Thread: Rev Paul Flowers Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=026467
Posted by Jammy Dodger (# 17872) on
:
Just wondering what shipmates think about the failures at the Co-op bank and the emerging stories about the former chairman of the bank: Paul Flowers. (For those outside the UK this includes alleged purchasing of hard drugs and expenses abuses).
The news reports have made much of the fact that Paul Flowers is a Methodist minister.
Does this damage the church generally, or are most people able to see that one bad egg isn't representative?
I'm curious to know how he was able to become a chairman of a bank when, if I've understood right, he had no relevant experience. So some systemic failures there but again the news reports have implied that his dog collar acted as a kind of shield to prevent proper scrutiny.
Views?
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on
:
While taking some delight from the sticky wicket that Labour are in on this one, I'm rather annoyed by the number of people (some of whom ought to know better) who keep referring to 'the Reverend Flowers'.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
Pretty crazy for a Methodist minister! I didn't think they got up to anything like that!
However, I don't understand how he could have been a full-time minister and also have all these other activities going on. I thought ministers had too much on their plate already! Where did he find the time??
Posted by justlooking (# 12079) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
While taking some delight from the sticky wicket that Labour are in on this one, I'm rather annoyed by the number of people (some of whom ought to know better) who keep referring to 'the Reverend Flowers'.
But he is the Reverend Flowers. He's an ordained minister. ISTM this fits into an overall picture of how assumptions are made about respectability. He's been an ordained minister for a long time and I suspect this has had considerable bearing on his other appointments.
Posted by the giant cheeseburger (# 10942) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jammy Dodger:
The news reports have made much of the fact that Paul Flowers is a Methodist minister.
Does this damage the church generally, or are most people able to see that one bad egg isn't representative?
I don't know much about this case in particular, but my general answer is that it does damage the church - both on a denominational basis and as a whole when the majority of people think a Christian is a Christian is a Christian and don't car about denominations - when this kind of thing happens.
I don't know of any denominations that would not deserve to be laughed at if they pleaded the "one bad egg" argument these days. The problem is not so much that this stuff happens, but that it happens again instead of churches learning from past failures and putting changes in place.
Is Flowers an active minister and was he during any of the period of the abuses being mentioned? If the answer to either is yes, the best thing the Methodist Church could do is to issue a statement apologising for enabling the abuse and inviting the police to examine all records they have from the period in question - they can help rehabilitate the image of Christianity a little by openly admitting they fucked up instead of trying the damage control routine.
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
While taking some delight from the sticky wicket that Labour are in on this one
Yes - it's an easy and cheap way of diverting attention from the myriad of links the Tories had with the various people who caused and profited from the financial crises.
Posted by Vulpior (# 12744) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by justlooking:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
While taking some delight from the sticky wicket that Labour are in on this one, I'm rather annoyed by the number of people (some of whom ought to know better) who keep referring to 'the Reverend Flowers'.
But he is the Reverend Flowers. He's an ordained minister. ISTM this fits into an overall picture of how assumptions are made about respectability. He's been an ordained minister for a long time and I suspect this has had considerable bearing on his other appointments.
Tangential clarification: Anglican't is referring to the use of "the Reverend" with family name alone as being incorrect usage. Regrettably, I think that Anglican't is fighting a losing battle on this one.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Something comic about it also, crystal Methodist.
Posted by mark_in_manchester (# 15978) on
:
quote:
Pretty crazy for a Methodist minister
Svitlana, you have a gift for comic understatement.
I'm a UK Methodist, and I have some connection to folks working for the bank here in Manc. I probably have to be a little circumspect (not least to protect the Ship), but:
He's the chairman, not chief exec. Like the chancellor of a UK university, not the vice-chancellor. Yes, it's scandelous; yes, it's a little (but not very) odd that he had no banking background - just as poets and musicians end up as university chancellors; yes, one or two people might make a joke who know I'm a Methodist, but in this circuit we're down to a few small congregations of pensioners. We have no influence, and are regarded as irrelevant. People only get pissed off about this stuff when the perpetrators are percieved as powerful - and whilst Flowers might have had power in some contexts, any pulpit-based influence waned 1, maybe 2 generations ago around here. So damage to the church will be minimal, I think. This comes over on the telly, where comment centres on his resignations from political and civic responsibilities - no one has commented much on his current status re: the church (the most important dimension to me, I guess, but I'm one of those odd Christians!).
Although he seems to have been something of a personally greedy, stupid b******, in the media he seems to be being set up as responsible for the bank's current huge woes. This is bullshit, and scapegoating - he had no power. Other people [flowery language deleted...I'm thinking WWIHD (what would Ian Hislop do)] were responsible for the merger with the Britania building society, which turned out to be something of a toxic turd - amongst lots of other stupidity. Several of them have recently been up before government committees - public domain video proceedings are online, if you really want to search for footage of them passing the blame to each other.
If I were them, I might be thinking all this is a gift, and hoping Flowers would take the heat off me. More govt enquiries are on the way into the bank's losses - will blame be justly apportioned, or will the 'bonking vicar' angle save the skins of those who really ought to be exposed?
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
Breaking news in the UK this morning is that the Reverend Paul Flowers has been arrested in connection with an investigation into the supply of drugs.
The news coverage also says that the Methodist Church has suspended him indefinitely.
But he is a running joke currently; the News Quiz tonight has him as the week's theme (I was at the recording last night).
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
There seem to be huge inquiries into one thing or another all over the place. The cost must be enormous.
Yep, the Methodist Church will suffer. And yes, I am sure his position in the Church gave him a respectability he clearly didn't warrant.
Ho hum ![[Frown]](frown.gif)
Posted by mark_in_manchester (# 15978) on
:
quote:
There seem to be huge inquiries into one thing or another all over the place. The cost must be enormous.
For those leading legal professionals involved, it must be trebles all round.
I hear consultants in the banking industry are doing rather well out of it, too.
I'm really tired.
Posted by The Undercover Christian (# 17875) on
:
quote:
I don't know much about this case in particular, but my general answer is that it does damage the church
quote:
Yep, the Methodist Church will suffer. And yes, I am sure his position in the Church gave him a respectability he clearly didn't warrant.
The magical thing about reputation is that it only suffers if you care about it.
Why should the Methodist Church suffer? And what respectability should a position in the church bring?
Respectability is like dunking a digestive biscuit. It looks like it holds, but it's internally crumbling and eventually will flop into your tea. You just have to hope nobody's looking when it does.
None of us warrant respectability. And it's crazy that people think the church should confer any. We're the organisation that openly admits that all humans are, ultimately, a bit pants.
Paul Flowers will face a due process for any unlawful or illegal acts he may have committed. And perhaps this will re-open the debate (which seems to be abating without resolution - boo) on global finance.
But let's not pretend that we're the BBC or some other organisation for whom brand matters. We're here to do a job, and we'll crack on with that whether the coffers are full of pennies or not, whether people like us or not, whether we're on the front page of The Times or a footnote on page 11 of the East Kilbride Courier & Post.
Posted by justlooking (# 12079) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
There seem to be huge inquiries into one thing or another all over the place. The cost must be enormous.
Yep, the Methodist Church will suffer. And yes, I am sure his position in the Church gave him a respectability he clearly didn't warrant.
Ho hum
Costs involved in complicated legal enquiries and prosecutions are inevitably high but I don't see any alternative. We're paying the price of decades of silence and cover-ups when it comes to the wrongdoings of people with power and influence in public life.
Paul Flowers' position in the Church could have helped in securing his paid position within the Coop group and the other positions which allowed for expense claims. I'm assuming he was/is a non-stipendiary minister.
Posted by andras (# 2065) on
:
Eighteen months ago I got myself into something of a pickle as far as the Methodist Church was concerned. After a lifetime working with young people I had come to the conclusion (and I was certainly not alone) that the Church's new safeguarding policies were not only likely to be ineffective but also to be counter-productive in that they would engender a feeling of false security.
