Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
Nice use of the passive voice there. How, exactly, did Ball "get away" with this?

---

quote:

---

Well, let's consult the report on p. 54:

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
No matter how negligent (or collusive) someone might be, as long as they're some kind of powerful authority figure there's always going to be someone willing to make the case that accountability is just for the little people.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
No matter how negligent (or collusive) someone might be, as long as they're some kind of powerful authority figure there's always going to be someone willing to make the case that accountability is just for the little people.

---

I don't know who that someone might be. As I keep saying, Carey bears a share of responsiblity but from my reading of the report, he is being unfairly singled out here, and he is - albeit belatedly - being held to account.

---

Arguing with yourself? I know my posts are good, but this is the first time someone has tried to both claim them as their own and argue against them.

My problem is that whenever someone says something like "Carey bears a share of responsibility but . . . " whatever follows that "but" will be an argument about why Carey (or any other head of an organization caught doing something unethical) shouldn't be held responsible. Yes, I suppose one solution to someone being "unfairly singled out" would be to suppress any criticism of them. My preferred solution would be to start criticizing everyone else you feel has been left out of their due accountability. If you feel it's unfair to single Carey out for his role in this scandal, feel free to relieve him of his solitude by naming other names.

--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Albertus:
Carey often used to come across as a rather defensive person and handled things badly because of it(I may have contributed to that in a small way with something I did early in his Archiepiscopate, but that's another story). But how would his predecessors have reacted? I can imagine Runcie, for whom I have a lot of affection and respect, being very distressed and ending up making a muff of it through dithering; don't know about Coggan; Ramsey I suspect of having been bit of a fence-sitter; I imagine Fisher would have had no hesitation in delivering whatever the episcopal equivalent of the Webley and whisky is, but probably not involving the police because people tended not to in those days.

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
Arguing with yourself? I know my posts are good, but this is the first time someone has tried to both claim them as their own and argue against them.

---

best form of flattery or some such, mumble mumble...

quote:

---

My problem is that whenever someone says something like "Carey bears a share of responsibility but . . . " whatever follows that "but" will be an argument about why Carey (or any other head of an organization caught doing something unethical) shouldn't be held responsible.

---

quote:

---

If you feel it's unfair to single Carey out for his role in this scandal, feel free to relieve him of his solitude by naming other names.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tubbs:

It was Carey who, in the face of all the evidence to the contrary, wanted to believe his friend was basically innocent. Because if they’re not, they’ve a) been friends someone who preyed sexually on children and b) completed failed in their duty of care to the vulnerable. And if that’s the case, what kind of person does that make them?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by BroJames:
Actually, my own reading of the Norwich stuff was not that they were worried about abuse, but about homosexuality.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tubbs:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave W.:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
Not quite. He wrote that he believed he was basically innocent. There's a difference.

Carey deserves to take his share of responsibility as the man in the driving seat of the CoE at the time. And yes there was surely institutional pressure to cover up rather than investigate properly.

However, I think many people here are far too naive about the ability of sex offenders to convincingly disguise their misdeeds, and far too confident of their own abilities to discern wrongdoing and to do the right thing about it when in a position of responsibility.

---

Oh for fucks sake. At the time Carey wrote that, Ball had been investigated and had already admitted his guilt.

What more would it take to convince you? Video of the assaults? An in-person demonstration?

---

You seem to have confused Eutychus with Carey.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave W.:
Oh for fucks sake. At the time Carey wrote that, Ball had been investigated and had already admitted his guilt.

---

Have you actually read the report?

---

quote:

---

I'm with Tubbs on this. Pride cometh before a fall. I would be wary of believing so assuredly that one could be in the same situation and exercise better before-the-fact discernment.

---

quote:

---

Lord Carey played the lead role in enabling Ball’s return to ministry – that was not a decision taken by anyone else. He wrote to police saying he was considering this before the end of the month in which Ball resigned. He had a degree of personal compassion for Ball that is not matched by an understanding of the nature and consequences of Ball’s abusive conduct. He wrote to Bishop Michael Ball in September 1993 that “I had to face the searching question – if the same allegations and admissions had been made against and by a parish priest, would one not have expected the diocesan bishop concerned to have put him on the List? I did not do so, for in the end I believed him to be basically innocent, and …… my personal regard for him is very high”. This reference to Ball being “basically innocent” is alarming – Ball was basically guilty and had admitted that. Lord Carey was also aware that the Church had received further allegations of potentially criminal actions by Ball.

