Accusations of ''historical child abuse' are heard more in the media these days about politicians who are either dead or in Lord Janner's case have dementia & can't be prosecuted.
I'll skip the fact that I don't believe all those involved are 'unreachable' for the moment.
It's CHILD RAPE! I don't like this 'child abuse' phrase which softens the whole sad & sorry affair. News outlets should be calling it what it is: child rape. The abuse is there because trust has been abused but I believe the phrase just protects viewers (& the alleged perpetrators) from what it is. It is rape. Of children.
Christopher Hitchens in his exposé of organised religion God Is Not Great has this to say:
“Child abuse” is really a silly and pathetic euphemism for what has been going on; we are talking about the systematic rape and torture of children, positively aided and abetted by a hierarchy which knowingly moved the grossest offenders to parishes where they would be safer.
Whilst Hitchens went after organised religion it is in the context of authoritarian cover-ups that the following clip of an appearance on Fox News should be viewed.
Hitchens on Fox News - "main priority was not justice for the victims but protection of the criminals."
There is no doubt in my mind that if he were alive today he would be doing his utmost (as any real investigative journalist should) to expose the corruption within the British State with regard to child rape and it's subsequent cover-up.
The lack of action by UK authorities, the revelations broadcast by an Australian documentary team, the admission of the existence files relating to Westminster child rape allegations (which appeared 24 hours after Leon Brittan died) which are still held in secret, suggestions that former Prime Minister Edward Heath is now being investigated by no less than FIVE separate police forces, and allegations of a BBC cover-up over Jimmy Saville’s actions all start to point towards major abuses of power and privilege, and the systematic hiding of criminality.
Furthermore, why does the media use the word 'historical'? Ronnie Biggs was accused & pursued for decades as a bank robber. 'Great Train Robber, Ronnie Biggs' they always announced. Not ‘ Ronnie Biggs accused of historical train robberies’. Again, to me anyway, by using the word 'historical' the media is suggesting it was all in the past and doesn't matter as much. I have seen murderers being tracked down decades after the event and DNA being used to successfully prosecute them. I've even seen 93 year old Nazis being prosecuted for crimes committed during the Holocaust.
The passage of time shouldn't lessen the crime.
Well let's face it it's not in the past; people are still living with the trauma and everything else that goes with it; shame, low self-esteem, nightmares, fear, mistrust to name but a few. The crimes MAY be in the past, but equally they also may still be happening and just because it was in the past doesn't make it any less of a crime: just ask Ian Brady or Myra Hindley. Am I really to believe that if those two horrors had been sitting in the House of Commons or Lords authorities would have just let it all slip by?
Because, given recent revelations and inaction, that's how I'm beginning to think.