Message From Deborah Denis, CEO
Notifications OFF
Dear Forum Users
Firstly, I want to genuinely thank you all for being so honest and candid with your feedback and thoughts around what you think we here at LFF should know and consider, as well as your specific thoughts on my recent media appearance on Women’s Hour.
From the off, I want you to know that LFF would be all the poorer without this forum and it’s conversations like these that help us to learn and improve how we communicate to the general public (and others) about these issues.
To be absolutely clear – we have listened and fully take on board all of the comments about the use of the term “non-offending partner”. As discussed already, it is a term first used by Social Services and one the sector has got used to using also. I hear what you’re saying – and want to assure you we are exploring the use of this language.
But what does this mean in practice? This includes hearing views from multiple sources. For example, we recently worked with affected families in Scotland to host an exhibition showcasing the impact The Knock had on them. In addition to showcasing powerful photographic images, the event featured a dramatization of one woman’s story – the story being that she was a mother who wanted to continue to support her husband. It was a powerful exhibition, and we are now looking at how we can support taking it into the Scottish Parliament. In this case, the families we worked with opted for the exhibition to be called: ‘Knock NOC’ – the Knock (as we understand to mean the moment a warrant is executed), and NOC meaning ‘non-offending carer’ – a term used by some statutory service in Scotland. It was their choice, and the name they were comfortable using for their exhibition. You can read more about this here: https://www.stopitnow.org.uk/home/media-centre/news/exhibition-shines-a-spotlight-on-the-experiences-of-non-offending-partners-and-children-affected-by-online-sexual-offending/
So, we are listening to all views on this language issue and are also discussing with sector partners its use more generally. However, all that said, I have heard you, and will seek not to use the term in media interviews in the future. The team will also not use the term on this forum, and we have already been discussing the use of it internally.
Regarding Women’s Hour more generally, I took the opportunity, when asked, to speak on one of the BBC's flagship radio programmes to highlight to a mass audience the devastating impact that an arrest has on loved ones. We were not part of the planning process and did not have any say over what the programme did before my appearance on the Friday, or what audio they used. I wasn’t aware there are concerns about that and I want to be absolutely clear – we had no control of the editorial decisions made by the programme’s producers.
For me, I need to look at the bigger picture. We work hard to tell a complex and, all too often, tragic story to the general public, most of whom will not have given thought about these issues before. We speak in the media to raise awareness of the many issues around child sexual abuse and to ensure that there is the vital support needed for all those affected in the future. There are few better ways of achieving this aim than by talking in the media. I also regularly advocate in meetings with government, law enforcement and others to keep this issue on the agenda. I am on your side.
While media appearances are sometimes unpredictable, and nobody is ever in real control of what is ultimately aired or used, we do know they can make a genuine and lasting difference.
Since the Women's Hour piece aired, we have seen a high volume of people contact the helpline who had previously been unaware of our organisation or that this kind of support exists. And we have been able to signpost these people to the support that we and our others provide.
Had these people not heard the programme, they would not currently be receiving the support they so badly need.
This illustrates why working with the media is vital to our work. But, also, it explains why we are keen to include the voices of those affected by these issues, to ensure that the public hear from the people most effected.
I completely understand your reservations and your lack of trust for the media, but I hope you understand why we will continue to work with the media in the future and do our best to influence how they cover these complex and sensitive issues.
Finally, on the point about not having lived experience within the team. I can assure that we do have it within the Foundation, and in relation to the forum specifically, we are currently looking at how we can best engage those who use the forum in its future developments. We want the forum community to be part of its future development, and its success.
I can also assure you that here at LFF, we have a team that is experienced, professional and, above all, totally dedicated to supporting all those who have been affected by this issue. This is something we all have in common.
I hope this goes some way to answering your questions. For anyone wanting to explore this further I would be more than happy to have a conversation, just let me know by emailing forum@lucyfaithfull.org.uk .
