Quick reply to private note on previous entry

This is just a quick entry to answer a private note I received on the last entry. I’m sure the gentleman/lady knows who they are, but I’m sorry I can’t note you back because your diary is set to Friends only.

You made a few points and I would like to address some of them.

Firstly, in no way am I trying to suggest that sexual abuse is not serious, it most certainly is. What I am saying is that everyone deserves a chance to defend themselves, and defence becomes very difficult after decades.

You are right when you say I have no personal experience of abuse. I am however a father and abuse is an issue for me from that perspective. It’s not something I dismiss without considering how serious it is.

I most certainly don’t know what these people have done, or the affect they may, or may not, have had on their victims. I only know what they have been accused of. In the case of Dave Lee Travis, he seems to have been accused of squeezing someone’s boobs in the 70s. If he did it I’m not condoning it, but firstly, how does he defend himself against that accusation if he’s innocent? Secondly, I bet I’m older than you, and I remember the 70s. I think that kind of thing probably wasn’t frowned upon the way it is today. It seems hard to me to condemn someone to a life on the sex offenders’ register for something that may have seemed far less serious then than it would now. Again, please don’t think I am condoning it, I’m not. No one should think that groping women is OK, but sadly, in the 70s people did think it was OK.

You ask “Does ‘putting his hand up the skirt of a nine-year-old girl’ mean he groped her genitals?” In the case of Stuart Hall I think it does because I believe I read that he was charged with “digital penetration” or something similar. I may not be entirely correct about that and I can’t find the reference. And no, I have no sympathy for him on that count. The only thing that bothers me about the Hall conviction is the (small) possibility that he may not have committed these crimes and admitted them only as a damage limitation exercise in the hope that the sentence he received would be smaller. I don’t think this is the case and there is no excuse for sexually mauling a nine-year-old girl ever, 1970s or now.

I still say that the question of why the victims took so long to come forward is, rightly or wrongly, going to be asked. There may be perfectly valid reasons for a victim to stay silent for many years, but the question will always be asked. I think 10 years would be a reasonable period to allow victims to come forward, with extensions granted in exceptional circumstances.

In answer to your final question, you make an excellent point. I’m sure that the victims in the 70s were just as traumatised then as they would be now. This is not something I had really considered.

Finally, thank you for the note; I do appreciate it and you have given me much to think about.