So worried was I that I wrote to the Secretary of Conference expressing my fears in quite plain language. In reply I received a letter which I can only describe as arrogant, accusing me of lacking Christian love, telling me that I had no business querying the Church's agreed policies, and warning me off saying anything to that effect in public! My considered reply to that letter didn't even merit the courtesy of a reply.
I subsequently mentioned my concerns in a sermon, only to be shouted down in the pulpit by the senior steward, who publicly accused me of lying about the Church's position.
And now my worst fears have been fulfilled: no doubt Rev. Flowers had ticked all the appropriate boxes (literally and figuratively) and was thus regarded as an appropriate figure to lead worship, associate with young people and vulnerable adults and all the rest of it.
I should feel vindicated (and at least my conscience is clear that I did raise my concerns with the Church authorities in good time).
Instead I just feel sick.
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on
:
IRRC there was a fair bit of pressure from the gov for someone, perhaps anyone, to take on the Britannia. It was always my impression the coop were lent on to take them. I thought it was a mistake at the time, it is depressing - in that if they hadn't done that I don't think they would have needed a rescue deal. They were not one of those banks playing the markets and lending recklessly during the boom.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Yes, I've been puzzled for years by the mismatch between the Co-op Bank's previous conduct, and then this 'go large' approach, of acquiring new banks branches, buying the Brittania and so on. I am curious as to how this was being driven - was it purely by Co-op staff who got too big for their boots, or was there external pressure, or did they hook up with some City, buy 'em and flog 'em merchants? Maybe all three.
Posted by justlooking (# 12079) on
:
I agree with you andras about the false sense of security from simply having a policy. The CofE's policy is very similar to that of the Methodist Church and so are the attitudes you describe.
On a related note the CofE has a 'Dignity at Work' policy dating from 2008 and apparently produced by the Bishop of Ripon and Leeds. Each diocese is meant to use the document as guidance in developing its own policy and practices. There's no legal requirement and it therefore isn't mandatory but many dioceses have put it into effect or at the very least have provided a website link to the national document. Ripon and Leeds' diocese has simply buried the document and provides no acknowledgement that it exists. Anyone reading the introduction to the policy might assume the Bishop who signed it actually knows and cares about the issue of bullying and harassment and that his diocese is at the forefront of dealing with it. Wrong.
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Yes, I've been puzzled for years by the mismatch between the Co-op Bank's previous conduct, and then this 'go large' approach, of acquiring new banks branches, buying the Brittania and so on. I am curious as to how this was being driven - was it purely by Co-op staff who got too big for their boots, or was there external pressure, or did they hook up with some City, buy 'em and flog 'em merchants? Maybe all three.
AIUI 1 & 2 yes, 3 no. In that reading, of course, even without 2, 1 would have been enough to cause problems.... The real problem, as indeed was the case with the Britannia, Northern Rock, Co-Op, B&B, etc, was small institutions trying to act like big ones without bringing in new people from the big boys and so consequently not knowing what they were doing. People who were perfectly good at running building societies, or, in the case of the Co-Op, very small scale banks, trying to act like bankers...
The big boys failed for different reasons, usually not linked quite so much to the retail side of things.
Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on
:
One minute the secular world is leaving Christianity in the dark ages in favour of promoting the moral equality of homosexuality and turning a blind eye to the prolific drug use of its celebrities, the next minute it is outing Methodist ministers for taking part in drug fuelled homosexual orgies. Seems hypocritical to me.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
Your logic has slipped!
Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by andras:
Eighteen months ago I got myself into something of a pickle as far as the Methodist Church was concerned. After a lifetime working with young people I had come to the conclusion (and I was certainly not alone) that the Church's new safeguarding policies were not only likely to be ineffective but also to be counter-productive in that they would engender a feeling of false security.
So worried was I that I wrote to the Secretary of Conference expressing my fears in quite plain language. In reply I received a letter which I can only describe as arrogant, accusing me of lacking Christian love, telling me that I had no business querying the Church's agreed policies, and warning me off saying anything to that effect in public! My considered reply to that letter didn't even merit the courtesy of a reply.
I subsequently mentioned my concerns in a sermon, only to be shouted down in the pulpit by the senior steward, who publicly accused me of lying about the Church's position.
And now my worst fears have been fulfilled: no doubt Rev. Flowers had ticked all the appropriate boxes (literally and figuratively) and was thus regarded as an appropriate figure to lead worship, associate with young people and vulnerable adults and all the rest of it.
I should feel vindicated (and at least my conscience is clear that I did raise my concerns with the Church authorities in good time).
Instead I just feel sick.
Yes, it's a sorry state of affairs isn't it. Amongst the items reported so far, Flowers
Left a charity over concerns about expense claims
Has a conviction for drink driving (see above link)
Has a conviction for gross indecency
I know that these things are supposed to be allowed to be taken into account, and disclosure of previous convictions is not an automatic bar, but it looks like there was either some very bad calls, or people were just asleep at the wheel.
The poor press office must be in meltdown. Those two links both contain exactly the same statement about him being very sorry and being allowed to continue.
Even when ministers move around in the stationing process, you would still think the whispers would build up to a crescendo eventually. How did nobody piece it all together?
Posted by justlooking (# 12079) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:
Amongst the items reported so far, Flowers
Left a charity over concerns about expense claims
Has a conviction for drink driving (see above link)
Has a conviction for gross indecency
He also resigned from Bradford Council as a Labour Councillor when 'inappropriate' material was discovered on his Council computer. It's not been confirmed whether he still holds a position as a governor at a primary school.
Posted by andras (# 2065) on
:
quote:
(snipped!)
Even when ministers move around in the stationing process, you would still think the whispers would build up to a crescendo eventually. How did nobody piece it all together?
I think people did know and just kept quiet about it; a personal friend knows the man in question, and has told me that none of this has come as a surprise to her. None so blind as those who will not see!
Last night's televised statement from Methodist Church House was about as bad as it could be, and could be roughly paraphrased as We knew nothing about it, our main focus is on forgiveness, nothing to see here so move on. Barely a word of regret and not a touch of humility, but all spoken in a hushed and 'holy' voice.
Heads should roll in the Church, but probably won't.
[snipped excess code]
[ 22. November 2013, 11:34: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
quote:
originally posted by andras:
So worried was I that I wrote to the Secretary of Conference expressing my fears in quite plain language. In reply I received a letter which I can only describe as arrogant, accusing me of lacking Christian love, telling me that I had no business querying the Church's agreed policies, and warning me off saying anything to that effect in public! My considered reply to that letter didn't even merit the courtesy of a reply.
British Methodists must be very different from their American counterparts. ![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
I think they are, Beeswax Altar, although, that said, I've met one or two US Methodists in my time who reminded me of their British counterparts.
The same applies with the Baptists. UK Baptists have a family resemblance to US ones but tend not to fit the Southern Baptist stereotype.
Mind you, the shoutings-down and so on in Andras's case did surprise me ... although I am aware that discussion and debate in Methodist circles in the UK can be very robust ...
Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on
:
Well, you can hardly see him just slipping quietly back in to the list of ministers available for stationing in a year or two can you. Assuming he's not engaged in some prison chaplaincy...
Posted by mark_in_manchester (# 15978) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Yes, I've been puzzled for years by the mismatch between the Co-op Bank's previous conduct, and then this 'go large' approach, of acquiring new banks branches, buying the Brittania and so on. I am curious as to how this was being driven - was it purely by Co-op staff who got too big for their boots, or was there external pressure, or did they hook up with some City, buy 'em and flog 'em merchants? Maybe all three.
quote:
...and Betjemaniac added:
AIUI 1 & 2 yes, 3 no. In that reading, of course, even without 2, 1 would have been enough to cause problems.... The real problem, as indeed was the case with the Britannia, Northern Rock, Co-Op, B&B, etc, was small institutions trying to act like big ones without bringing in new people from the big boys and so consequently not knowing what they were doing. People who were perfectly good at running building societies, or, in the case of the Co-Op, very small scale banks, trying to act like bankers...
The big boys failed for different reasons, usually not linked quite so much to the retail side of things.
Hey, dig my nested quotes ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
'Our own correspondent' is in near agreement with Mr B, but departs here:
quote:
without bringing in new people
.
