I refer to article and comments posted......most I agree with.
I - and many others - are still seeking justice for child abuse victims going back to those children who were institutionalised from 1930 to 1980's in Salvation Army Homes, catholic homes and several other institutions.
My question being why won't NSW "lift" the Statute of Limitations in order for child abuse victims to be able to commence proceedings against their perpetrators? The last State to lift the Statute of Limitations being SA....many charges and convictions have since been reported against said perpetrators...now doing time. My congratulations to Police investigation and personnel involved in putting these evil people behind bars.
I was not abused as a child - the Senate Enquiry of 2004 into victims of child abuse (access to over 520 victims letters available for public perusal) has planted a "footprint in my heart" forever in seeking justice to any child (now adult) who was a victim of child abuse whilst institutionalised. I continue to send letters to relevant Ministers.....most respond in a positive manner, the issue -child abuse - rather difficult for them to address - I wonder why?

Formersnag, sorry I'd missed your post. I doubt that it works like that. More likely that it plays to stereotypes.

Some parts of your posts I like but I disagree very strongly with the way you talk about feminists, even the ones who I think have got it very wrong still tend to be a lot better people than you give them credit for.

SAINTS, excellent that you have taken up the effort in that area. A loyt of people have suffered greatly through various forms of child abuse.

I can see why the statute of limitations issue would be difficult. It would be very tough both for prosecution and defence to deal properly with offences from so far back. I'd hate to have to be defending myself against a false claim from years ago where I could have done the crime but did not. How do you get an alibi for what you were doing on particular night's 30 years ago? How do you prove that you did not do something from that far back?

R0bert

Robert thank you for responding and comments.
The lifting of Statute of Limitations has nothing to do with proving innocence or guilty of an offence .....it is purely a matter of the level of compensation to victims as they were Wards of the State of NSW at time of abuse.
Ask any child, now adult, the relevant questions as to what, where and when incident occurred, they can certainly remember who suffered trauma, rape etc they would certainly know the name of the perpetrator including institution/s involved.....their memories of extreme abuse are extremely clear and precise. NSW (Government) currently don't wish to deal with the situation due to possible compensation claims - as they were the carers of our "children" during this time...I currently have several "abused" victims on my email list who are anxiously awaiting the lifting of the Statute of Limitations in NSW jurisdiction. A child (any child) did not ask to be born .....a child (any child) deserves guidance, nuture and love .....these are our "forgotten children" now adults trying to cope with their past.

False allegations, recovered memory etc has everything to do with limitations.Memories are embellished by time and the notion that one can get even more money for a better story. The witches of Salem were executed on the false allegations of children.We all know that there is no such thing as a witch but the accusing person received the benefit of the deceased estate. Marvellous how the witches dried up when the law was changed.Yes, there has to be limitations and I feel that the first thing that an accusing person should be required to do is prove that there is no monetary or other gain to them by accusing any person.That would cut down considerably on the Legal bill for the Government and save the destruction of many families throughout Australia.If all these memories of childhood in particular are going to disappear due to compensation then it is time to believe in the tooth fairy. What is the next "legal" scam?