Another celebrity is facing 'historic allegations' (Cliff Richard). The BBC has been criticied for has broadcasting a convoy of police cars at one of his homes, which in my view may prejudice any future trial.
These cases seem to fall into two categories: those who vehemently deny everything and are found guilty (Stuart Hall), and those who vehemntly deny everything and are found innocent (the guys off Coronation Street).
Clearly, if something did happen, then it is quite right that the victim should be believed.
But equally, there are cases particularly with celebrities where the complaints are fraudulent or delusional or exaggerated. "There is no smoke without fire" ... except that sometimes it's just a smoke machine.
Also, which one of us would like to have the last 30 or 40 years of life scrutinised by a hostile prejudiced lynch mob, so that the rashness and errors of our youth should still count against us? Clearly in cases where it has been part of an ongoing pattern of deception and continous behaviour then that is one thing, but there will be other cases where there was a stupid mistake - that still needs to be dealt with by the law for the sake of the victim - but which the person then regretted and did not repeat. The media puts both types in the same box of 'evil paedos' who should never be allowed to see the light of day again, but this is grossly unjust.
As Christians we should not swallow the media story. As the Wesley song goes: "The vilest offender who truly believes, that moment from Jesus a pardon recives." And where Jesus has pardoned, can we withold our pardon?
Yes, of course we should still have protections, and be on our guard against the clever deceptions of the bad ones, but we should also fully accept those that truly repent.
So there's actually three categories:
1) - Genuine cases of 'evil paedos' who do everything they can to covertly continue their crimes
2) - The repentant sinners: "That was wrong - I won't do that again"
3) - The falsely accused innocent
No comments:
Post a Comment