> if there is a list, then there is a severe failure somewhere, and existing processes aren't fit for purpose I agree. > He got away with paedophilia for dec

> if there is a list, then there is a severe failure somewhere, and existing processes aren't fit for purpose I agree. > He got away with paedophilia for decades because no one would publicly call him out on it. His victims made allegations against him as far back as 1963 and were told by the police to "forget about it", "move on", and that they "could be arrested for making such allegations" [1] and he did in fact take legal action against the people who "publicly called him out". A member of the Sex Pistols brought it up during a BBC interview in the 1970s and that part was cut. A stand-up comedian apparently had a bit about him being a pedophile in the 1980s and the recordings were suppressed out of fear of being sued. Given the protection being afforded him by the BBC, police, and English libel law, what more did you expect people to try? > The judges need to be named and investigated. Absolutely. But establishing processes to do so is the responsibility of the judiciary, not the victims. The same is true in other organizations. My experience has been that the vast majority of people default to using the proper channels to resolve issues. It's only after the proper channels have been exhausted or have previously demonstrated their ineffectiveness that individuals resort to things like private warnings and rumors. So if you find that a large number of people in an organization or society are instead choosing to pass along private warnings (for sexual assault, abusive managers, toxic projects, illegal behavior, insider trading, bribery, etc) instead of reporting these things through the proper channels then the most likely explanation is that they are responding rationally to a failed organization. [1] https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-21756150 https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-21756150