I agree with Bronwyn, all those men should definitely have been punished. No matter who the perpetrator, if they are guilty of any form of paedophilia, no matter how long ago, then they should have the book thrown at them.
I am of the opinion that paedophiles can never change their desires for children, and should be permanently incarcerated.

Huffnpuff, I am very sorry for what happened to you as a child. I have met many others in my work who have had similar experiences.

I believe that the almighty dollar drives everything, especially in any governments eyes. If the government agrees that former governments were guilty for allowing abuse to go on in state run or religious run homes in those days, then they would be obliged to pay compensation- and they won't want to do that!

I don't believe any amount of money or compensation can take away the hurt that all these children have endured, but just being told they were believed and that they have recognition for their pain would go a long way.

The governments have been paying out truckloads of money through the health system dealing with both mental and physical illnesses brought on by this abuse, so it was false economy anyway.

Bronwyn, Polanski admitted to his crime. There is no doubt about his guilt.

I am not aware of any evidence that Hollingworth "turned a blind eye" nor that he "condoned" pedophilia. Both of these allegations are possibly defamatory, but perhaps you have evidence of which I am not aware.

Can I suggest that posters be very careful with these sorts of allegations? According to the law you are entitled to your opinions "no matter how mad", but only so far as they are based on actual facts. If you get the facts wrong, then you, and us to a lesser extent, are in strife.

So Bronwyn, I think you need to argue your case a bit more, or I will probably have to delete the post.

GY
Essentially I agree with Bronwyn.
Having said that I do have issues with some arbitrary age line drawn in the concept of paedophillia.
I have met 15 yo girls who are more mature than many adults I met.
In essence it's all relative and should be judged on individual merits.

One old instance from England, a 15 female who had been on the street since she was 12 and a 26 yo separated teacher. After 6 months together the estranged wife blew the whistle over access. Objected to his new partner, having contact with the son.(being replaced by a younger model? she was 6 years older than him).
He lost his job did time and on early release went, on the sex offenders register.
( later history: The girl went in to care where she was raped by a foster dad and son. They were charged and jailed, the court case was messy.
When the ex-teacher's parole was up he went to Scotland she followed and they married....She died 3 years later of Hep C complications), the foster brother had infected her

He was convicted and did a runner before sentencing. This is his ghost of justice past. He'll get a plea bargain.

I find the support for him bizarre, but the case itself seems fairly black and white to me.

GrahamY, I stand corrected. The former Governor-General and, before that, Anglican Archbishop of Brisbane, spells his surname without an 's'. I feel terrible for having mis-spelled it, but it is a surprisingly common error. I was sure I was correct, but, having checked the website of the Governor-General's Office, http://www.gg.gov.au/governorgeneral/content.php?id=25 , and assuming it to be authoritative, I see I was wrong.

As was Bronwyn, but in a much more serious manner. Her post, for which she has received a well-earned smack, provides a perfect illustration of your opening post observation that "It has seemed to me that the community regards ..... anyone who has had any sort of institutional connection with the pedophile at the time when they committed their crime(s)should be held partly guilty as well."

I can however, understand Bronwyn having jumped to the conclusions of which you spoke. Those were precisely the inferences that those who hounded Peter Hollingworth from office intended should be drawn (by others, of course, not the 'grandstanders' themselves), if I recall the drift of most of the publicity at the time.

What seems to have been forgotten, or perhaps was never even stressed at the time, was that Hollingworth, as Archbishop, and ultimately responsible for church schools, stood in the notional relationship of employer to the person subsequently found to have in fact been involved in pedophilia. Pedophilia is a most serious crime. The authority responsible for investigating crime is the POLICE, not an employer. At the time when it was alleged Hollingworth should have taken action AS AN EMPLOYER, there had been no approach by those making the allegations to the police. The most Hollingworth was in receipt of was allegation, not evidence or record of a conviction.

Just imagine if Hollingworth had suspended or dismissed someone involved in teaching on mere allegations, and that it subsequently became noised about that the reason therefore was suspected pedophilia. A career and life shattered! Any subsequent exoneration of such dismissed teacher could not repair such damage.

Bad Bronwyn!

I agree totally with Bronwyn.
The bloke who we are lead to believe sat on his hands in my view did great wrong too.