I've heard (I think) Robert Peston doing this 'should've got some real people in' thing, but it's back-to-front.
There were a whole load of new people, consultants and staff from other shining lights of UK finance, who came in and rapidly got seriously out of touch with the Co-op's formerly water-tight, small scale risk averse approach. Which, up to that point and without outside help, had delivered a nice small bank with a solid balance sheet safely past the first disasters of the World Financial Crisis.
Empire building (methaphorical and actual) followed - it could have been even worse since the new prestige office building which was built, was very nearly followed by a whole swathe of speculative 'regeneration' funded by Co-op bank (ahem) resources.
I hear that very large numbers of outside consultants are currently engaged in the thorny problems of cost reduction. Let's hope the consultancy budget is ring-fenced to ensure plenty more top-quality thought is applied...trebles all round!
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on
:
How sad this all is.
Personally for Paul Flowers - who, whatever his faults and failings, is now having to deal with a media storm.
For the Methodist Church - who, it seems, both failed to notice (or act on) concerns over Paul Flowers' conduct and now are not acting with appropriate contrition and resolve to learn from what's happened.
And for the Co-operative Bank, whose selection procedure that led to Flowers being appointed as chair now looks to have been shockingly poor. On a personal note, I'm very likely to be moving my custom from the Co-op Bank over this, because the more I hear about their procedures and the nature of their links with the Labour party, the less faith I have in their competence and ethics.
Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jammy Dodger:
Does this damage the church generally, or are most people able to see that one bad egg isn't representative?
Does this damage the whole image of the co-operative movement or, even wider, ethical values in business? No-one is perfect, but how one would square the apparent ethical values of the Co-op with using drugs that are sourced through a supply chain that causes misery to millions all over the world is a bit of a mystery.
I bet Paul Flowers buys fair-trade coffee. ![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
Posted by justlooking (# 12079) on
:
I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of this was known about but people either chose to keep quiet or were pressured into saying nothing.
He was exposed through a 'sting' operation organised by an acquaintance
quote:
Stuart Davies, 26, first encountered the minister via the gay dating mobile phone app Grindr in early October. The two men exchanged texts and met a few weeks later. Mr Davies, who admits having used drugs in the past, said he was shocked by the scale of Mr Flowers’ drug taking.
“After hearing him bragging about his life, about his connections in Parliament, his 40 years in the church and his all-round good works, it just felt wrong,” said Mr Davies to the Mail. “He seemed to be using his status to get young men off their heads for sex.”
Despite having very limited banking experience he was paid an annual salary of £120,000. What was he supposed to be doing to earn this salary?
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by justlooking:
Despite having very limited banking experience he was paid an annual salary of £120,000. What was he supposed to be doing to earn this salary?
Like a great many chairmen and CEOs of companies, he was supposed to look the part and nothing else.
He couldn't even do that, for shame.
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Like a great many chairmen and CEOs of companies, he was supposed to look the part and nothing else.
He couldn't even do that, for shame.
Which rather neatly links us back to that thread on executive pay.
Posted by Snags (# 15351) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
The same applies with the Baptists. UK Baptists have a family resemblance to US ones but tend not to fit the Southern Baptist stereotype.
"... tend not to ..." - careful you don't oversell it there, Gamaliel!
Posted by mark_in_manchester (# 15978) on
:
Erroneous Monk said:
quote:
Does this damage the whole image of the co-operative movement or, even wider, ethical values in business
It does, especially when the media spin it along the lines of 'see, told you amateur banks ran by well-meaning liberals couldn't work'.
But this is, of course, a lie. (I hear Peston may be grinding a personal axe, by the way, but that's a tangent). In truth, the Co-op ethos was sound, the ethical investment stance was (and, I think, still is) true and carefully administered, and even after 2008 things were much more solid than in the 'commercial' sector. It only went tits up when greed, pride and power got going at the top - a tragedy, since this is what had wrecked the rest of the banking sector already.
Is there enough left to salvage? That's going to depend on us not pulling our money out. Whether it is worth staying in will, for me, depend on whether the genie can be squished back into the bottle. If not, I'll be going further into Oikocredit, Shared Interest and the like instead.
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
He was NOT exposed by a sting operation - or at least that only exposed some distressing personal failings.
What exposed him was his appearance before the Treasury Select Committee. In fact, it left not just him exposed by the regulatory framework that allowed him to be approved in the post - the old FSA - plus the people who proposed him for the job and those already on the board who sat back and let him be appointed.
And there is a whole lake of murk that is starting to bubble to the surface about the lending criteria employed over the 'loans' to the Labour Party, the wholly-owned subsidiary company that made matching loans, the fact that the LP had effectively defaulted on its previous loan yet was made another, etc, etc, etc.
The business about the Co-op taking over Britannia and whether or not there was coercion almost pales into insignificance.
What is made crystal clear is that the whole structure of the financial division of the Co-op is deeply flawed and not fit for purpose.
Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Your logic has slipped!
How so?
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mark_in_manchester:
Erroneous Monk said:
quote:
Does this damage the whole image of the co-operative movement or, even wider, ethical values in business
It does, especially when the media spin it along the lines of 'see, told you amateur banks ran by well-meaning liberals couldn't work'.
But this is, of course, a lie. (I hear Peston may be grinding a personal axe, by the way, but that's a tangent). In truth, the Co-op ethos was sound, the ethical investment stance was (and, I think, still is) true and carefully administered, and even after 2008 things were much more solid than in the 'commercial' sector. It only went tits up when greed, pride and power got going at the top - a tragedy, since this is what had wrecked the rest of the banking sector already.
Is there enough left to salvage? That's going to depend on us not pulling our money out. Whether it is worth staying in will, for me, depend on whether the genie can be squished back into the bottle. If not, I'll be going further into Oikocredit, Shared Interest and the like instead.
Well, I am curious to see the details of 'greed, power and pride' fermenting at the top. I am puzzled by the time frame as well - did all this get going before the financial crash, or after? If it was after, then it seems incredible that a bank would ignore the very large red flashing lights around bank acquisitions, leveraged finance, and so on.
Also puzzling is the degree of regulation - did anybody scrutinize all these goings on? Again, you would think that after 2008, there would be ultra-cautious advice from various financial institutions, but maybe not. Rumours abound that the Co-op was actually specifically exempted from tough regulation, but rumours is rumours.
Posted by andras (# 2065) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I think they are, Beeswax Altar, although, that said, I've met one or two US Methodists in my time who reminded me of their British counterparts.
The same applies with the Baptists. UK Baptists have a family resemblance to US ones but tend not to fit the Southern Baptist stereotype.
Mind you, the shoutings-down and so on in Andras's case did surprise me ... although I am aware that discussion and debate in Methodist circles in the UK can be very robust ...
I have to say, it left me with my ghast absolutely flabbered. In the last couple of days I've come to realise that the steward in question, who has held important office in the Church in the past, will be well-acquainted with Rev. Flowers and may now be wondering whether things are as rosy as he was saying!
This highlights the whole Protection issue, of course: in our own Circuit, every single Local Preacher who had professional experience and often considerable expertise of protection issues refused to have anything to do with the new policy and were accordingly suspended en masse, and most of them have now abandoned Methodism in favour of other denominations, as indeed have Mrs Andras and I.
At the same time abuse can clearly flourish provided the abuser is prepared to tell a few porkies and people are prepared to look the other way - and as I was taught one very unpleasant August Sunday, the pressure is really on from the hierarchy not to rock the boat. Clever, isn't it.
As far as the undoubted tragedy of the man in question is concerned, Lord Vetinari in one of the Discworld books comments that 'freedom includes the freedom to suffer the consequences - indeed, that is the freedom on which all the others depend.' Worth thinking about, perhaps...
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
daronmedway
Wouldn't the media be hypocritical if they castigated Rev Flowers for promoting a more liberal life style (re drugs and sex)? Rather than living some kind of clandestine double life not based on values he was publically proclaiming?