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave W.:
Eutychus seems to think that a completed police investigation, an admission of guilt, and an official caution for an offence of gross indecency are insufficient indications of wrongdoing.

---

quote:

---

This is what Carey is criticized for - not that he failed to detect some hidden crime invisible to those unequipped with supernatural powers of discernment. (Well, this plus the fact that his son just wrote a column complaining that he was tripped up by changing "cultural attitudes and standards", and now his former colleagues aren't nice enough to him.)

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave W.:
Eutychus seems to think that a completed police investigation, an admission of guilt, and an official caution for an offence of gross indecency are insufficient indications of wrongdoing.

---

The fact is that historically, Ball was not convicted, only cautioned. There's a difference between the arrangement arrived at and having a trial in a court of law.

I think we all agree (although you are doing your best to present my position as entirely opposite) that Ball appears to have been guilty of a lot more than he owned to and/or was found guilty of, and that Carey's actions contributed to that. All I'm saying is that to my mind it is far easier to conclude the serious nature of the actual offences with hindsight than in the midst of the situation, and that I do not believe, having read the report, that Carey bore sole responsibility for the CoE's failings in this respect.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

This is what Carey is criticized for - not that he failed to detect some hidden crime invisible to those unequipped with supernatural powers of discernment. (Well, this plus the fact that his son just wrote a column complaining that he was tripped up by changing "cultural attitudes and standards", and now his former colleagues aren't nice enough to him.)

---

Carey has been criticised and sanctioned, albeit belatedly sanctioned. He has also issued an apology.

I'm bothered, firstly, and again, by the focus on one person. In your above statement, Carey "is criticised" (Croesos please note, that is the passive voice) for things his son has done.

---

quote:

---

Visiting the perceived misdeeds of one on the other is not justice by any stretch, and yes, I think that to do so demonstrates a degree of blindness.

Secondly, I'm bothered by your phrase "now his former colleagues aren't nice enough to him". It doesn't exude justice; it sounds nasty and vindictive.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave W.:
You're right - Carey shouldn't be held accountable for his son's weak, minimizing complaint. That's all on Spawn. But the publication of that column is part of the reason for the continued focus on Carey.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave W.:
You're right - Carey shouldn't be held accountable for his son's weak, minimizing complaint. That's all on Spawn. But the publication of that column is part of the reason for the continued focus on Carey.

---

Do you really mean that? I can hardly think of any circumstance when one can legitimately criticise someone or condemn them for sticking up for a close family member in adversity, particularly not for one's parent or child. Certainly, if such a circumstance exists, this is not one of them.

---

quote:

---

Whatever one thinks of his father's record in this case, good for Spawn for leaping to his support. Something has gone wrong with a society's moral compass if it is expecting people publicly to shun their kindred who go off the rails or make mistakes.

---

quote:

---

One can, for example, criticise others in this depressing saga for listening too much to Bishop Michael Ball's attempts to stick up for his brother, for giving those attempts too much credence. One can hardly criticise him for trying.

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave W.:
Yes, I do mean that. I think it's perfectly reasonable to criticize a newspaper column that complains about insufficient "public expression of sadness or sympathy ... from the current crop of archbishops and bishops" and suggests Lord Carey is being too harshly treated for merely running afoul of changing "cultural attitudes and standards."

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Something has gone wrong with a society's moral compass if it is expecting people publicly to shun their kindred who go off the rails or make mistakes.

---

No one has expressed such an expectation, though, have they? And is the Careys' plight really the salient feature of this sordid affair that gives you cause for concern about society's moral compass?

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Huia:
Can someone explain the idea behind giving a Police Caution please?

Does it mean that the police at that time were taking the abuse less seriously?

Is the defendant admitting some guilt in accepting a caution?

