>Actually, I heard a rumour years ago that Mr. Clarke had an interest in
>young boys, so this is not something new.
The astoundingly sloppy way this story is being bandied about on the net
appals me.
`Young boys' is a term I see repeatedly. What is mentioned in the
(unsourced) press reports is consensual fondling and fellatio with youths
or young men in their early or mid teens. Yet surely most people assume
`boy' refers to male humans from birth to 11 or 12, so `*young* boy'
therefore makes the accusation sound like molestation of infants. No one
has ever suggested that Clarke has been involved in such crimes.
But it's interesting to look at the original Mirror piece
http://www.mirror.co.uk/stories/F0102832.html
(assuming the Web version's complete). There's a lot of malign cutting &
repositioning. E.g. (I'm going on memory here) allegations of
non-age-specific wickedness with lads is claimed, and then ACC is quoted as
saying that he couldn't admit to certain things or he'd be outed and this
would embarrass everyone in high places. Later, the context makes it
obvious that he's talking here about gay qua gay plain and simple. And the
men cited, former `victims', are all recalling stuff from 20 or so years
back, and none of them was 12 at the time; I recall 15 and 17 being
mentioned. (Cue Romeo and Juliet.) The youths who were allegedly depraved
and degraded in this fashion met ACC due to their habitual hanging about in
a known den of preverts.
Key evidence: filthy Arthur was often seen *playing ping-pong with boys of
12*!! There you go! What more proof is needed! Arrest the scout-masters!
(Not exactly what'd be required in a prosecution, I imagine.)
Damien Broderick