Talk:John Smyth (barrister)

"Described as temporary..."

We read that Smyth was asked to stand down as the head of JASA, and then the sentence "Described as temporary, his return was not thought likely". This can only mean that his return was described as temporary, which is clearly not what is meant here. If the sentence is changed to "This [i.e. his standing-down as head of JASA] was described as temporary, but his return is not thought likely", this passage would be clearer English. And no, this is not grammatical nitpicking! 213.127.210.95 (talk) 15:48, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Amended. Nedrutland (talk) 07:53, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

New book on abuse allegations

• ‘Bleeding for Jesus’: book tells story of QC who pitilessly abused young men

Thanks

John Cummings (talk) 17:29, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

A person who dies as QC, retains that title

This is a note simply for information for anyone who might not know, or who might ponder the question. When the Monarch of the United Kingdom changes from female to male, or vice versa, the title of all living/serving Sovereign's Counsels (King's or Queen's Counsels) automatically and instantly changes as per statutory law. In the case of a dead Counsel, they (as a matter of law) continue in perpetuity to be referred to using the title (i.e. KC or QC) that applied at the time of their (the Counsel's) own death. Therefore, the child abuser John Smyth QC (who died as a QC) should post-mortem continue to be referred to as 'QC', regardless of the gender of the current reigning monarch. I'm not aware of any process or precedent to posthumously rescind a QC or KC title - almost certainly no such process exists at the time of writing. Flusapochterasumesch (talk) 17:53, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

“Is a child abuser”

Is it normal for articles about notorious criminals to be positively and definitely identified by their crime in the first sentence? Even Adolf Hitler was "a politician" who "perpetrated the Holocaust". Smyth is more than his crime. 185.37.117.141 (talk) 23:00, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps you might wish to edit Hitler's Wikipedia page to note that "as well as being a successful politician, Adolf Hitler was a verified best-selling author and an accomplished artist (particularly in the watercolour medium), who outside of his creative hobbies perpetrated the Holocaust."

I think the difference is that no matter how any person chooses to describe Hitler, every sentient human-being knows and abhors what he was and what he did.

Smyth is not more than his crime. Anyone claiming that is a blatant child abuse apologist. It's about degrees of notoriety. Hitler claims the number 1 spot. It doesn't make any difference if apologists draw attention to Hitler being a loving and loyal husband for all of 40 hours, him being an ardent dog lover, his having impeccable sartorial elegance (and being Hugo Boss's first A-list celebrity model) or him possessing an impeccably groomed moustache. Mankind knows and will always know he was the most despicable sociopathic monster ever to walk this Earth.

Smyth does not enjoy Hitler's level of notoriety however. Therefore, yes, it is important and it is normal to put his horrific abuses of children front and centre. Flusapochterasumesch (talk) 23:37, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Agreed fully. Smyth joins an elite club of those whose notoriety is so significant and beyond compare, it ought to be mentioned in the very first paragraph about him. The same goes for Pol Pot and many others. 108.49.231.247 (talk) 12:22, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Is there a reason this is in the category "Catholic Church sexual abuse scandals in the United Kingdom" when this... was Anglican? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.49.248.4 (talk) 01:16, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't know why you're asking this question of me - what has it to do with me or my talk entry? In any event - very obviously this article should not be categorised as you've described. So why don't you amend it? At the same time perhaps you should consider not referring to Smyth as a gentleman. Flusapochterasumesch (talk) 01:52, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

User:Flusapochterasumesch, it can be hard to interpret tone from written text, but I sense something bitey in how you are responding here. At least, be aware that that is how your writing might be interpreted by others. It is a topic that stirs anger, but please let's try to keep the discussion polite and measured. Everybody here seems to be well meaning and it is unacceptable to call a contributor a "blatant child abuse apologist". JMCHutchinson (talk) 20:38, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

I left Wikipedia years ago. Not sure it was sensible to even write that.216.49.248.4 (talk) 02:16, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

