyd, ni chyhoeddwyd unrhyw bennawd o’r fath, ond gallai fod yn un o’r datganiadau mwyaf diffuant a allai fod wedi ymddangos yn y sgandal mwyaf gofidus hwn. Mae cymaint sy’n drallodus am yr achos hwn fel ei bod yn anodd gwybod lle i ddechrau, ond gallai archwiliad sydyn o’r ffeithiau helpu i ganolbwyntio’r meddyliau. Adeg ei farwolaeth, anfarwolwyd Syr Jimmy gan y wasg, roedd yr union y math o berson ecsentrig, hawddgar y mae’r cyfryngau tabloid Prydeinig wrth eu bodd yn eu dathlu, ei waith dros elusennau a’i ymgyrchoedd llai hysbys, ac erbyn hyn eironig tywyll ar ran gwedduster cyhoeddus yn yr 1970au a’r 1980au gyda Mary Whitehouse yn creu person o onestrwydd syml. Ac eto …. ac eto ni thwyllwyd neb go iawn, neu do fe? Cyflwynodd Jimmy Savile bôs anodd i gymdeithas, ydyn ni’n aflonyddu ar unrhyw ddyn mewn oed, sengl sydd ag awydd bod yn garedig i blant a gwireddu eu gobeithion? Ydyn ni’n bwrw sen am ddyn sy’n ymweld â phlant sâl mewn ysbyty, sy’n ymwelydd aml â hosbisau a chartrefi gofal, i bob golwg er mwyn gwedduster dynol? Os gwnawn hyn, ydy hyn yn cymryd cam arall i lawr y ffordd i’r math o hysteria sy’n gweld pob dyn mewn oed fel rhywun amheus? Mae dull syml ac effeithlon o sgwario’r cylch hwn ac mae’n strategaeth fyddai’n chwyldroi bron pob maes o amddiffyn plant, o gyflwynwyr amheus Top of the Pops i yfed dan oed. Y strategaeth hon yw didwylledd a gonestrwydd llawn a chyflawn ar draws ein cymdeithas am y pethau sy’n creu mwyaf o gywilydd i ni. Mae’n amlwg bod troseddau Jimmy Savile yn hysbys i nifer mawr o bobl. Roedd y rhai oedd yn cadw ei weithredoedd yn gudd, y rhai oedd yn anwybyddu ei ddioddefwyr, y rhai oedd yn cael eu cyfaddawdu gan y sosiopath ystrywgar, roedd digon o wybodaeth go iawn i’w restio a’i garcharu degawdau’n ôl. Ni weithredwyd ar hyn oherwydd bod cam-drin plant yn rhywiol yr adeg honno, ac i ryw raddau yn dal i fod, yr eliffant mawr pinc yn yr ystafell na allwn ddioddef ei gydnabod. Yr unig bryd y byddwn yn ei drafod yw ar adegau o argyfwng aciwt. Yn Stafell Fyw Caerdydd, gwyddom bopeth am yr eliffantod pinc hyn - alcohol, cyffuriau, gamblo neu ddibyniaethau eraill. Mae’n ymddangos bod paralel aciwt rhwng y modd yr ydyn ni’n delio â’r peth dychrynllyd o gam-drin plant a’r modd rydyn ni’n trafod dibyniaeth mewn cymdeithas, mae ein synnwyr cywilydd yn cau allan unrhyw drafodaeth. Mae’r amser wedi dod i bob un ohonom, dioddefwyr, câr, gwylwyr, hwyluswyr damweiniol a hyd yn oed cyflawnwyr sydd am geisio atal gwneud, i fod yn onest a siarad. Roedd Jimmy Savile yn gweithredu’n rhydd nid oherwydd, fel mae rhai wedi’i awgrymu, ei fod yn bwerus ac yn ddylanwadol ond oherwydd ein bod mor ofnus, nid ohono ef, ond o gydnabod bodolaeth camdriniaeth yn ein cymdeithas. Rydyn ni’n dal i fod yn rhy ofnus o gydnabod yn agored yr hyn mae pawb yn wybod yn breifat, fel gyda cham-drin, bod dibyniaeth yn rhemp ym mhobman o’n cwmpas, mewn siop drwyddedu, casinos, tafarndai, mewn aleau cefn, archfarchnadoedd ac ar-lein. Bydd y ddau ddrygioni hyn yn bresennol bob dydd, pa mor galed bynnag y byddwn yn ceisio eu hanwybyddu, ond ni allan nhw ffynnu o dan sbotolau gwirionedd. Bydd cymdeithas sy’n cofleidio euogrwydd, cywilydd a chyfrinachau’n parhau i gynhyrchu plant sy’n cael eu camdrin ac oedolion dibynnol, ond bydd un sy’n ymladd i’r pen dros wirionedd a gonestrwydd yn llawer iachach oherwydd ei hymdrechion.