4 ms·

Agreed, it's not an abuser's place to decide for their victim what details are made public. But, the direct apology to a victim should be clear and not place b

• jacquesm 9y ago
  Direct aplogies to victims are addressed to those victims, they do not tend to be written as open letters for the world to read and don't usually attempt to whitewash the situation in which the encounter took place so the perpetrator looks better. If he'd left that part out it would be a lot better, if he left out the self congratulatory bits it would look better still. If that had been the only case then the book could be closed but it appears that that one encounter really was the tip of the proverbial iceberg and I really hope for mr. McClure that there isn't any worse down the line for him because this could end up being both expensive and possible a legal issue. Just this encounter alone would be enough to get him booked in many places.
  • SwellJoe 9y ago
    Oh, I agree with you on that. It's just easy for there to be a lookie-loo sort of situation where people want to know the sordid details and end up re-centering the narrative on the abuser and the story they want to tell. McClure's public apology, above all, should have been honest and sincere; more detail isn't strictly necessary, to be honest and sincere. It sounds like it wasn't honest or quite sincere. And, it sounds like his private apology, in this case, was decidedly dishonest and redirected blame.