A response from The Times

Thank you for your email.

Strangely enough I do not think we disagree all that much.

I totally accept – and have written – that abuse is a huge problem and that its extent has been underestimated.

I am sure that one reason for this was a failure to understand its nature. Therefore explaining and articulating what child abuse is and what a users do is vital. As my mother is a concentration camp survivor I understand the importance to victims of being heard and believed.

Our one area of disagreement concerns whether defending the rule of law, and the presumption of innocence, makes one the “peado’s friend”. I would argue that all victims and defendants need this presumption and it can’t be simply ignored.

I am confident that historical accounts of Jimmy Savile and Cyril Smith will reveal their true nature and I expect the truth to be damning. But it must be possible to argue for the process of law without being accused essentially of being an accessory to abuse.

With very best wishes

Daniel (Finkelstein)
TheTimes

10 thoughts on “A response from The Times

  1. Come on, there is a HUGE difference between:

    1. a physically stronger and a physically weaker person
    2. an adult perpetrator and a child victim
    3. legal innocence and sexual innocence
    4. a defender of ‘biased guilt’ and ‘biased innocence’

    I.e. let the potential paedo defend his innocence and help victims formulate their allegations! For they are NOT equals before the law in post-abuse adulthood.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s