Deborah Denis
CEO, Lucy Faithfull Foundation
Firstly, I want to genuinely thank you all for being so honest and candid with your feedback and thoughts around what you think we here at LFF should know and consider, as well as your specific thoughts on my recent media appearance on Women’s Hour.
From the off, I want you to know that LFF would be all the poorer without this forum and it’s conversations like these that help us to learn and improve how we communicate to the general public (and others) about these issues.
To be absolutely clear – we have listened and fully take on board all of the comments about the use of the term “non-offending partner”. As discussed already, it is a term first used by Social Services and one the sector has got used to using also. I hear what you’re saying – and want to assure you we are exploring the use of this language.
But what does this mean in practice? This includes hearing views from multiple sources. For example, we recently worked with affected families in Scotland to host an exhibition showcasing the impact The Knock had on them. In addition to showcasing powerful photographic images, the event featured a dramatization of one woman’s story – the story being that she was a mother who wanted to continue to support her husband. It was a powerful exhibition, and we are now looking at how we can support taking it into the Scottish Parliament. In this case, the families we worked with opted for the exhibition to be called: ‘Knock NOC’ – the Knock (as we understand to mean the moment a warrant is executed), and NOC meaning ‘non-offending carer’ – a term used by some statutory service in Scotland. It was their choice, and the name they were comfortable using for their exhibition. You can read more about this here: https://www.stopitnow.org.uk/home/media-centre/news/exhibition-shines-a-spotlight-on-the-experiences-of-non-offending-partners-and-children-affected-by-online-sexual-offending/
So, we are listening to all views on this language issue and are also discussing with sector partners its use more generally. However, all that said, I have heard you, and will seek not to use the term in media interviews in the future. The team will also not use the term on this forum, and we have already been discussing the use of it internally.
Regarding Women’s Hour more generally, I took the opportunity, when asked, to speak on one of the BBC's flagship radio programmes to highlight to a mass audience the devastating impact that an arrest has on loved ones. We were not part of the planning process and did not have any say over what the programme did before my appearance on the Friday, or what audio they used. I wasn’t aware there are concerns about that and I want to be absolutely clear – we had no control of the editorial decisions made by the programme’s producers.
For me, I need to look at the bigger picture. We work hard to tell a complex and, all too often, tragic story to the general public, most of whom will not have given thought about these issues before. We speak in the media to raise awareness of the many issues around child sexual abuse and to ensure that there is the vital support needed for all those affected in the future. There are few better ways of achieving this aim than by talking in the media. I also regularly advocate in meetings with government, law enforcement and others to keep this issue on the agenda. I am on your side.
While media appearances are sometimes unpredictable, and nobody is ever in real control of what is ultimately aired or used, we do know they can make a genuine and lasting difference.
Since the Women's Hour piece aired, we have seen a high volume of people contact the helpline who had previously been unaware of our organisation or that this kind of support exists. And we have been able to signpost these people to the support that we and our others provide.
Had these people not heard the programme, they would not currently be receiving the support they so badly need.
This illustrates why working with the media is vital to our work. But, also, it explains why we are keen to include the voices of those affected by these issues, to ensure that the public hear from the people most effected.
I completely understand your reservations and your lack of trust for the media, but I hope you understand why we will continue to work with the media in the future and do our best to influence how they cover these complex and sensitive issues.
Finally, on the point about not having lived experience within the team. I can assure that we do have it within the Foundation, and in relation to the forum specifically, we are currently looking at how we can best engage those who use the forum in its future developments. We want the forum community to be part of its future development, and its success.
I can also assure you that here at LFF, we have a team that is experienced, professional and, above all, totally dedicated to supporting all those who have been affected by this issue. This is something we all have in common.
I hope this goes some way to answering your questions. For anyone wanting to explore this further I would be more than happy to have a conversation, just let me know by emailing forum@lucyfaithfull.org.uk .