[ 22. November 2013, 18:09: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
Posted by mark_in_manchester (# 15978) on
:
quote:
Well, I am curious to see the details of 'greed, power and pride' fermenting at the top.
I'm curious to see what the inquiries bring out into the open. I suspect...not all of it. A large number of quite senior bank staff are being laid off at the moment - will they talk? It remains to be seen. Will staff in-place go on record? I suspect not...though they might well get things off their chests with friends and relatives...
quote:
I am puzzled by the time frame as well - did all this get going before the financial crash, or after?
I know nothing abut loans to the labour party. But the Britannia merger (which is in large part what wiped out the bank balance sheet) took place *after* the crash. One suspects the motivation on the part of the Britannia management was to hide their toxic mortgage debt under a larger balance sheet. But not large enough, it seems. What was the co-op motivation? Anecdote suggests management wanted to be much bigger cheeses. Govt enquiries so far have talked a good bit about Due Diligence, but no-one has as yet owned up to being the person required to exercise it - lots of buck passing. Flowers looks like a fall guy, but whilst this might work in the media I doubt it will satisfy government enquiry...but what the hell, these people are Teflon coated.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Another strange facet is that the EU required the bank branches (Lloyds?), to be sold off, and the Co-op was favourite.
Mervyn King seems to be saying that various politicians favoured the Co-op as buyers. I doubt if we will ever see the full discussions that went on. Watch them all run for cover now! 'It was strictly a matter for the boards of the relevant companies involved and the regulators'. Blah blah blah.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
But maybe Flowers just thought, I'm a banker now, this is the stuff they do, porn, drugs, drug-fuelled sex, it's context-driven, folks. Hopefully, they were ethical drugs.
[ 22. November 2013, 17:07: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on
:
I imagine they would be fairtrade drugs, processed in artisanal laboratories. But the evidence seems to be that the Rev's lifestyle preceded his move to the banking sector.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by andras:
In the last couple of days I've come to realise that the steward in question, who has held important office in the Church in the past, will be well-acquainted with Rev. Flowers and may now be wondering whether things are as rosy as he was saying!
This highlights the whole Protection issue, of course: in our own Circuit, every single Local Preacher who had professional experience and often considerable expertise of protection issues refused to have anything to do with the new policy and were accordingly suspended en masse, and most of them have now abandoned Methodism in favour of other denominations, as indeed have Mrs Andras and I.
At the same time abuse can clearly flourish provided the abuser is prepared to tell a few porkies and people are prepared to look the other way - and as I was taught one very unpleasant August Sunday, the pressure is really on from the hierarchy not to rock the boat. Clever, isn't it.
My experience of Methodism is that the protection of children and vulnerable people has become an issue of increasing regulation over the past ten years. Perhaps Paul Flowers' infractions in this area occurred before the Methodist Church had a standardised response mechanism.
This isn't to excuse Methodists who turned a blind eye to Mr Flowers' behaviour, but IME one of the realities of mainstream church life is that it's not the done thing to get too close or to get involved in other people's personal affairs. And the desire (certainly in Methodism and probably elsewhere) to be non-judgmental about what people do outside church must make it easy not to expend too much energy on revealing someone else's issues, even if something seems a bit off.
As for the negative impact on Methodism, I don't think it'll be long-lasting. Most people are fairly ignorant about Methodism anyway, which has probably served to shield the denomination from specific criticism. Now, people may be a bit more ready to include Methodism in their general cynicism of institutional Christianity in general. But it all amounts to more or less the same thing.
[ 22. November 2013, 18:18: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posted by moonlitdoor (# 11707) on
:
quote:
posted by Doc Tor
Like a great many chairmen and CEOs of companies, he was supposed to look the part and nothing else.
You must have worked for some very different companies from me. In my experience it wouldn't be too hard to take issue with their ethics, but they've all had a lot of knowledge about the company and its activities and I am sure they could have spoken intelligently to MPs about what the company was doing.
Posted by Garasu (# 17152) on
:
My head of department couldn't tell you what the department was doing. I'm not entirely sure she knows what we're supposed to be doing. Why on earth should I believe that the CEO is going to be any better?
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
My experience of Methodism is that the protection of children and vulnerable people has become an issue of increasing regulation over the past ten years. Perhaps Paul Flowers' infractions in this area occurred before the Methodist Church had a standardised response mechanism.
To be clear, there have been no suggestions that Mr Flowers partners were anything other than consenting adults.
quote:
And there is a whole lake of murk that is starting to bubble to the surface about the lending criteria employed over the 'loans' to the Labour Party,
Soft loans have been used by both parties in the past. With the Tories getting loans from entities registered in Belize, Antilles and the British Virgin Islands.
Posted by balaam (# 4543) on
:
Let's see if I can summarise...
The former head of a charity trying to get people off drugs ends up trying to get drugs off people.
The next stage is that he'll shave his head and grow a goatee.
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Vulpior:
quote:
Originally posted by justlooking:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
While taking some delight from the sticky wicket that Labour are in on this one, I'm rather annoyed by the number of people (some of whom ought to know better) who keep referring to 'the Reverend Flowers'.
But he is the Reverend Flowers. He's an ordained minister. ISTM this fits into an overall picture of how assumptions are made about respectability. He's been an ordained minister for a long time and I suspect this has had considerable bearing on his other appointments.
Tangential clarification: Anglican't is referring to the use of "the Reverend" with family name alone as being incorrect usage. Regrettably, I think that Anglican't is fighting a losing battle on this one.
Yes, this is what I was getting at. I shall add this to all the other losing battles I find myself fighting.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by moonlitdoor:
quote:
posted by Doc Tor
Like a great many chairmen and CEOs of companies, he was supposed to look the part and nothing else.
You must have worked for some very different companies from me. In my experience it wouldn't be too hard to take issue with their ethics, but they've all had a lot of knowledge about the company and its activities and I am sure they could have spoken intelligently to MPs about what the company was doing.
No, this is exactly what I meant. All Flowers had to do, all any CEO has to do, is act their little socks off and pretend. They are the public face of the company, and when they get wheeled out at corporate events - or in front of a panel of MPs - they have to know their lines.
I can absolutely guarantee you that for £120,000pa, almost anyone here (and who possesses more than half a brain cell) would have done the required reading before entering the Palace of Westminster.
That he failed even on this shows what a poor choice he was. Compare and contrast his performance (that being the apposite word) with that of the power companies' chiefs a couple of weeks previously. They knew their lines. Hell, they'd even learnt them together. They were a complete disgrace, but they stuck to the script and got out in one piece. Job done.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
My experience of Methodism is that the protection of children and vulnerable people has become an issue of increasing regulation over the past ten years. Perhaps Paul Flowers' infractions in this area occurred before the Methodist Church had a standardised response mechanism.
To be clear, there have been no suggestions that Mr Flowers partners were anything other than consenting adults.
I was indeed thinking of his inappropriate behaviour regarding consenting adults, both his conviction for gross indecency in 1981, and the images on his laptop that led to his resignation as a local councillor in 2011 after they were discovered. After the latter incident he became the chairman of governors of a primary school. Did this public elevation calm any concerns that the Methodist Church might have had about this discovery? Regarding the former incident, the Church was apparently not overly concerned at the time. I don't know if that would be the case had it happened just a few years ago.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2510897/Co-op-chief-Paul-Flowers-quit-charity-150-000-false-expenses-claims.html
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
Britannia Building Society was well known in the Industry for having a toxic mortgage book: you only had to look at its target market. Until 2008 that was no problem - a rising market safeguarded any losses down to poor products and underwriting.
As far back as 1991, the Government was "persuading" banks and financial institutions to take over dodgy business where it looked like another bank would fail. (It happened as far back as the 1960's with the Grays Building Society - prompting the 1962 Act). In 1991 it was BCCI where a number of institutions were "invited" to bail out BCCI: they refused on account of the obvious fraud they saw. Since then it's happened again and again: mergers aren't always what they're cracked up to be on the surface.
