I thought this was a well written book, thoughtful, and interesting. The writing style made it very easy to read, although the subject matter - sexual and other abuse - might be difficult for some people to read.
However, I have some observations, which are not specifically a criticism of the writer, who had a specific scope, and he stuck to it, and to a large extent, my observations lie outside the scope.
It's also worth pointing out that my observations veer into the territory of sweeping generalisations, which is unfair to certain individuals, but nevertheless, I believe are valid in general.
He is looking specifically at abuse in boarding schools, mainly sexual abuse, although this can't be separated from other physical and emotional abuse, bullying and beating. He expresses some surprise of the absence of sexual abuse in girls' boarding schools - although he does mention other forms of cruelty. The simple fact is that women don't commit sexual abuse. Over 90% of sexual abuse is committed by men, and almost all women implicated in sexual abuse are acting as an accomplice.
I don't know if girls' boarding schools have male teachers. I attended an all-girls state grammar schools in the 80s and we had some male teachers, no more than 1 in 10. There was never any suggestion that any of them were in the slightest bit sexually abusive; to be honest, some of them were more prey than ever predator. All decent men, they would have known that they would be watched like a hawk for any improper behaviour, and, furthermore, a significant number of the women teachers would have finely honed instinct for any sort of dodgy behaviour.
Secondly, he realises towards the end of the book that most sexual abuse takes place within a family setting. He doesn't make the leap that this is mainly girls, nor does he ponder why there appears to be greater success in prosecuting public school teachers than there is in prosecuting the abusers of girls, whether it's family members/friends, or grooming gangs, or 'peer on peer' abuse. It's because posh ex-public schoolboys are given the courtesy of being believed, whereas girls and women often aren't.
Mind you, they weren't believed by their families. This was because their parents were so desperate for them to be in Prep schools, to get into public schools. Why? Because they wanted to buy privilege. They thought they were better than us, the 93% of the population who go to normal schools. We weren't good enough to mix with their precious offspring.
And the result of that - they get an easy passage into Oxbridge, displacing people like me. Who knows, I probably wasn't bright/academic/intellectual enough, but when you see the intellectually incurious/lightweight David Cameron being offered a place for the same course at the same University at the same time as I was rejected - not least because he did a seventh term Sixth Form and I was in my fourth term. And the Oxbridge rejects from public school turn up at Oxbridge Reject universities such as Nottingham - or East Midlands Finishing School as my sister-in-law memorably called it - with an attitude of arrogance, superiority and pure snobbishness.
This carries on through life. I mentioned Cameron above; add to that Johnson, but also all the damaged, inhuman public school people who don't become Prime Minister but effortlessly achieve positions of influence within politics, media, business, and so on, The sort who think they and their class are better parents than the lower middle and working classes, the sort that condemn single mothers, the sort that destroy people's lives with their austerity politics and their not believing women complainants about sexual harassment.
So, no, I don't feel awfully sorry for these victims. Granted, I don't know the long lasting toll of sexual abuse, except by observation and reading. But there are other awful long-lasting effects of childhood trauma. None of them lived in insecure or substandard housing, none of them went hungry through necessity. And none of them grew up in an environment of urban decay, gang violence or war.
Yet, despite their expensive, supposedly superior education, the majority of them don't seem able to amass experience, learn about other people's lives, and are incapable of empathy. I absolve the writer from this; by writing the book (And doing the journalism) he needs to have some of those qualities, and, anyway, he rejected the system before he was an adult, and doesn't send his own kids away to board.
But we all enter adulthood lacking in life experience, living in our bubble (which we haven't chosen), naive and not even with a fully mature brain, but we enrich ourselves by reading, in our workplace and/or University, by listening to other people, by mixing with people from varied backgrounds. Not this lot, though. They're still completely hung up on what public school they went to, or what college within a University, while normal people are moving on and making their own lives, defining themselves by their occupation, their nuclear family or their hobbies and interests.
Sure,there was the sad story of the sexually abused ex-public schoolboy who became an alcoholic and begs in the town centre, but, unfortunately, this cuts across society, and is an argument for better mental health provision. It's an argument for better Safeguarding, which the author makes, however indirectly, so, as I say it's a very good and interesting book.