I've no idea what you're saying. If you left, why are you here? And whose contribution are you saying is not sensible? Flusapochterasumesch (talk) 02:21, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Presumption of innocence

This person despite the number of allegations, was not tried and found guilty in any criminal court of law of a child abuse offense. Therefore, stands innocent of the charges of "child abuse" so should not be classed as "A child abuser" but "An alleged child abuser". The article should be amended to reflect that. 2A0C:A741:1012:7210:CDDF:7E59:659C:7063 (talk) 07:09, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm having a hard time locating current reliable sources that refer to him in the way you're amending the article to read.

Do you have sources referring to him as an alleged serial abuser?

Curious, Augmented Seventh (talk) 07:50, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

There is a presumption of innocence for living people (see WP:BLPCRIME); but for crimes by dead people the usual standard of WP:V applies, not the beyond-reasonable-doubt standard of a criminal court. Smyth's abuse is extensively documented and reported in many reliable sources. In addition to that, as far as I can tell from available sources, when he was alive Smyth never actually denied the abuse, just tried to play down its severity. - htonl (talk) 14:58, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

In a letter sent by Smyth in March 1989 to the Chairman of the Zambesi Trust and of the Zambesi Ministries, Smyth said (writing of himself in the third person and referencing the 1982 Ruston Report, the one with the account of the 800 strokes): "Within a few days of the matter first coming to the attention of older Christians in February 1982, John accepted that what he had been doing was entirely wrong and he has never sought to justify it since. By reason of pressures of professional and Christian work he had for some years previously become completely dependent on sleeping pills, and there is no doubt that this extraordinary aberration of judgement was in some way linked with that." Quoted in the Pickles Review, 2021, p. 80. Ericoides (talk) 16:45, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

If he had confessed to the alleged crimes then I withdraw my objection and agree he is a child abuser. Its just a worrying trend in the west right now and as a matter of importance for law and science that many "Child abusers" or "Rapists of adults" or indeed people accused of other types of offenses even ones not sexual, are classed as such when they are dead and unable to defend themselves. I don't deny their is the fact that some child abusers, or indeed other criminals accused of none sexual offenses, are never tried before they die and are 100% guilty but their is also a possibility that the accused dies and was innocent all along but not given a chance due to their death of course to argue their innocence.

Its very poor play by the prosecution or alleged victims in criminal abuse cases to accuse a person after the person accused has died.

Its a fact, that even Jimmy Saville was falsely accused when he was alive and when he was dead. He was falsely accused of being the Yorkshire ripper by police when he was alive. DNA evidence has also cleared Saville of many allegations after his death as well and one false asserter after his death was found to be a false asserter outright though I do highly suspect that if Saville was alive and given a fair trial by jury he would be found guilty of some of the sexual offenses accused even by the laws of the day when he was alive.

While I am not defending Smyth if he confessed, his assertion when he was alive of "Some if it is nonsense" has a ring of truth to it. Their is cases where real sexual offenders have committed offenses but others, including the press, have added things that did not happen to their own narratives of true events they where not even present at.

Their is also the allegation of "Spiritual abuse" hear. I don't think in a western society that should even be entertained as a real or reasonable allegation even if sexual abuse allegations in a case are true because their is no such thing as a "Spirt" to abuse in the first place.

Their is only the body. A scientific look at abuse should be based on science not religious mumbo-jumbo. If we are going to replace real child abuse with "Spiritual abuse" why don't we just replace Darwinism with Creationism in the class room again ? 2A0C:A741:1012:7210:B442:6C92:2BF6:C9F8 (talk) 19:11, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

I'd be fascinated to hear your (the IP beginning 2A0C) thoughts on Adolf Hitler who, in common with the other monsters you mention, died before facing any criminal charges - does that keep you up at night? The United Kingdom's governmental/judicial bodies have made post-mortem conclusions about Smyth based on established principles, just as they did with Savile. If you wish to dispute the processes/findings of the Makin report etc. you should take it up with the UK Government. This article gives an encyclopaedic account of Smyth and his crimes, and references this account by way of the most authoritative bodies in the UK.