Thanks

Huia

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave W.:
Yes, I do mean that. I think it's perfectly reasonable to criticize a newspaper column that complains about insufficient "public expression of sadness or sympathy ... from the current crop of archbishops and bishops" and suggests Lord Carey is being too harshly treated for merely running afoul of changing "cultural attitudes and standards."

---

That's not what was asked though. What was asked was whether or not it was reasonable for a family member to lend support to one of their own. Criticising a "newspaper column" is not the same as criticising the individual concerned, which you have done relentlessly here. Spawn has been in here and said he was misrepresented in the interview. If you don't believe that can happen, you've never been interviewed by a journalist.

---

quote:

---

Besides, I have no idea of your family circumstances, but you would apparently see it as quite normal that should you do anything wrong, in no circumstances should your immediate friends and family offer you any sympathy or support whatsoever, and should any of them be so much as alleged to have done anything wrong you would treat them in just the same way. I'm no fan of cover-ups, but I find that prospect chilling.

---

No, you don't know anything about the W family.

Lending private support is one thing. I'm sure Spawn is now quite rightly doing just that for his father, rather than spend time sparring with people here. Publishing a column in support of someone is quite another thing, and publishing a column complaining about others' lack of public support is still another. Your effort to separate the personal and the public -- the person who wrote the column and the column itself -- is really not going to wash, because the column is supremely personal.

The point Andrew Carey wants to make about how standards and practices have changed may be a point that should be made. I would argue, however, that it doesn't need to be made in this case, as Lord Carey probably doesn't need to earn a living and can simply retire. If the point were being made in the service of salvaging the clerical career of someone younger, someone not in a position to retire, someone who hadn't occupied such a high position in the church, I'd probably be more open to hearing it. I would also argue that in any case a family member can't creditably make this point.

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:
What interview? Spawn complained that journalists didn't pick up the phone and check their stories about the column he wrote.

---

quote:

---

What I don't get is 1. why Spawn thinks they should have called him up and asked him what he said in a published newspaper column; 2. how three different journalists writing for three different publications messed up in the same way writing articles about his column.

---

quote:

---

No, you don't know anything about the W family.

---

quote:

---

Lending private support is one thing. I'm sure Spawn is now quite rightly doing just that for his father, rather than spend time sparring with people here.

---

quote:

---

Publishing a column in support of someone is quite another thing, and publishing a column complaining about others' lack of public support is still another.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:

quote:

---

What I don't get is 1. why Spawn thinks they should have called him up and asked him what he said in a published newspaper column; 2. how three different journalists writing for three different publications messed up in the same way writing articles about his column.

---

"Publish and be damned", indeed. I don't think everyone messed up the way the Times did, though.

---

quote:

---

I find myself in despair that journalists from The Times, Telegraph and Christian Today didn't just follow old fashioned conventions and pick up the phone to check the story. But that's another matter.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

No, you don't know anything about the W family.

---

No, I don't, which is why I said that, and I stand by what I said in that respect.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Lending private support is one thing. I'm sure Spawn is now quite rightly doing just that for his father, rather than spend time sparring with people here.

---

Fine. But for his part, Dave W has not made anything approaching such a generous assumption. At all.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Publishing a column in support of someone is quite another thing, and publishing a column complaining about others' lack of public support is still another.

---

With this I agree; I certainly can't see myself doing the same thing, as a family member, in print.

But the wisdom or otherwise of such a move is in turn a separate issue to the more serious question of whether the whole exercise is just the institution protecting its own - an allegation that publication of the report itself tends to discredit.

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:
You stand by what you said about not knowing anything about the family? Or about the disparaging things you said about it?

---

quote:

---

quite normal that should you do anything wrong, in no circumstances should your immediate friends and family offer you any sympathy or support whatsoever, and should any of them be so much as alleged to have done anything wrong you would treat them in just the same way.

---

quote:

---

You don't know what Dave is assuming; he hasn't expressed assumptions about the Carey family. You only know what he's arguing, and why should he argue about what Spawn is doing privately when that's not part of his point?

---

quote:

---

And if generosity is so important to you, why did you make such ungenerous assumptions about Dave's family?

---

quote:

---

Protecting Lord Carey? From what?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Huia:
Can someone explain the idea behind giving a Police Caution please?

Does it mean that the police at that time were taking the abuse less seriously?

