Thank you for sharing your words here. I send you all of my hope and strength for the restorative process you seek.

Thank you for clarifying that, Anke. I appreciate that it's a very difficult story to tell and a fine balance to reach.

I'm querying identifying her as the 'former actress' at all – it's clear that she doesn't want to be associated with Centrepoint at this time, so why not use a less identifiable descriptor for her? I think my discomfit lies in the balance between what Anke describes above as what is her 'right to do as a journalist and my compassion for those who had suffered at Centrepoint'. I don't know what the right balancing point for those things is and I feel really uneasy about it.

Yes, exactly.
I'm really, really uncomfortable reading Richter's story because I think the identity of that actress is fairly easily guessed by anyone with a passing familiarity with the Centrepoint history. The details Richter has given about her here – magazine stories she participated in etc – mean that anyone could do a little research and identify her. It seems odd, at the very least, to me for Richter to write about how uncomfortable uncovering all of that history made her, while including details in the article and here that expose someone who has made it clear she wants no further exposure.