There is probably an article elsewhere on Wikipedia about establishing/stating guilt in regard to people who died before being found guilty at trial. That would be a more appropriate place for your discussion (I'm still speaking here to the IP beginning 2A0C). And if such an article does not exist, it seems like you would be the one to enthusiastically create it. Flusapochterasumesch (talk) 23:15, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't have strong feelings either way on whether to use the description unglossed - the BBC seems happy to do so so I think we're fine to - but on a point of accuracy regarding the comment above, I'm not sure that any such judgement has been made by the United Kingdom's government or judicial bodies? The Makin Report was carried out by an independent safeguarding expert, and commissioned by the Church of England, I'm not aware that it has any statutory status. TSP (talk) 16:29, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

'Statutory status' is not a relevant or meaningful term here - it's applies to the legislature, not the judiciary. Flusapochterasumesch (talk) 16:51, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Terminological quibbles aside, can you explain what you mean by "The United Kingdom's governmental/judicial bodies have made post-mortem conclusions about Smyth based on established principles, just as they did with Savile. If you wish to dispute the processes/findings of the Makin report etc. you should take it up with the UK Government."?

I cannot see any judgement that has been made by UK governmental or judicial bodies on Smyth. Makin's report is entirely independent, neither governmental nor judicial. TSP (talk) 17:01, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Pickles and Makin have been endorsed by the Prime Minister, his government and the Church of England (all of whom are part of our legislature and judiciary).

Look - if you want to pepper the article with "allegedly" that's up to you - good luck with that. Then you can set to work on the articles relating to the other two monsters I mentioned.

Of course I understand the thrust of your discussion - it will have crossed the mind of any person with a keen interest in Smyth's child abuse. Wikipedia is however not the arbiter of the decades long processes that concluded that Smyth was a child abuser. And our discussion is inconsequential to the point of being offensive to Smyth's victims.

I think a good starting point for you to have a proper discussion about the legality of calling Smyth a child abuser would be to write to your MP, or to the Prime Minister's office, or the Attorney General for England and Wales.

There does not seem to be an article on legally establishing guilty/criminality post-mortem. I for one definitely want to know more about it, and I feel sure a great many people would also want to know more. It would be an excellent project for someone. Flusapochterasumesch (talk) 17:25, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Something else to think about (and this is simply a Thought-Experiment), is this: had Smyth stood trial charged with serial abuses of children, what verdict would a Court have passed?

Now before any dilligent little WP editor comes along and squeaks, that's WP:crystalball or whatever: I've already said it's a speculative question. It's on a talk page, not in an article. Mankind would have achieved nothing if nobody ever asked 'what if'.

So back to a purely imaginary trial of a man accused of serial child abuse - we'll call the defendant John Smith-with-an-i (an imagined person). It can be a Jury trial or a Judge-only trial. Let's make it the former.

The defendant can choose whether to attend his trial or not. Let's make it that he does, and that he elects to be represented in court (by a senior barrister, a KC, given the severity of the charges). The defendant has pleaded not guilty (hence the trial) and his position from the outset is to instruct his barrister that he refutes every prosecution witness's account of criminality. So his barrister challenges every witness with, "I put it to you that you are lying" and the witness says, "no I am not". That's pretty much how every criminal trial plays out.

Let's imagine the defendant chooses to take the stand. His barrister asks him 'did you do the things the witnesses said you did?' and he says 'no'. The prosecution says to him, 'you did these things, did you not?' and he says, 'no, I am innocent'.

Perhaps the credibility of some witnesses will be called into question. The court will ask, is there evidence of collusion or is there any reason the witness might be lying? Is there any evidence that the witness was elsewhere when they said they witnessed the thing they claimed.

