I think there is a little confusion here, animist, I cannot disagree with what you say. So let me look at my points in respect of what you say:
You said:
Why should not the police be involved at an early stage with these allegations
I had first said:
"a) The police are still the first authority that should be involved even with, as yet unproven, complaints of abuse."
and then:
". . . police should be involved initially because they are the agents of investigation"
Let me try this on you:
"The police, as the official agents of criminal investigation, should be involved as soon as any complaint of child abuse is made."
That's what I meant.
Now, point b):
b) Any organisation that does not immediately suspend and report any person complained about should be charged with aiding and abetting. Not even the RCC should be allowed to "sort it out in the family."
OK, that was badly put, it is true that suspicion is not proof, though immediate suspension and reporting to the police should be mandatory for all. I still feel that individuals or organisations that attempt
any kind of "cover-up" is committing a social, if not a legal, offence. If an actual offence is proven attempts to "keep it in the family" could then be construed as aiding and abetting.
[Writing here is not like writing an essay is it, reading over it a few minutes later still means one still reads what one meant to say. Will have to go back to writing things in Word and then leaving it 24hrs before rereading and publishing!]
"Look forward; yesterday was a lesson, if you did not learn from it you wasted it."
Me, 2015