Is the defendant admitting some guilt in accepting a caution?

Thanks

Huia

---

Good questions.

The relevant part of the report is on page 54 onwards ('5.3 the decision to caution').

I'm not an expert, and not spending hours on this, but as I understand it (and am open to being corrected):

- at the time accepting a caution did not involve formally acknowledging guilt<snip>

---

quote:

---

Furthermore, in order for a caution to be given, a suspect must first make full and frank admissions to the alleged offence... such admissions were not made in the appropriate way.

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by BroJames:
What the CPS said in 2015 about it was

quote:

---

Furthermore, in order for a caution to be given, a suspect must first make full and frank admissions to the alleged offence... such admissions were not made in the appropriate way.

---

I think some kind of admission was made, but not one that the CPS, on reviewing the process, felt was adequate.

---

quote:

---

This would be consistent with some kind of story being pitched by Peter Ball to the Archbishop that he was not really guilty.

---

quote:

---

Ball had not unequivocally or formally
admitted guilt

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave W.:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave W.:
You're right - Carey shouldn't be held accountable for his son's weak, minimizing complaint. That's all on Spawn. But the publication of that column is part of the reason for the continued focus on Carey.

---

Do you really mean that? I can hardly think of any circumstance when one can legitimately criticise someone or condemn them for sticking up for a close family member in adversity, particularly not for one's parent or child. Certainly, if such a circumstance exists, this is not one of them.

---

Yes, I do mean that. I think it's perfectly reasonable to criticize a newspaper column that complains about insufficient "public expression of sadness or sympathy ... from the current crop of archbishops and bishops" and suggests Lord Carey is being too harshly treated for merely running afoul of changing "cultural attitudes and standards."

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Whatever one thinks of his father's record in this case, good for Spawn for leaping to his support. Something has gone wrong with a society's moral compass if it is expecting people publicly to shun their kindred who go off the rails or make mistakes.

---

No one has expressed such an expectation, though, have they? And is the Careys' plight really the salient feature of this sordid affair that gives you cause for concern about society's moral compass?

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

One can, for example, criticise others in this depressing saga for listening too much to Bishop Michael Ball's attempts to stick up for his brother, for giving those attempts too much credence. One can hardly criticise him for trying.

---

Can't one? I imagine the victims might see things differently.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave W.:
Yes, I do mean that. I think it's perfectly reasonable to criticize a newspaper column that complains about insufficient "public expression of sadness or sympathy ... from the current crop of archbishops and bishops" and suggests Lord Carey is being too harshly treated for merely running afoul of changing "cultural attitudes and standards."

---

That's not what was asked though.What was asked was whether or not it was reasonable for a family member to lend support to one of their own. Criticising a "newspaper column" is not the same as criticising the individual concerned, which you have done relentlessly here.

---

quote:

---

Spawn has been in here and said he was misrepresented in the interview. If you don't believe that can happen, you've never been interviewed by a journalist.

---

quote:

---

Besides, I have no idea of your family circumstances, but you would apparently see it as quite normal that should you do anything wrong, in no circumstances should your immediate friends and family offer you any sympathy or support whatsoever, and should any of them be so much as alleged to have done anything wrong you would treat them in just the same way. I'm no fan of cover-ups, but I find that prospect chilling.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Something has gone wrong with a society's moral compass if it is expecting people publicly to shun their kindred who go off the rails or make mistakes.

---

No one has expressed such an expectation, though, have they? And is the Careys' plight really the salient feature of this sordid affair that gives you cause for concern about society's moral compass?

---

You have steadfastly and persistently ignored people's acknowledgement of the primary source of concern (the abuse and the institution's poor response).

---

quote:

---

You have also consistently referred to George Carey's involvement and Andrew Carey's response with the liberal use of derogatory language.

---

quote:

---

Failing any evidence to the contrary, your position appears to be that the Careys deserve everything that can be thrown at them, with no mitigation whatsoever.

---

quote:

---

(You have only barely acknowledged that you wrongly conflated father and son's missteps, and you haven't acknowledged at all the fact that more people than the former Archbishop have a share of responsibility in this).

