Quote Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla View Post
As I said, I knew about this, none of this is news to me - and in fact Greyblades is correct, the article is very low on substance and entirely on the side of the First Nations (they are aboriginal and it's incorrect to refer to them as such,).

The presentation makes it sound like this is all some big shock, but I knew all about it - it was common knowledge enough that it affected British political policy thirty years ago, and that has always been a matter of public record because the reservations were expressed by MP's in the House.

The abuse was systematic (also a matter of record) it was designed to break the children so they could be re-educated.

As to the Church part - epic meh when the BBC protected its own paedophile ring for decades.
They are referred to as aboriginal because it is a broader and includes First Nation and other groups such as Inuit.

Also I do not think that the BBC protecting paedophiles should either filter our news or give other organizations a free pass. Might as well say that because Apartheid existed in South Africa other countries can do it as well.

The presentation is the difference between hearsay and official recognition. There is miles between gossip, innuendo and a factual recounting of events. Proper data and record keeping is not a bad thing.