I happened to be in a position of some seniority in that world and was involved in the BCCI invitation amongst others. Nothing changes - esp the snouts in the trough.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
Something I find quite troubling about this, if the various stories now in the press are true, which of course they might not be, is what was this chap's conscience like, what did he feel like when he knelt down to pray? For a Minister of Religion, he seems to have let his shortcomings run riot through an unusually wide ranging and disparate number of areas of his life. What did he appear to be giving the Methodist Church, the Co-Op Bank, his local Labour Party etc that caused a large number of people either to turn a blind eye to or not be able to see, that there was something very flawed?
If someone is able to pull the wool over lots of peoples' eyes, it is his or her responsibility to answer for that, not those that they take in, their victims, even if it's surprising that so many people and institutions seem to have been misled.
Is it yet another example that there are some people who just have to take big risks? Something inside them drives them to. It gives them a buzz. It makes them feel more alive. Or is it that we all manage to pull the wool over our own eyes, but most of us don't get to the sort of places where we get such spectacular temptations?
Has he actually been functioning as a Minister recently, taking services Sunday by Sunday etc? Or was he just Rev because he had formerly done so?
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Something I find quite troubling about this, if the various stories now in the press are true, which of course they might not be, is what was this chap's conscience like, what did he feel like when he knelt down to pray? For a Minister of Religion, he seems to have let his shortcomings run riot through an unusually wide ranging and disparate number of areas of his life. What did he appear to be giving the Methodist Church, the Co-Op Bank, his local Labour Party etc that caused a large number of people either to turn a blind eye to or not be able to see, that there was something very flawed?
If someone is able to pull the wool over lots of peoples' eyes, it is his or her responsibility to answer for that, not those that they take in, their victims, even if it's surprising that so many people and institutions seem to have been misled.
Is it yet another example that there are some people who just have to take big risks? Something inside them drives them to. It gives them a buzz. It makes them feel more alive. Or is it that we all manage to pull the wool over our own eyes, but most of us don't get to the sort of places where we get such spectacular temptations?
Has he actually been functioning as a Minister recently, taking services Sunday by Sunday etc? Or was he just Rev because he had formerly done so?
On your last point, according to the BBC this evening his house is the property of the Methodist Church.....
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
According to the online 'Daily Mail' he was due to preach at a 10.30am service at a church in West Yorkshire last Sunday, although he obviously didn't do so. 'The Independent' says he still hopes to be able to preach at the same church's Christmas Day service. They also says he's popular with his 'parishioners', which presumably means he's liked by his congregation and other folk who know him in the local community.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/an-accident-waiting-to-happen-the-mystery-of-how-paul-flowers-career-flourished-89 58197.html
Posted by Avila (# 15541) on
:
My understanding is that until suspension he has had part time ministry in a couple of chapels in Bradford. He may be pleading to take the Christmas service, but no way will that happen.
The Methodist Church is aware of risks from moving around hiding patterns. Currently it is in the midst of a major review seeking anything anyone knows about anything and review of all past cases from 1950.
Andreas - as someone without a professional expertise in safeguarding can you outline your basic concerns with current policies? Or were these the policies a few years ago when the focus on the police checks overshadowed everything else. Currently everyone has to do a training session as well as the checks and the ministers and paid staff have had a heavier advanced course about these issues and what bucks we carry and how to do that.
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on
:
The thing that amazes me is that he had a record of fiddling expenses and porn on his computer. Those should have indicated that a)He was probably not a suitable person to be a Methodist Minister and b) he was definitely not a suitable person to run a bank.
And yet he was given this job, which he was not particularly qualified for. And he did a lousy job, it would seem. This is incompetence by others as well.
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
... he's popular with his 'parishioners', which presumably means he's liked by his congregation and other folk who know him in the local community.
And how many times do we see this repeated throughout history ? People who have the sheer audacity to behave improperly/immorally , (call it what you will), and yet still enjoy unswerving loyalty from their followers .
Of course the media want to big up the fact that this fellow was a church man . It helps bolster the view that all things church are bad whereas all things secular are not.
Do your class A drugs , do your computer porn, just don't do it and pretend to be holier than thou.
Posted by andras (# 2065) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Avila:
My understanding is that until suspension he has had part time ministry in a couple of chapels in Bradford. He may be pleading to take the Christmas service, but no way will that happen.
The Methodist Church is aware of risks from moving around hiding patterns. Currently it is in the midst of a major review seeking anything anyone knows about anything and review of all past cases from 1950.
Andreas - as someone without a professional expertise in safeguarding can you outline your basic concerns with current policies? Or were these the policies a few years ago when the focus on the police checks overshadowed everything else. Currently everyone has to do a training session as well as the checks and the ministers and paid staff have had a heavier advanced course about these issues and what bucks we carry and how to do that.
Andras, actually, not Andreas!
I was indeed referring to the current system of the Training Session; without doubt this has sometimes been done well, but I have come across some truly horrific stories about sessions which have been, basically, a run-through of what Basil Fawlty refers to as the 'bleeding obvious' read out of a manual while denying those attending any opportunity to refer to their own experience; the line has sometimes (not always) been 'Shut up and listen to me, we don't want to hear about you.'
The whole thing was, I believe, put together by 'experts' from the NSPCC, who may have known a lot about the protection of children but whose knowledge of church procedures and of the protection of vulnerable adults leave a lot to be desired.
So now the Methodist Church has got itself into the daft situation where people actually experienced in protection issues are told to take a hike, while 'visiting preachers' - who may have all sorts of skeletons in their closets - are welcomed with no checks at all.
And, of course, when Grandma and Grandpa visit the church and want to go into Sunday School / Junior Church / Whatever with the little ones there are few congregations that will bar them on a protection basis - though the simple fact is that most abuse actually happens within the family (and I have myself have had to deal professionally with cases of rape within the family).
The Church's response to these objections has simply been that At least something has been done. But an ineffectual something is worse than nothing. The policy seems to exist simply so that when the manure hits the rotating ventilation system the hierarchy can say, We did all we could, we organised a Course. Pathetic.
Posted by Jammy Dodger (# 17872) on
:
Wow! Thanks for all the responses to my OP. Wasn't expecting quite such a response but that's why I love being on board ship - you always get replies you hadn't expected.
With these things I am always interested in what the systemic failures were that allowed the situation to arise. It seems that someone who had a track record of being asked to leave previous positions for various types of impropriety was still able to gain a position as the chairman of a bank.
Contrary to some of the views expressed already in the thread I don't think chairpersons of companies are ornamental. A chairman (along with the other non-Exec directors) is there explicitly to hold the chief Exec and the other Exec directors to account. Yes the Exec directors are ultimately responsible for day-to-day operations but a chairman has considerable influence in the board to say question the competence of/confidence in the chief exec. As such in most companies, especially financial institutions, the chairman iis expected to have a strong business background and has usually run other financial companies themselves - I.e. Has the relevant experience to hold the chief exec to account. Maybe it works differently in a mutual but there appear to be basic qualifications for the role that were missing quite aside from any issues of personal integrity.
However, there is always the issue that a determined and clever person can find a way around even the best policies and procedures (which also applies to the parallel discussion around safeguarding). It's not a reason not to have robust processes but just to be realistic around their limitations.
Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by andras:
quote:
Originally posted by Avila:
My understanding is that until suspension he has had part time ministry in a couple of chapels in Bradford. He may be pleading to take the Christmas service, but no way will that happen.
The Methodist Church is aware of risks from moving around hiding patterns. Currently it is in the midst of a major review seeking anything anyone knows about anything and review of all past cases from 1950.
Andreas - as someone without a professional expertise in safeguarding can you outline your basic concerns with current policies? Or were these the policies a few years ago when the focus on the police checks overshadowed everything else. Currently everyone has to do a training session as well as the checks and the ministers and paid staff have had a heavier advanced course about these issues and what bucks we carry and how to do that.
Andras, actually, not Andreas!
I was indeed referring to the current system of the Training Session; without doubt this has sometimes been done well, but I have come across some truly horrific stories about sessions which have been, basically, a run-through of what Basil Fawlty refers to as the 'bleeding obvious' read out of a manual while denying those attending any opportunity to refer to their own experience; the line has sometimes (not always) been 'Shut up and listen to me, we don't want to hear about you.'
