coaches engaging in legal ***ual activity

[John2]

Lets have a look at ‘a huge reason’ why the abuse went on for so long and the ‘common position of the public’ in post 59

A 'huge reason' is not the same as complicity.

A child might accidentally start a fire that burns down a house through some level of inexperience or awareness. The word complicit infers a level of "unlawful or moral" wrongness according to the dictionary definition. The child has not necessarily done anything unlawful or immoral, they may have just been inexperienced and naive. But if you see the child messing around with matches again, you might hastily remind them of what happened the last time! Obviously this example falls apart as the fire was an arson, and the child was instead accusing the person whose house was getting burned down of being the arsonist while turning a blind eye to the arsonist.

I repeatedly made the point that the issue I was raising was one the subject of victim blaming.

Every single quote you just shared is in reference to victim blaming, on which you have said:
"I have never suggested that it didn’t and doesn’t take place. I’m sure that it did and does."

Let's look at the key extracts:
"judged these girls back then as being consenting participants, not as victims"

"the prevailing view at the time wasn't to view the children as victims but as participants"

"these were not seen as victims"

"if the girl had been treated by the town as a victim rather than complicit"

When you said I was accusing the town of "complicity in the industrial scale abuse of children" I now see where you may have picked up the word complicit. But it was actually being used to refer to how the girl was being perceived (complicit in choosing to engage in these activities)

For the benefit of the doubt for exactly what I was referring to, I added this line to that very same post!:

"I'll reiterate my point. At the time people barely raised an eyebrow because these girls were not seen as victims by practically anyone."

And the key line from the final quote:

"These children were not even seen as victims back then"



These clearly all refer to victim blaming, do you at least accept this is the point I have been consistently making?

I don’t particularly mind if you ‘accept it’ or not. John. I have not misrepresented you at all – I have merely disagreed with your repeated assertion that the ‘whole town’ was ‘collectively guilty’ of complicity in the industrial scale abuse of children. It’s an assertion which is unfair, manifestly wrong and, frankly, absurd.

I think to suggest I've been saying repeated asserting that the ‘whole town’ was ‘collectively guilty’ of complicity [as opposed to victim blaming] in the industrial scale abuse of children is an assertion which is unfair, manifestly wrong and, frankly, absurd.