So. As Arthur C Clarke is going to be discussed a lot with the Rama movie in the works.
There is a well publicised and persistent narrative that Clarke was a p*doph*le.
Having done my due diligence and researched this story numerous times here is my position.
There is no substantiated evidence against Clarke.
The story began with a Sunday Mirror article in 1998 when ACC was nominated for a Knighthood. The article claims ACC admitted to the crime, but this was based on a quote taken out of context and distorted. The Mirror later published a full apology.
Sri Lankan police, where ACC lived, mounted a police investigation and found the accusation “baseless”. Meaning not that ACC was only innocent, but there was no basis for any accusation.
Since then the story has resurfaced many times. Mud sticks. ACC was very famous, every time he’s discussed in the community somebody repeats the accusation.
ACC was gay. He had at least one relationship with a man much younger than him. It’s very, very common for gay men to be falsely accused of p*der*sty.
If substantiated evidence against ACC did appear would I be shocked? No. That’s why the mud sticks. It’s a plausible accusation.
But until such an event, there is no evidence against ACC. There’s hearsay, rumour, speculation and circumstance. But no solid evidence.
The GOAT of Hard SF – https://youtu.be/M-zpQLDwqrA?si=897r-yXiPlSumjtJ
Damien Walter 