The whole thing was, I believe, put together by 'experts' from the NSPCC, who may have known a lot about the protection of children but whose knowledge of church procedures and of the protection of vulnerable adults leave a lot to be desired.
So now the Methodist Church has got itself into the daft situation where people actually experienced in protection issues are told to take a hike, while 'visiting preachers' - who may have all sorts of skeletons in their closets - are welcomed with no checks at all.
And, of course, when Grandma and Grandpa visit the church and want to go into Sunday School / Junior Church / Whatever with the little ones there are few congregations that will bar them on a protection basis - though the simple fact is that most abuse actually happens within the family (and I have myself have had to deal professionally with cases of rape within the family).
The Church's response to these objections has simply been that At least something has been done. But an ineffectual something is worse than nothing. The policy seems to exist simply so that when the manure hits the rotating ventilation system the hierarchy can say, We did all we could, we organised a Course. Pathetic.
Well, a visting preacher, as in, one from outside the circuit, should only be getting a slot on the plan at the superintendents discression. If they are just from a different circuit, they should have sat through the pointless couple of hours themselves in that circuit.
But what opportunities are there for local preachers to have unsupervised access to children? None, in my church.
I had to do the course as a circuit steward - also a position that doesn't entail any such access. I pointed out that they'd be better off sending me on a pointless course that re-iterated that I shouldn't use my position to commit financial fraud.
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jammy Dodger:
Contrary to some of the views expressed already in the thread I don't think chairpersons of companies are ornamental.
I think you are confusing 'is' with 'ought' here. We are certainly not saying they ought to be ornamental but that frequently they are.
A lot of companies adopt the view that the chairman is simply that - the chairman of the board, and it's up to the board as a whole to hold the CEO to account. If you look at the various mutuals - board members (and thus potential chairmen) without financial experience aren't that unusual.
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I was indeed thinking of his inappropriate behaviour regarding consenting adults
Sure, but you are conflating things by mentioning children and vulnerable adults in the same sentence, afaict to date there is no suggestion at all that Flowers preyed on such groups. He was picking up most of his partners via Grindr.
quote:
both his conviction for gross indecency in 1981,
On a sidenote, this was often a way of prosecuting consensual acts between homosexuals
Posted by moonlitdoor (# 11707) on
:
quote:
posted by Doc Tor
All Flowers had to do, all any CEO has to do, is act their little socks off and pretend. They are the public face of the company, and when they get wheeled out at corporate events - or in front of a panel of MPs - they have to know their lines.
That's the part I don't recognise. The chairman and chief executive of the company I work for are not figureheads by any stretch of the imagination. If called before MPs I am sure they would be doing some preparation on how to cast their past decisions and future plans in the most favourable light and how to answer criticisms that might be made of them. But they wouldn't need to do any preparation to know a lot about the company's business, since they already do.
Posted by andras (# 2065) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Avila:
Well, a visting preacher, as in, one from outside the circuit, should only be getting a slot on the plan at the superintendents discression. If they are just from a different circuit, they should have sat through the pointless couple of hours themselves in that circuit.
But what opportunities are there for local preachers to have unsupervised access to children? None, in my church.
I had to do the course as a circuit steward - also a position that doesn't entail any such access. I pointed out that they'd be better off sending me on a pointless course that re-iterated that I shouldn't use my position to commit financial fraud.
Posted by andras (# 2065) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Avila:
Well, a visting preacher, as in, one from outside the circuit, should only be getting a slot on the plan at the superintendents discression. If they are just from a different circuit, they should have sat through the pointless couple of hours themselves in that circuit.
But what opportunities are there for local preachers to have unsupervised access to children? None, in my church.
I had to do the course as a circuit steward - also a position that doesn't entail any such access. I pointed out that they'd be better off sending me on a pointless course that re-iterated that I shouldn't use my position to commit financial fraud.
Sorry - I managed to post an empty message!
I suppose I have no particular problem if the Church wants to impose this or that restriction on those exercising whatever sort of ministry: if they want the preacher to hop into the pulpit on one leg while reciting the alphabet backwards, then that's up to them and those as don't want to do it will stop preaching.
My real problem is that as soon as I started raising objections I was told in no uncertain terms that this was a question of official policy and therefore as a matter of obedience I should keep quiet in public.
Seems to me that it's exactly that sort of We know best, don't dare to ask questions or express concerns that have got us where we are today.
And round here visiting preachers are likely to come from abroad (we have a well-respected theology department in a local university) or from other denominations either locally or further afield. And now that so many LPs have been suspended for not 'wasting a couple of hours in a pointless course' there are an awful lot of Local Arrangements in the circuit which are filled by who-knows-who, and the Super's probably just pleased it's not his problem. Yet.
Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by andras:
quote:
Originally posted by Avila:
Well, a visting preacher, as in, one from outside the circuit, should only be getting a slot on the plan at the superintendents discression. If they are just from a different circuit, they should have sat through the pointless couple of hours themselves in that circuit.
But what opportunities are there for local preachers to have unsupervised access to children? None, in my church.
I had to do the course as a circuit steward - also a position that doesn't entail any such access. I pointed out that they'd be better off sending me on a pointless course that re-iterated that I shouldn't use my position to commit financial fraud.
Sorry - I managed to post an empty message!
I suppose I have no particular problem if the Church wants to impose this or that restriction on those exercising whatever sort of ministry: if they want the preacher to hop into the pulpit on one leg while reciting the alphabet backwards, then that's up to them and those as don't want to do it will stop preaching.
My real problem is that as soon as I started raising objections I was told in no uncertain terms that this was a question of official policy and therefore as a matter of obedience I should keep quiet in public.
Seems to me that it's exactly that sort of We know best, don't dare to ask questions or express concerns that have got us where we are today.
And round here visiting preachers are likely to come from abroad (we have a well-respected theology department in a local university) or from other denominations either locally or further afield. And now that so many LPs have been suspended for not 'wasting a couple of hours in a pointless course' there are an awful lot of Local Arrangements in the circuit which are filled by who-knows-who, and the Super's probably just pleased it's not his problem. Yet.
In the interests of clarity, I should say the post you quoted was actually from me. And that I can spell discretion properly.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I was indeed thinking of his inappropriate behaviour regarding consenting adults
Sure, but you are conflating things by mentioning children and vulnerable adults in the same sentence, afaict to date there is no suggestion at all that Flowers preyed on such groups.
No one has accused Flowers of preying on anyone. The question is whether the Methodist Church, whose safeguarding policies cover both children and vulnerable adults, should have been concerned that his inappropriate behaviour outside church made his position among children and vulnerable adults within the church problematic. It's quite possible that church leaders reflected on this and deemed the answer to be no.
The other question that arises out of this discussion is why exactly the Methodist Church have suspended Paul Flowers. Which of his activities are they most concerned about? Or is it the cumulative effect of his different activities that have freaked them out?
Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on
:
Well, I think we can safely assume that the Rev. Flowers has done a number of things that breach CPD (Constitution, Practice and Discipline) - but at the moment he is under criminal investigation on very serious charges. He's suspended partly because the Methodist disciplinary process won't go any further until criminal (and any other) investigations are concluded.
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on
:
Of course, if he had been found drinking alcohol, the Methodists would have thrown him out immediately.
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
both his conviction for gross indecency in 1981,
On a sidenote, this was often a way of prosecuting consensual acts between homosexuals
Yes, I did wonder about that.
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
both his conviction for gross indecency in 1981,
On a sidenote, this was often a way of prosecuting consensual acts between homosexuals
Yes, I did wonder about that.
His 1981 conviction involved "performing a sex act with a trucker in a public toilet", which I believe is as illegal now as it was then.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
His 1981 conviction involved "performing a sex act with a trucker in a public toilet", which I believe is as illegal now as it was then.
It may still be illegal, but these days HM Constabulary is far more likely to solicit the opinions of such regular "users" of the public toilets than to arrest them.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
Of course, if he had been found drinking alcohol, the Methodists would have thrown him out immediately.
I assume you said this tongue in cheek?
