The point of the article is to put forward a narrative that it would be wrong to sue the enablers CFC as those who did the acts are behind bars and suing CFC should be viewed as seeking financial gain.
Very clever narrative that aims to draw closure, saying it was wrong but it was no different to Savile and if Thatcher was not held accountable for knowing but not acting then why should CFC.
Thatcher invited Savile, Burns invited Cairney. Difference was that there were no children at Chequers but there were at CBC and CFC were inviting back a known paedophile.
Not sure why journalist fails to see the difference and we definitely know CFC knew about Cainey cause McGinn had made him resign after the New Jersey incident. No evidence Thatcher knew.
Not sure why anyone would want to be associated with CFC given its part in allowing abuse to take place, but for someone who has been abused to still be a season ticket holder you must wonder what sort of mind would not find this abhorrent, but then the Catholic church seems to produce tens of thousands just like him.
If the widespread child abuse had been committed by Jehovas or Mormons, you can bet they would have been closed down.