There was much inference in the discussions by previous heads of the inquiry describing how almost beneath them heading an inquiry was due to it apparently being an unpleasant job, that was regrettably taken. Yet apparently too difficult for those initiated into the CSA survivors (community ) against their will. The stigma doesn’t seem to shift even though experience makes knowledge more relevant? If this is so, then what is being reinforced is sex abuse creating a permanently disenfranchised under class. The ethos of abusers themselves who abuse status saying no one will listen to you.
Remember the words used for Diana when defaming her they said she was a damaged person because of her childhood. People today react to feelings said Butler Sloss, although admitting that the past was very different in terms of what was worth more establishment protection or children.
How can we be sure of a different future within these contradictory opinions because in the past the feelings about abuses were completely ignored, and today merely belittled for being the wrong thing to be influenced by. It is also wrong to associate a survivor with less reliable skills to lead, and dismiss criticism with hints of over emotional attitudes. The people connected to each other and assisting each other is after all what is supposed to be investigated and is how a ring works ! It seems when challenged it is going to be us who are wrong not them,a common theme within cover ups involving status. So it is clearly more than just feelings that are making judgements on the choices of a head for the inquiry. Perhaps having seen the true face of power abuse makes a formidable challenge for those upholding undefilable power.
The interview also infers an attitude that survivors shouldn’t make trouble and accept what was offered to them, acting as token stage managed parts in the play. If anyone reluctantly takes a position like the head of a government enquiry and finds it distasteful to do a worthy job finds the attitudes of the people they represent distasteful and has sympathy/pity rather than empathy and solidarity,perhaps they are not worthy of the job,the hopeful anticipation of resolution and success that survivors bestow on this supposedly shared endeavour.
This typifies the prejudice and officiousness of some people working for government authorities from top to the bottom. Qualified careerists attempt to dislodge by use of supposedly relevant qualifications those with natural qualities ,who perhaps haven’t been able to qualify due to abuse and being kept down. It seems that once given the badge of honour for representing state authority so many seem to hide behind it and bed themselves in by accentuating the them and us, those who are subject to state authority, and those whose salary depends on keeping the status quo by keeping survivors subjects of that authority.