Alcohol can't be supplied, sold or used on Methodist premises, nor may Methodist premises be used to promote its use or sale. Communion wine is non-alcoholic. But this does not apply to domestic occasions in private homes - alcohol can be kept and consumed by ministers in their own homes.
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
Of course, if he had been found drinking alcohol, the Methodists would have thrown him out immediately.
I assume you said this tongue in cheek?
Alcohol can't be supplied, sold or used on Methodist premises, nor may Methodist premises be used to promote its use or sale. Communion wine is non-alcoholic. But this does not apply to domestic occasions in private homes - alcohol can be kept and consumed by ministers in their own homes.
Yes it was. My upbringing was Methodist, and my parents would have been frowned on for making home-brew wine. It struck me as odd, for a denomination that was very hot on teetotalism, that a minister who was clearly breaking every other rule was still considered acceptable.
I know that, in my day, a minister being caught drunk in public would have been gone. I wonder if Flowers took a lot of care to not fall foul of the rules specifically, while flouting them in principle.
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
both his conviction for gross indecency in 1981,
On a sidenote, this was often a way of prosecuting consensual acts between homosexuals
Yes, I did wonder about that.
His 1981 conviction involved "performing a sex act with a trucker in a public toilet", which I believe is as illegal now as it was then.
Not great, but hardly Jimmy Saville - personally I think the culture of cottaging grew out of the widespread oppression of healthy homosexual relationships.
More pertinently, I think it is important to understand that he has not been convicted or disciplined (AFAIK) for accessing illegal material or for any form of violence - sexual or otherwise. This maybe why the risk assessments have not come out the way people might have expected.
His behaviour over the last few years has been a problem, and I wonder if this dates from his becoming an addict or whether he might have another health problem. Early onset dementia can be preceded by several years by personality changes and increasing disinihibition before cognitive impairment becomes obvious. If his cognitive skills were just starting to go, that would also partly explain his apprent poor preparation for the select comittee. (He might not be an experienced banker, but he could have been much better prepared.)
He is about the right age for such a condition. I hope I am wrong, because it is a hideous illness - but i would not be surprised if this turns out to be the case.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
Of course, if he had been found drinking alcohol, the Methodists would have thrown him out immediately.
I assume you said this tongue in cheek?
Alcohol can't be supplied, sold or used on Methodist premises, nor may Methodist premises be used to promote its use or sale. Communion wine is non-alcoholic. But this does not apply to domestic occasions in private homes - alcohol can be kept and consumed by ministers in their own homes.
Yes it was. My upbringing was Methodist, and my parents would have been frowned on for making home-brew wine. It struck me as odd, for a denomination that was very hot on teetotalism, that a minister who was clearly breaking every other rule was still considered acceptable.
I know that, in my day, a minister being caught drunk in public would have been gone. I wonder if Flowers took a lot of care to not fall foul of the rules specifically, while flouting them in principle.
It seems to me that the country and the media commentators have raised their eyebrows at this Reverend gentleman simply because they still believed that Methodists were abstemious.
Someone on a question time programme asked 'what happened to the pledge?'
I myself have been quite surprised at the almost 'student culture' attitude to drink amongst some Methodists I've come across - ministers included.
I was quite surprised to find a female deacon who was an afficianado of real ale and another who had been banned for drink driving and suffered no hiatus in his ministry.
When the world deplores the church's lowering standards something must be wrong.
There was a time when no evangelical would be seen dead having alcohol...not that Methodists have retained their essential evangelicalism.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
I was a big real ale fan when I was more evangelical than I am now.
Wesley recommended beer as an alternative to gin. Which was the crack-cocaine of his day.
However, like you, I've noticed a rather self-conscious attitude towards drink among those Methodists who do imbibe. It's as if they've got something to prove.
It's bit like the old stories of convent girls unleashed from the constraints of their particular settings ...
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Actually, Mudfrog, you must have had a sheltered life or a rather narrow exposure to a particular form of evangelicalism if you assert that no evangelical would ever have been seen dead drinking alcohol ...
Complete abstinence was never a requirement in all evangelical circles. It was only a feature of particular strands - and understandably so in some settings.
I'm not sure about Spurgeon and alcohol but he was rather fond of an occasional cigar.
Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I was a big real ale fan when I was more evangelical than I am now.
Wesley recommended beer as an alternative to gin. Which was the crack-cocaine of his day.
Oh and Wesley was against that other demon drink...
Tea.
(strange fact picked up recently; the evidence suggests that it was both a luxury item at the time, and he had caffeine addiction from the amount he drank before giving it up.)
Jengie
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I was a big real ale fan when I was more evangelical than I am now.
Wesley recommended beer as an alternative to gin. Which was the crack-cocaine of his day.
Oh and Wesley was against that other demon drink...
Tea.
(strange fact picked up recently; the evidence suggests that it was both a luxury item at the time, and he had caffeine addiction from the amount he drank before giving it up.)
Jengie
I think if I was riding a horse for hundreds of miles a day i'd need a caffeine addiction too! LOL
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
I have only a layman's background, DT, but I'd had similar thoughts. His behaviour suggests either extreme compartmentalisation, or some serious loss of both self awareness and inhibition.
Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on
:
I'm a cradle Methodist and like most Methodists I've seen plenty of ministers come and go. I've known ones who were gay, bisexual, ones who liked a drink and ones who caused a scandal when they left their spouses.
The real reason Paul Flowers is in the national papers is because he was the chairman of a bank, and that profession has had a lot of focus recently. If he hadn't had a very prominent position, I don't think "Minister buys some drugs" would reallly get anywhere beyond a few column inches in a local paper otherwise.
Posted by dv (# 15714) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
Not great, but hardly Jimmy Saville - personally I think the culture of cottaging grew out of the widespread oppression of healthy homosexual relationships.
Perhaps that was a reason for cottaging in the 1950s but hardly in the 1980s when gay venues were available in any large UK town - unless one was getting off on doing something illicit and dangerous, too?
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by dv:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
Not great, but hardly Jimmy Saville - personally I think the culture of cottaging grew out of the widespread oppression of healthy homosexual relationships.
Perhaps that was a reason for cottaging in the 1950s but hardly in the 1980s when gay venues were available in any large UK town - unless one was getting off on doing something illicit and dangerous, too?
Has anyone compared him to Jimmy Saville?
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
1981 is now 32 years ago. My recollection of those days is that it would have been well before notions of gay rights, not discriminating on grounds of orientation etc started to become diffused in even progressive parts of society, yet alone churches. And the offence doesn't even sound as though it related to a steady, but under the standards of those times, irregular, relationship. I don't know much about Methodism in that era, but from what I remember of attitudes generally, I'd have thought it's quite surprising that a person who committed such an offence then wasn't given the simple choice between resigning or being pushed.
Would the position be that much different now? It isn't a context of a stable and faithful relationship. It sounds more like the gay equivalent of devouring one's living with harlots?
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
BTW, how normal is it for a member of the clergy to be the chairman of a bank? I've never heard of that before. (In fact, as a Methodist I've never even come across a Methodist layperson who works in a bank!) I suppose there's no automatic conflict of interest in holding both of these roles, but it seems to be an unusual combination.
Did the Co-op's PR folk think that having a Methodist minister and Labour man at the helm would somehow appear earthy and authentic? Would Barclay's Bank or Lloyds have chosen a Quaker??
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by dv:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
Not great, but hardly Jimmy Saville - personally I think the culture of cottaging grew out of the widespread oppression of healthy homosexual relationships.
Perhaps that was a reason for cottaging in the 1950s but hardly in the 1980s when gay venues were available in any large UK town - unless one was getting off on doing something illicit and dangerous, too?
Has anyone compared him to Jimmy Saville?
It was being conflated with child and adult protection issues earlier in the thread. It is easy to read the sense of gross indecency as similar to indecent assault.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
Doublethink
Once again, in NO sense was I suggesting that what Paul Flowers did was anything like what Saville did.
