You make some interesting points here though I would suggest that most (though clearly not all) abuse is perpetrated by people known to the victim so there is nothing unique about the horrors perpetrated at Christ's Hospital in that sense at least.bakunin wrote: ↑Fri Jan 24, 2020 9:19 pm They shouldn't be allowed to call it "historical abuse" until they have PROVED it isn't still going on. The default assumption should be that it still is. No one currently or previously employed there has been able to give any substantial, concrete description of how safeguarding procedures have improved, except for having a security perimeter, which actually makes things worse as it traps the kids inside CH more, it makes CH even more of an isolated community (and we know isolation enables child abuse). Every single child abuse act committed against the pupils of Christs' Hospital was done by people who worked there, as far as we know. There were no paedos lurking in bushes waiting for an unsuspecting pupil in Shelley's wood or desperately pawing at the gates trying to get in, every single crime that we know of was committed by a teacher or priest (priest is merely a synonym for useless layabout and manipulator, or worse).
Unfortunately, I think your arguments lose much of their impact by the effect of your final comment, which I have highlighted and underlined to differentiate it from your own highlighted emphases. I guess you have a beef with priests of all sorts but by ranting like this, your otherwise cogent and interesting comments lose much of their impact, and risk their credibility. It does seem to be something of a trend on this forum: some contributor or other makes valid and interesting points and then deflates their own argument by descending into a rant, often about something largely unrelated. I probably do it myself but that shouldn't detract from the point I am trying to make.