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:
... Lending private support is one thing. I'm sure Spawn is now quite rightly doing just that for his father, rather than spend time sparring with people here. Publishing a column in support of someone is quite another thing, and publishing a column complaining about others' lack of public support is still another. ...

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:
Otherwise we put ourselves in the same position as the community groups of Kensington and Chelsea who are objecting to the retired judge selected to conduct the Grenfell Tower enquiry because he doesn't start from a position sufficiently biased in their favour.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:
So it's all right if a son gives his father moral support of some sort, metaphorically holds his hand, in private, at home, where nobody can see either of them, then that's all right. But as soon as he speaks out for his father in the public forum, that becomes reprehensible.

---

quote:

---

I'm sorry. That doesn't wash. The criticism of Lord Carey is in the public forum. It is now a public matter. The son is entitled to go public in defence of his father. Even if you don't agree with what he's saying, at least give him the credit for having the moral courage to have spoken out for his father in public, and drawn upon himself the criticism you and others are now throwing at him.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
I'm not an expert, and not spending hours on this, but as I understand it (and am open to being corrected):

- at the time accepting a caution did not involve formally acknowledging guilt

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave W.:
Don't forget, I'm also too naive, too confident, blind, nasty and vindictive.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eliab:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
I'm not an expert, and not spending hours on this, but as I understand it (and am open to being corrected):

- at the time accepting a caution did not involve formally acknowledging guilt

---

Strictly, a person cannot be cautioned for an offence unless they have admitted guilt.

It doesn't always happen that way in the real world. I was involved in a traffic accident in the mid 90s, and I received a notification that I'd been cautioned for careless driving in a letter from the police. I know for a fact that I hadn't said anything to admit guilt, since I hadn't even spoken to a police officer except to confirm my name and address before going to hospital to get my head checked. I would have been well within my rights to insist that they prosecute me instead. Of course, I did no such thing, because a caution meant that they aren't going to do anything about the allegation.

I would be slow to conclude from the fact that someone accepted a caution that they were genuinely confessing to guilt. An innocent person who does not consider that a caution will adversely affect their career might well think it wise to accept the offer to "admit you did it and we'll let you off", which is effectively what a caution is.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave W.:
Don't forget, I'm also too naive, too confident, blind, nasty and vindictive.

---

Nonsense. I've certainly never said you were "too" anything. I've used some of those adjectives to describe how various different remarks of yours come across to me. You are not your remarks.

I think that relating how others' remarks come across is part of effective two-way communication. As is acknowledging points made by the other person when they are accepted as valid. I think that's how bridges are built and further mutual understanding arrived at.

That's clearly not what's happening here, so I'm done with this aspect of the discussion.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Callan:

Given what we now know, of course, a caution was utterly laughable. It's the kind of thing that one gets for possession of small amounts of drugs, or rucks where no-one gets seriously hurt or incautious driving where no serious damage is done. A caution, effectively, says "you've been bad, you admit you've been bad, we'll save the cost of the court case and don't do it again". Not for the sort of thing that Peter Ball got up to.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:
So it's all right if a son gives his father moral support of some sort, metaphorically holds his hand, in private, at home, where nobody can see either of them, then that's all right. But as soon as he speaks out for his father in the public forum, that becomes reprehensible.

---

I wouldn't call it reprehensible, but the simple fact is that most of us do not have a platform on which we can say these things.

quote:

---

I'm sorry. That doesn't wash. The criticism of Lord Carey is in the public forum. It is now a public matter. The son is entitled to go public in defence of his father. Even if you don't agree with what he's saying, at least give him the credit for having the moral courage to have spoken out for his father in public, and drawn upon himself the criticism you and others are now throwing at him.

---

I don't think anyone said he isn't entitled to write comment pieces in national newspapers. I think most here are saying it was an unwise thing to do.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave W.:
Don't forget, I'm also too naive, too confident, blind, nasty and vindictive.

---

Nonsense. I've certainly never said you were "too" anything.

---

quote:

---

I've used some

---

quote:

---

of those adjectives to describe how various different remarks of yours come across to me. You are not your remarks.

I think that relating how others' remarks come across is part of effective two-way communication.

---

quote:

---

I think that's how bridges are built and further mutual understanding arrived at.

That's clearly not what's happening here, so I'm done with this aspect of the discussion.

