I don't know about you, but the volume of sex scandals currently being reported on the news is starting to bore me rigid (no pun intended).
That, of course, sounds harsh and uncaring, and it isn't meant to be. I fully appreciate that for women (or men) genuinely molested or abused by those in influential or powerful positions, the situation must have been traumatic and scarring. I also realise that those suffering the abuse can be damaged for life and in some cases can never have a meaningful or trusting relationship again.
However, I cannot understand how, after all these years, chasing these allegations through a court case can be a realistic way to deal with them and how those trials will achieve closure.
I will be very surprised, for instance, if William Roache (aka Ken Barlow of Corrie or, if you read the tabloids, Cockroache) doesn't get acquitted in the case currently running and being avidly reported on our news each night. There is no real evidence, it's really just one person's word against another, and he has high profile friends testifying on his behalf. Even one of his accusers says she can't really remember the alleged incident. If he does get off, and from what I've read I think he will, it will have been a total waste of public money.
Similarly, how on earth can allegations of sexual misconduct in the 1960s and 1970s ever be proved? Dave Lee Travis may well have been a randy git (a condition still afflicting many of those in the performing arts and media professions), but if he did do anything improper no one complained at the time because presumably they either thought there was no point, it wasn't that big a deal or they thought shagging him might help them meet the right contacts to get a hit single.
I do not, of course, condone sexual predators in any way. There is no excuse for forcing anyone, male or female, to do something they do not want to do purely for personal gratification, and in particular there is no excuse for taking advantage of vulnerable people due to age, mental ability or for any other reason. The Jimmy Savile case is a travesty which reflects badly not only on him, but also on the BBC as his employer, since he was so prolific they must certainly have had suspicions and hushed them up. But now it is hard to know who has genuinely suffered, and who has just jumped on the band wagon for one reason or another.
In my view, the circus surrounding all these allegations is severely hampering the investigations reaching a proper conclusion. It is stirring up emotions and attracting sensationalists in equal measure and means that no one can possibly sit on a jury with an open mind, and without taking account of the fame of those accused. The media, sniffing blood, is whipping itself up into a righteous frenzy conveniently forgetting that 30 or 40 years ago someone or indeed several people within its own organisations almost certainly knew if the allegations were true, and if so turned a blind eye.
There should be a moratorium on reporting these cases until they reach a verdict. And we should have some real news on our TVs for a change, instead of dragging what may be innocent men's reputations through the mud in 'trial by public', and forcing genuine victims to live out their trauma again under the arclights.
Enough. And lets bring it all to a conclusion. Soon.