Deborah Denis
CEO, Lucy Faithfull Foundation
Thank you Deborah for your message to us. I, for one, am very thankful that the programme made people aware of where they could go for help. My view is and was, if it can help even just one family then that is a success. I felt that you understood us. But I also acknowledge that the NOP label, is rather stigmatising. Although I have not been labelled as such, as I have had no involvement with any authorities since the day of his arrest, having no children or grandchildren and now separated, I can imagine how dreadful it feels.
I was 'Ann' and at no point did I think that charities would not be involved, after all, it was all about, to me anyway, the fact that we as families/friends/loved ones need support. We need the sign posts to charities like this. The helpline was my lifeline for a period of time, when I sobbed down the phone, desperate to know why, and what was going to happen to me. And the forum where I was so well supported. If it had been just about us, with no input from the 'experts' what good would it have done?
I trusted the journalist to do her job, and I think she did it in the time allocated on the programme.
I am so sorry that you, Lee, and Daffodil went through the interview process and then were not part of the programme. You are right, it was traumatising, as actually was the airing. I am hopeful though that this is just the beginning, and that your material will be used at a later date. Fingers crossed.
Xxx
I was 'Ann' and at no point did I think that charities would not be involved, after all, it was all about, to me anyway, the fact that we as families/friends/loved ones need support. We need the sign posts to charities like this. The helpline was my lifeline for a period of time, when I sobbed down the phone, desperate to know why, and what was going to happen to me. And the forum where I was so well supported. If it had been just about us, with no input from the 'experts' what good would it have done?
I trusted the journalist to do her job, and I think she did it in the time allocated on the programme.
I am so sorry that you, Lee, and Daffodil went through the interview process and then were not part of the programme. You are right, it was traumatising, as actually was the airing. I am hopeful though that this is just the beginning, and that your material will be used at a later date. Fingers crossed.
Xxx
Post deleted
Hi,
Dear LFF and Deborah, I really appreciate you taking the time to post this message which I feel is thoughtful and self reflective. I am going to take some time to really consider your points but understand the nuances raised and agree with a lot whilst also having experience which tweaks a nerve but appreciate the thought and big picture thinking. There's much to think about here, and think it was a really considered response.
Dear LFF and Deborah, I really appreciate you taking the time to post this message which I feel is thoughtful and self reflective. I am going to take some time to really consider your points but understand the nuances raised and agree with a lot whilst also having experience which tweaks a nerve but appreciate the thought and big picture thinking. There's much to think about here, and think it was a really considered response.
Thankyou Deborah for your informative post.
I have no respect for the media but can understand it's a vital tool in making people aware how we (the families of sex offenders) suffer. I also think a re- shake is needed to put an end to these nasty and untrue labels.
I was born in the late 50s and throughout my life some the labels of various areas were horrendous, cruel and SO outwardly prejudice. This has thankfully changed in our society, it's no longer acceptable. Why not a change in this area, change for exactly the same reasons?
Thankyou once again for all your hard work, I have been supported beyond belief through the hardest thing in my life by LFF. I have a new set of amazing friends, friends that understand, all due to you wonderful people x
I have no respect for the media but can understand it's a vital tool in making people aware how we (the families of sex offenders) suffer. I also think a re- shake is needed to put an end to these nasty and untrue labels.
I was born in the late 50s and throughout my life some the labels of various areas were horrendous, cruel and SO outwardly prejudice. This has thankfully changed in our society, it's no longer acceptable. Why not a change in this area, change for exactly the same reasons?
Thankyou once again for all your hard work, I have been supported beyond belief through the hardest thing in my life by LFF. I have a new set of amazing friends, friends that understand, all due to you wonderful people x
Post deleted by user
Post deleted
Daffodil, I am telling my truth. I too was contacted by the extraordinary person. I was concerned, after your response, that I had misunderstood the intent of the journalist and looking back at the initial invitation to be involved by said person the wording was
I am just putting the feelers out to see whether you might be interested. It would all be done anonymously and respectfully. Of the media outlets I have dealt with, the BBC has by far been the best. There would likely be a selection of people chosen, with different stories, to highlight what happens to the hidden victims, us family members.
