Sexual misconduct, non-apologies and trial by social media

It is convenient to air angry passions, be they righteous or self-righteous, via social media. We may feel that by doing so we are adding our voice in some useful way to the condemnation of bad practices.

More often, however, social media discussions become personalised very quickly. "Oh no, not him as well!" and "I had no idea so-and-so would be like that!" are common responses to new misconduct revelations made in social media.

Once we personalise the discussion, we often do little more than engage in herding behaviour, we join a mob.

When it comes to some alleged perpetrators, the fear of being the subject of knee-jerk viral campaigns is leading in some cases to knee-jerk pseudo-apologies.

A few times now we've heard this refrain from an accused party (most often a man): "I don't remember the incident, but I'm sorry if my behaviour caused any offence."

This is not a real apology. It is too conditional and too vague to be a sincere expression of regret and repentance for a wrong done.

It is more often an attempt to dampen down the passion of the baying lynch party, whose fingers are poised to punch out vitriolic responses on Twitter or Facebook.

Accusations must be made through proper channels. They must then be investigated and adjudged through the legal system, not via Facebook or Twitter.

Sadly, the very immediacy and (much overrated) potential to right wrongs that make these platforms attractive to some people are responsible for making objective facts subservient to opinion.

The spate of misconduct stories also indirectly reflects a more general confusion over sexual mores.

In some British pre-school settings, young children are now being encouraged to learn about gender identity and fluidity. This, say the lobbyists who have proposed it, is to allow young children to grow up with a tolerance toward transgenderism.

I suspect their true motive is to promote transgender lifestyles, rather than educate children about gender.