I FIND myself in agreement with Colette Douglas Home ("Suspecting an innocent dad is a small price to pay for safety", The Herald, August 20).
As a Roman Catholic priest, I regularly suffer suspicious stares after the reporting of child abuse cases from whichever denomination or religion.
I inwardly rage against the minority of those involved in these cases for hurting the innocent and, frankly, for making my work and that of the vast majority of ministers of religion harder.
I also acknowledge that the society we live in demands full disclosure and I welcome the efforts of my church and others to make the facts known concerning abuse cases.
However, there is still the issue of perception versus fact. While this will always be a factor in any human reasoning, and while the crime of child abuse stands out as being particularly abhorrent, we must constantly ask ourselves about what affects opinion and value judgment in this area. Is the reporting of incidents and the timing of such reporting always fair and measured? Are statistics and facts about child abuse and measures taken to safeguard the vulnerable always given sufficient space in our news media?
I hope that when the figures from the audits of my own church and those of other organisations are published they will be given adequate coverage and reasonable analysis.
Rev Dr Thomas J Shields,
20 Melville Street,
Perth.
COLETTE Douglas Home tells us, in relation to the Will Self story ("Author Self tells of paedophile 'farce'", The Herald, August 19): "I was glad to be a woman and therefore above suspicion". Female sexual offenders may be small in number compared to male offenders but the implication that only men are a risk to children, and women are not, is offensive to fathers doing their best in the face of prevailing societal stereotypes. Child protection social workers know that mothers physically abuse (and sometimes kill) children as much as fathers do, perhaps more so now since they are likely to be the main carer in single-parent families.
Elizabeth Inglis,
12 Bank Street,
Hillhead, Glasgow.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article