So the latest batch of paedophile apologists think that if nothing was ever proven beyond reasonable doubt in court, then we shouldn’t even talk about what happened?
We shouldn’t even discuss the concepts of grooming and how a rich and famous man can groom all those around him into accepting his serial abuse of children in plain sight?
We shouldn’t establish that there are recognisable patterns of behaviour, shared by other predators too, and enlighten other people as to what those patterns look like - people who in their ignorance or naïveté have failed to spot those patterns and join up the dots themselves?
Who gains from this kind of discussion being stifled?
Who would prefer it if as few people as possible understood what grooming looks like and how many different forms it can take?
Who benefits from having the voices of people who say they were victims of CSA silenced? From normalising disbelief of their testimony?
And who loses out when child protection and safeguarding is undermined through ignorance and lack of understanding of how grooming works?
Who is put in more danger if the adults around them are naive about the risks that other adults may present, because these conversations don’t happen?
They’re not difficult questions to answer.
And maybe the answers will help you (and others) see whose side you’re really on when you say these sort of discussions shouldn’t happen.
Disgusting indeed.