And I agree that the Esther Rantzen extract was most interesting in itself: but do not quite see its bearing. Of course we all know that enormous fear has been generated of being thought to be a pædophile if one addresses a strange child in any circumstances whatever. But what has this to do with the jury's finding as to what they believed one individual had done to certain children [and others] known to him, not casually met in a public place, over a period of years in the 1980s?

~M~