WHEN I wrote about alleged abuse victims threatening to withdraw from the child abuse inquiry, because of concerns about their own identification, some readers were not wholly sympathetic.
Some felt abuse survivors could not reasonably expect anonymity, feeling that those against whom claims are made have a right to know who is making accusations that may be false.
That’s understandable, and more or less in line with what appears to be the inquiry’s current position – that, if it hears allegations of abuse, those said to be responsible will usually be told who is making the claims, in the interests of fairness.
The exceptions appear to be where organisations have admitted children were abused on their watch, or individuals already convicted of abuse. But survivor groups feel this means every other allegation will definitely result in an inquiry “applicant” being named to their alleged abuser.
It is wrong to overstate the chances of false allegations being made, or to view this in excessively legalistic terms. We know abuse took place, and on a significant scale, in state and charity settings, and a number of church institutions. This is fact. And the inquiry is not a court – its purpose is to explore how unfettered child abuse was able to take place so readily, over so many years, and how it can be prevented in the future. The language of accused and accuser is unhelpful.
Even talking about “fairness” is problematic. For some abuse survivors talk of being fair to a person who cruelly abused their vulnerability and trust is something of a sick joke.
What has most alarmed the victim groups is that the tone of the inquiry appears to have changed. Chairwoman Lady Smith says the rules have not changed, but if so, many potential participants feel they were misled. Many clearly expected to be anonymised while their claims were looked into. They may have been labouring under a false impression, but perceptions count. Significant numbers now seem on the verge of withdrawing their evidence.
For the inquiry itself, the impression that simply has to be avoided is that it is left defending the needs of alleged abusers, while victims – and alleged victims – stand back and take no part.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel