The problem with being able to ‘tell your truth’ is that the people who also slam the victims of predatory paedophiles are ‘telling their truth’ — this is what unfettered freedom of speech looks like — it’s problematic when you start saying that one group of people should be able to make allegations and another group of people shouldn’t be able to refute them. I agree that there is a line where denial turns into harassment, but there is also a line where trial by media constitutes harassment. We are struggling with that in the UK at the moment — there is a complicated balancing act to be played out.

The mechanism for getting some sense of closure and vindication should not be via documentary, or televised debate, or via newspaper column or via twitter. It simply enflames and creates polarised thinking by people unable to rationalise outside of their own narrow worlds. When people tell ‘stories’ about their truth — they’re simply that, stories. The concept of an objective ‘truth’ is much more complicated than people imagine. Should we paint Jackson as a villain? Or a cultural hero? Probably neither. This is a nuanced debate that requires nuanced thinking by intelligent people. It did not require a Netflix documentary and a horde of fuckwits chiming in on both sides.

We have a way to protect those people who want to tell their stories. We call it the law. If the law isn’t working then progressives need to lobby for procedural changes that make it easier. Otherwise we’ll simply spend our time in endless and pointless verbal battles which nobody can ever win.