Unless there's evidence that a witness was elsewhere or had some particular reason to lie, their testimony is established as just that. The reliability of it is then judged by the Jury or the Judge.

The defence might lead witnesses who say they were present at the place and time of the alleged offences, and did not witness any criminality. Fair enough, but not-witnessing something carries much less weight than positively witnessing something.

Based on all the testimony, the Jury or Judge reach a verdict. Note that a Jury is made up of ordinary lay-people. A Judge is obviously not a lay person - their role in court is to ensure proceedings are properly observed, and that the Jury are properly informed on points of law and on the processes they must follow. If there is no Jury, and it is the Judge who reaches the verdict, the Judge does so in effect as a lay person (and in their capacity as someone who has shown themselves to be a good and just arbiter of legal disputes).

The essence of the defendant's contribution, if they are present, is to say 'I'm innocent, and every piece of testimony you've heard is untrue'. Perhaps also, 'I wasn't present at the times and places alleged', or 'these crimes happened but someone else perpetrated them, not me'.

Now imagine all of that in the absence of a defendant (either because the defendant chooses not to participate, or because they are dead). n.b. a dead person cannot be tried, but this is only imaginary.

If, in the absence of a defendant, the process:

is independent (i.e. those conducting it are not prejudiced);

is conducted in a methodical manner by people who are accepted/trusted as being competent;

is overseen or reviewed by senior law officers or appropriately qualified people;

questions the veracity and reliability of witness statements in a way that a Jury would;

considers conflicting evidence available to them; and

is open to public scrutiny

how does it differ from a trial where the defendant is present? Obviously it is preferable to the application of Justice that a defendant is able to participate in their own trial, but if that is impossible because they are dead, what then? In the UK and around the world, democratically elected people and publicly-appointed officers have established standards and processes to deal with this eventuality. The alternative is that the State perpetuates the innocence of any person who died before being tried.

Note that the State is able to posthumously pardon people and is able to formally/legally acknowledge and apologise for its own historic actions. As citizens in a democracy, we've given the government/the State the power to do these things - and if any citizen disagrees with these powers they have the democratic right to have their disagreement heard. The most senior elected representative of our State (and the leader of the Church of England, who has certain legislative and judicial powers) have declared John Smyth to be a serial child abuser. In the case of the PM, he has the mandate of the UK's public to do this, and any member of the public has the right to object to that.

So once again, anyone who disagrees with John Smyth being declared to be a serial child abuser has the option to voice their opinion via their MP or directly with the Prime Minister. Flusapochterasumesch (talk) 18:46, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

I think perhaps you need to refamiliarise yourself with what Wikipedia is, and what it is for. WP:NPOV, WP:VERIFIABILITY, WP:NOR.

Your extremely lengthy thought experiments are completely irrelevant and inappropriate for Wikipedia talk pages. As is suggesting that people who disagree with you "voice their opinion via their MP or directly with the Prime Minister".

We are not here to judge whether Smyth was guilty, we are here to assemble Wikipedia content in accordance with the policies above - which, incidentally, give no particular value to the opinions of the UK Prime Minister, except insofar as the fact he holds that opinion is notable to be reported.

Please restrict your Talk Page discussion to what content is appropriate under Wikipedia policies, not to your own musings on church, state, and quasi-judicial proceedings. TSP (talk) 11:38, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. Pol Pot, Idi Amin and many other monsters in recent human history died without being found guilty in a court of law. 108.49.231.247 (talk) 12:33, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

"Spiritual abuse" certainly is a thing. It may not be a defined crime/offense legally but so too are many other types of abuse. 108.49.231.247 (talk) 12:29, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Since Hitler, Idi Amin and many others were never tried in a court of law, i guess, by the same logic, we presume them to be innocent. 108.49.231.247 (talk) 12:23, 19 November 2024 (UTC)