Continuing on my "AVP theme, a short but brief posting on what seems to be an all too common term used almost daily by various media outlets. The term being "Historic abuse".
Consider the following three recent articles relating to crimes that were committed some time in the past:
Roman Catholic priest, 66, and 71-year-old man charged with historic sexual abuse at children's home
The first two articles referring to firstly the child sexual abuse at Grafton Children's home during the 1970s and 1980s, and secondly the Committee of Enquiry into decades of child abuse committed in various Jersey's children's homes. The third article referring to the murder of Tuula Hoeoek on New years Eve 1966.
Now, why the difference in headlines?
Is this a deliberate ploy to diminish this type of crime, or is this the usual "AVP" that the media continually churns out?
Cynically I cannot help but wonder if it is deliberate - why does the media (not just Jersey's) always refer to any child abuse investigations involving crimes committed a matter of years ago as "historic", and any other crimes committed as what they are, without the word "historic" - even ones committed further back in time?
I will leave readers to read this guest posting on Voiceforchildren to find out. Originally I had forgotton this Guest posting and was looking for Tom Perry's blog posting on this subject, however I have been unable to find it. As an adult survivor of child abuse, Tom puts the specific reasons far better than I can, so without further ado, here you go.
Thanks go to Tom and VFC for this publishing