THOMAS WATSON BURNED IN RIVERSIDE ROCETER CHILDREN'S HOME CRUELTY SCANDAL

In a case that has sent shockwaves through the East Staffordshire community, Thomas Watson, a former deputy head of the Riverside children’s home in Rocester, has been convicted of serious child cruelty charges stemming from incidents that occurred nearly two decades ago. Watson, who previously worked at the facility during the 1980s, was found guilty by a jury at Stafford Crown Court of physically abusing a young boy under his care.

According to court records, Watson was responsible for caning a boy who was only dressed in a pair of shorts. The jury also heard that Watson deliberately pushed a table into the boy’s stomach, actions that were deemed to be an abuse of disciplinary procedures and a clear lack of control. The judge, John Shand, sentenced Watson to nine months in prison, but this sentence was suspended for 18 months, reflecting the court’s view of the gravity of his misconduct.

Judge Shand described Watson’s behavior as “an abuse of disciplinary procedure” and “a disgraceful lack of control,” emphasizing that Watson had no valid reason for his actions and had breached the trust placed in him as a caregiver. The offences took place during Watson’s tenure as deputy head at the Riverside children’s home in Rocester, near Uttoxeter, when the boy was under 16 years old. The court clarified that Watson was not found guilty of other allegations made by eight different boys, which involved breaches of regulations concerning corporal punishment that were in force at the time.

Watson, aged 57 and residing at Meadow View, Burntwood, near Cannock, had denied a total of 13 charges. These included eight counts of child cruelty and five of assault causing actual bodily harm, involving nine boys altogether. While he was acquitted of 11 charges, he was convicted of two counts of child cruelty involving a single boy.

During the proceedings, Christopher Millington QC, Watson’s defense lawyer, stated that his client was not being judged as someone who ran a regime of cruelty and violence. He emphasized that Watson had made a significant mistake in the case of one young person and pointed out that even the victim had described Watson as “a nice guy,” although he could sometimes “go off like a bull in a china shop” when provoked. Millington argued that if Watson had a short fuse, it was due to severe provocation.

The court was informed that Watson, a father of five, had previously worked as a factory manager before transitioning into child care. He became housemaster at Riverside in 1977, then briefly worked at the Chadswell home in Lichfield before returning to Riverside, where he managed the observation unit and later became deputy head.

The allegations date back to the early 1980s, a period when corporal punishment was legal in children’s homes under strict regulations. These regulations permitted caning only to boys, over clothing, and with a maximum of six strokes. It was explicitly forbidden to cane children over the age of 16. The prosecution argued that Watson had violated these rules by forcing boys to remove their clothing or wear silk shorts, and in some cases, by using a plimsoll, which he nicknamed “Percy,” to administer punishment. Watson denied these allegations, dismissing them as “rubbish.”