Took’s demonisation
Sir: It is a pity Mr Hall did not read my article (‘The Establishment paedophile: how a monster hid in high society’, 12 July) with particular care, having berated me for suggesting Roger Took would. If he had, he would know that I did not use the word ‘monster’ once in the body of the text. After absorbing what Took did to various children, including his own step-grandchildren, it seems to me fair enough that the Spectator editorial team chose to use the word in a headline.
As for my ‘literal demonisation’ of Took, it is evident that the cover illustration and headline, ‘The devil in our midst’, disabled Mr Hall from realising that I describe Took’s crimes soberly and accurately. In terms of thoughtfulness, I spent three months researching the article and concluded empirically, with access to evidence from the Child Protection Officers in charge of the case and court transcripts, that Took’s crimes are heinous. As a Spectator reader, Mr Hall should trust the magazine not to risk its reputation on tabloid bunkum.
It is lack of access to facts, such as I provide, which obscures the very nature of paedophilia and makes it difficult to understand, let alone prevent. It is telling that Mr Hall should send a letter condemning the messenger, rather than the crimes related.
Charlotte Metcalf
Burford, Oxfordshire
Previous page
