Thinking wrote: "in the face of uncertainty, it would be prudent to remain neutral, but instead you and others here have broadcast far and wide that Prem Rawat sexually abused his son and is a pedophile without a shred of evidence"
Testimony is evidence, and people are responding to what is clearly the honestly expressed view of someone who experienced abusive treatment from a parent. You may not give value to that evidence, but that doesn't mean the evidence does not exist or that others should not value it.
I agree that a neutral stance is desirable, but modern societies, recognising that child abuse, sexual or otherwise, has the potential for extreme harm do not start from the position of guilty/not guilty. Instead all involved are expected to respond with responsibility to ensure protection and resolution, which may or may not be tested by a criminal status of guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Again you may not agree that this a desirable approach, but it is a social norm which socially responsible bodies - businesses, non profits, charities etc are expected to comply with.
At this point, the issue is not about Prem - certainly not his innocence or guilt, it is about the occurence of harmful behaviour, which may or may not have had sexual intention, but which on a balance of probabilities (Prem has acknowledged it) actually occured.
Prem is a person of influence in multiple organisations, he stands at this point in the position of a Weinstein, an Epstein, a Cosby, a Prince of Wales, prior to any court case or settlement.
Prem, and his organisations should now act in the best societal interests in addressing the abuse of children and of adult survivors - that means honesty and transparency in publicly acknowledging the situation, not hiding behind some notional criminal standard of innocence.
