I was abused myself. I don't experience moral outrage, just grief on behalf of the children. And much personal rage resulting from my own history. Which does not make me the right person to respond in a non-emotive or impartial fashion.

I do think in extremely cold pragmatic terms about child abusers. Whoever they may be. I don't like the idea that a mother abusing her son is somehow a greater or lesser offense than if it were man. And incest is extremely destructive to a child. A profoundly damaging violation of boundaries.

Some abusers *can* be rehabilitated, and I believe that there are criminally pitiful - indeed non-existant - public resources for those who would voluntarily seek help for their impulses and behaviours.

In studies, I believe it has been shown, that where a paedophile seeks treatment *voluntarily* there is greater hope of the treatment being succesful. Where treatment is imposed as a consequence of them being caught at it. Far less so.

There are peadophiles out there - who do not offend. There are paedophiles out there who compulsively offend, but who cannot control their own drives and live in torment all their lives. I know that these people do seek help, almost always privately. These people will no doubt have histories like mine, some less severe, some moreso. And I have immense compassion for their struggle.

But where there are repeated instances of the same offences over many years, and there is no recognition on the part of the offender that what they are doing is wrong or no evidence of any desire to seek help, until of course, they get caught... There my interest in their case history, mitigating circumstances, or their rights and freedoms, dies a stone cold death.

As I say, my own history makes me not the most impartial person in the world. And I do aknowledge that.