Sadly only 2 people stories were broadcast. However at no point was I told that no one else would be involved, but then, I didn't ask and I did not even think about asking about that. Personally, I think it was needed as both speakers had more information about charities, stastitcs and views from many more people from their roles and surveys etc. and they did support what we were saying and didn't disagree or minimise. Feedback from people I know confirmed that the two stories DID have a huge impact and the emotion was felt. I can't see how the programme could have been aired with just voices and stories.We are used to reading many stories every day, we know our own intimately, so to an extent have normalised it, so as to survive, but for people who had no knowledge at all, 2 was probably enough, I was told by friends that people who didn't know me, who listened, found it a distressing listen. Of course, that is just their and my view.
I have put myself in very difficult and stressful situations to try and change things for not only the families but for the accused and as a result am very grateful to find anyone that listens, as many do not. I have talked to politicians including ministers, police, celebrities, prison governors, solicitors, journalists. I do this, not for me, but for those following. I've been through the worst.
I am now stepping back from it all, to live my life, feeling that I have done all that I personally can do, without studying and making this my life's work. For me, that would be unhealthy.
I hope you understand. I do not like the inference that I was misinformed or not being truthful. Your words hurt me, as all I have ever done is try to help others.
I am just putting the feelers out to see whether you might be interested. It would all be done anonymously and respectfully. Of the media outlets I have dealt with, the BBC has by far been the best. There would likely be a selection of people chosen, with different stories, to highlight what happens to the hidden victims, us family members.
Sadly only 2 people stories were broadcast. However at no point was I told that no one else would be involved, but then, I didn't ask and I did not even think about asking about that. Personally, I think it was needed as both speakers had more information about charities, stastitcs and views from many more people from their roles and surveys etc. and they did support what we were saying and didn't disagree or minimise. Feedback from people I know confirmed that the two stories DID have a huge impact and the emotion was felt. I can't see how the programme could have been aired with just voices and stories.We are used to reading many stories every day, we know our own intimately, so to an extent have normalised it, so as to survive, but for people who had no knowledge at all, 2 was probably enough, I was told by friends that people who didn't know me, who listened, found it a distressing listen. Of course, that is just their and my view.
I have put myself in very difficult and stressful situations to try and change things for not only the families but for the accused and as a result am very grateful to find anyone that listens, as many do not. I have talked to politicians including ministers, police, celebrities, prison governors, solicitors, journalists. I do this, not for me, but for those following. I've been through the worst.
I am now stepping back from it all, to live my life, feeling that I have done all that I personally can do, without studying and making this my life's work. For me, that would be unhealthy.
I hope you understand. I do not like the inference that I was misinformed or not being truthful. Your words hurt me, as all I have ever done is try to help others.
Who can disagree with this part of Deborah's statement? Surely we can all see this as a success.
While media appearances are sometimes unpredictable, and nobody is ever in real control of what is ultimately aired or used, we do know they can make a genuine and lasting difference.
Since the Women's Hour piece aired, we have seen a high volume of people contact the helpline who had previously been unaware of our organisation or that this kind of support exists. And we have been able to signpost these people to the support that we and our others provide.
Had these people not heard the programme, they would not currently be receiving the support they so badly need.
This illustrates why working with the media is vital to our work. But, also, it explains why we are keen to include the voices of those affected by these issues, to ensure that the public hear from the people most effected.
While media appearances are sometimes unpredictable, and nobody is ever in real control of what is ultimately aired or used, we do know they can make a genuine and lasting difference.
Since the Women's Hour piece aired, we have seen a high volume of people contact the helpline who had previously been unaware of our organisation or that this kind of support exists. And we have been able to signpost these people to the support that we and our others provide.
Had these people not heard the programme, they would not currently be receiving the support they so badly need.
This illustrates why working with the media is vital to our work. But, also, it explains why we are keen to include the voices of those affected by these issues, to ensure that the public hear from the people most effected.
Post deleted
Post deleted by user