---

quote:

---

... you would apparently see it as quite normal that should you do anything wrong, in no circumstances should your immediate friends and family offer you any sympathy or support whatsoever, and should any of them be so much as alleged to have done anything wrong you would treat them in just the same way.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Callan:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eliab:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
I'm not an expert, and not spending hours on this, but as I understand it (and am open to being corrected):

- at the time accepting a caution did not involve formally acknowledging guilt

---

Strictly, a person cannot be cautioned for an offence unless they have admitted guilt.

It doesn't always happen that way in the real world. I was involved in a traffic accident in the mid 90s, and I received a notification that I'd been cautioned for careless driving in a letter from the police. I know for a fact that I hadn't said anything to admit guilt, since I hadn't even spoken to a police officer except to confirm my name and address before going to hospital to get my head checked. I would have been well within my rights to insist that they prosecute me instead. Of course, I did no such thing, because a caution meant that they aren't going to do anything about the allegation.

I would be slow to conclude from the fact that someone accepted a caution that they were genuinely confessing to guilt. An innocent person who does not consider that a caution will adversely affect their career might well think it wise to accept the offer to "admit you did it and we'll let you off", which is effectively what a caution is.

---

My understanding of the matter - IANAL - that a caution is, as you say, theoretically supposed to hinge on an admission of guilt. I think that one of the reasons that a caution is treated more lightly than an actual conviction is partly because of the comparative lack of seriousness of the offence and partly because an opaque procedure taking place in a police station does not have the same stature as a trial in an open courtroom with a verdict delivered by either a magistrate or twelve good persons and true.

Given what we now know, of course, a caution was utterly laughable. It's the kind of thing that one gets for possession of small amounts of drugs, or rucks where no-one gets seriously hurt or incautious driving where no serious damage is done. A caution, effectively, says "you've been bad, you admit you've been bad, we'll save the cost of the court case and don't do it again". Not for the sort of thing that Peter Ball got up to.

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
But a caution creates a criminal record and, thus, the person is debarred from certain jobs, sometimes for life.

---

quote:

---

In August 2004 a routine criminal records check was carried out by the Church and indicated that Ball had no criminal record, when the check was expected to show that he had been cautioned

---

quote:

---

there was a clear Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) check in 2004 and his file also contains a CRB check dated 28/9/10 which states “None recorded” for convictions, cautions, reprimands and warnings. Gloucestershire Police have advised that cautions were not entered onto the Police National Computer until 1996 (Ball was cautioned in 1993). Consequently the caution did not automatically appear when CRB certificates were issued

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Huia:
Can someone explain the idea behind giving a Police Caution please?

Does it mean that the police at that time were taking the abuse less seriously?

Is the defendant admitting some guilt in accepting a caution?

Thanks

Huia

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by L'organist:
One of the biggest criticisms levelled at the standard 'CRB' check was that it missed out on many things, yet penalised those who might have a minor youthful offence on their record - say for shoplifting or similar.

That is why things like reports to employers of bad behaviour are vitally important: even if Peter Ball had not been found guilty of a sexual offence in court, the letters of complaint or concern sent to bishops, etc, from the 1970s onwards should have been entered onto his central personnel record. While it may not have reflected proof of aberrant behaviour, it would have given an indication that concerns had been expressed and that PB should have been treated with greater circumspection when it came to either being given autonomy over part of a diocese or being appointed to his own see.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by L'organist:
That is why things like reports to employers of bad behaviour are vitally important: even if Peter Ball had not been found guilty of a sexual offence in court, the letters of complaint or concern sent to bishops, etc, from the 1970s onwards should have been entered onto his central personnel record.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:

quote:

---

Originally posted by L'organist:
That is why things like reports to employers of bad behaviour are vitally important: even if Peter Ball had not been found guilty of a sexual offence in court, the letters of complaint or concern sent to bishops, etc, from the 1970s onwards should have been entered onto his central personnel record.

---

(a) But this could reflect badly on a blameless person if an individual, or a group of people, mounted a totally baseless campaign against them out of sheer spite or malevolence. These things do happen.

(b) To what extent does or should an individual have the right to see - and comment on - what is held on their file?

---