Protecting both children and vulnerable adults - which are 'conflated', if you wish, by church safeguarding policies that cover BOTH issues - generally requires considering people's activities outside of church. True, none of Flowers' activities, legal or otherwise, make it inevitable that he'd be a danger to any churchgoers. But I would expect any church with safeguarding policies to reflect seriously on whether this might be a concern, and to take professional advice if a good assessment cannot be made internally. (At this point, though, the matter of Methodist safeguarding policies and disciplinary procedures has to be on the back burner, as lowland_boy has noted.)
As I said above, Flowers apparently remains popular with his congregation(s). This stands in his favour. Whatever happens to him, I hope that his positive contributions to the worshipping life of current and/or previous circuits will be noted.
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on
:
Actually, I was thinking of Andras post earlier. As conflating abuse itself with the Flowers allegations.
If one takes the view that one night stands or accessing porn makes you a danger to children and vulnerable adults, then we are going to have a huge amount of parents to worry about.
That is a separate issue to whether you are a fit and proper person to be a minister.
Posted by andras (# 2065) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
Actually, I was thinking of Andras post earlier. As conflating abuse itself with the Flowers allegations.
If one takes the view that one night stands or accessing porn makes you a danger to children and vulnerable adults, then we are going to have a huge amount of parents to worry about.
That is a separate issue to whether you are a fit and proper person to be a minister.
But we do have a huge amount of parents to worry about; as I've said earlier, most abuse is actually within the family, a fact that the Government's ill-advised former 'stranger danger' campaign carefully ignored.
Part of my concern about the various safeguarding policies which are out there in a number of different organisations is that they are often unclear about who they are aimed at: is the purpose to show people how to recognise the symptoms of abuse and what to do if you suspect that it may have happened (which is valuable and sensible and should have happened much earlier); or is it intended to actually persuade people to stop abusing vulnerable children or adults (in which case it's probably a total waste of time).
As regards the current scandal, I remember C.S. Lewis' dictum that Careless lives cost talk. How true!
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by andras:
But we do have a huge amount of parents to worry about;
Yes, but our basis for worrying about them isn't that they accessed (legal) porn, or engaged in one night stands, which I think was doublethink's point.
[ 25. November 2013, 09:05: Message edited by: chris stiles ]
Posted by mark_in_manchester (# 15978) on
:
Maurice Glasman in yesterday's Observer gives a pretty accurate impression of what has been going on at Co-op bank.
Svitlana suggested she'd never known a Methodist who works in a bank. Well...I know of one or two...
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on
:
Andras wrote: quote:
As regards the current scandal, I remember C.S. Lewis' dictum that Careless lives cost talk.
Thanks for that one - I hadn't heard it before!
In the discussion of safeguarding children, we seem to have slid seamlessly from "family" to "parent". If that line is to be pursued, can I suggest greater rigour. From my recollection of the stats. (which was from several years back) those things are far from interchangeable. Though in fact I would suggest it is a blind alley anyway. I fail to see any evidence that Paul Flowers has been any kind or risk either to children or old people directly.
So far as the cottaging incident is concerned - it was a long time ago and there is no evidence I have seen that he has repeated it. In fact the evidence seems to point the other way.
Which leaves all the rest of the stuff. To be honest, it all seems to be lifted straight from the Boy's Own Book of Stereotypes (see under section B for Bankers). How many more stories of coke-fuelled threesomes with hookers do we need to hear about? This one just seems to have the minor variant that he is gay. If anything it's showing that the "masters of the universe" self-image is still with us in the financial sector.
Posted by mark_in_manchester (# 15978) on
:
quote:
Did the Co-op's PR folk think that having a Methodist minister and Labour man at the helm would somehow appear earthy and authentic?
That sounds horribly plausible - add 'proud and incompetent' and he seems even more the ideal frontman / cover. Poor bastard.
[ 25. November 2013, 09:46: Message edited by: mark_in_manchester ]
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mark_in_manchester:
Svitlana suggested she'd never known a Methodist who works in a bank. Well...I know of one or two...
Ah, well. You mix in more elevated Methodist circles than I do, clearly. Let's say no more!
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
... True, none of Flowers' activities, legal or otherwise, make it inevitable that he'd be a danger to any churchgoers. ...
So the Bank may have chosen him to reassure those who might think, 'the Chairman's one of our Revs. So our life savings must be safe'. But that doesn't make him a danger to churchgoers because it's only their life savings that were at risk and no paedophilia was involved. And, he paid for sex, but as he was gay, no women were exploited. So that's all OK then.
And besides, no one has suggested so far that the people he bought his chemical and sexual pleasures from were Methodists. So he wasn't leading his own flock astray. All right again?
Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on
:
I'm a Methodist, and I have worked in a bank.
Paul Flowers appears to have ended up as chairman of the Co-op bank on the back of a power struggle in the co-operative movement, according to a few things I've read.
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
So that's all OK then.
I'm not sure how you meant your post, but I don't think people were attempting to exculpate him.
The problem is that as honest Ron says above on one level:
"How many more stories of coke-fuelled threesomes with hookers do we need to hear about? This one just seems to have the minor variant that he is gay."
ISTM that on at least one level, a lot of the fuss is down to that minor variant, and a lot of the other details - like being in charge of a bank that floundered - are treated as incidental.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:
Originally posted by mark_in_manchester:
Svitlana suggested she'd never known a Methodist who works in a bank. Well...I know of one or two...
Ah, well. You mix in more elevated Methodist circles than I do, clearly. Let's say no more!
Why would a Methodist not work in a bank? Is it a proscribed profession?
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Of course, Mudfrog. We all know that Methodists don't drink, don't smoke, don't gamble and always turn the light off before they have sex.
I'd be interested to hear where the Methodists of SvitlanaV2's congregation (or former congregation) did work ...
I expert they all worked for ethically-above board outfits like shops, offices, factories, schools ...
I remember on a visit to Beamish - the excellent open-air museum up in County Durham - being told that back in Victorian and Edwardian times, the local name for a particular kind of 'two-faced' hammer was 'a Wesleyan' ...
Posted by Avila (# 15541) on
:
We are very grateful for the skills of former bank employees within our circuit, as we are of skills people bring from a wide range of professions in life - paid and unpaid.
Going beyond the specific, one issue that I think this case raises is the tendency (in a whole range of organisations)to settle for seeing a problem person off their patch rather than tackle the long term pattern. The resign quietly syndrome rather than formally reporting something untoward. This always people to move on without a new place knowing, although when it all blows open there are plenty saying, 'we knew this that and the other'.
This can go for disciplinary issues but also in awareness and putting in supports for someone with a weakness, eg excess drink as stress relief, so that the new place can be a new leaf rather than a rerun.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
So that's all OK then.
I'm not sure how you meant your post, but I don't think people were attempting to exculpate him. ...
It doesn't look as though the are now, but there is an implication in some posts that he's not so bad because he wasn't a paedophile, or that possibly the Methodist Church looked the other way when it might have had suspicions as to his suitability to be a Minister.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
I've come across Methodist accountants, and they're very useful as church and circuit treasurers. But no one in banking, to my knowledge. The white-collar types I come across in church life often seem to be connected to the caring professions in some way. Other professional backgrounds are probably better represented in the more middle class churches and circuits.
Re Mr Flowers, I want to be fair to him, but I do feel that the Methodist church was wrong simply to dismiss what was at the very least his very poor judgment - if that is indeed what the church did. Moreover, if what was on his laptop was probably unremarkable, as Doublethink implies, why did it require Flowers to resign as chairman of the bank? Why should a bank be more touchy about these things than a primary school or a church? It suggests that banks are more socially conservative institutions than schools and (Methodist) churches, which is a fascinating thought.....
[ 25. November 2013, 19:16: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on
:
No, he resigned as a local politician over the laptop. He resigned from the bank over a monumental banking fuck up and his expenses.
Basically, it seems the there were 30 years of unremarkable followed by three years of him spinning out of control - as far as we know at this time.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
Having (legal, AIUI) porn on his laptop wasn't why he had to resign; neither was his cottaging conviction. He went because of the drug deals he was filmed taking part in and because the bank had ploughed into the ground on his watch. Time was he might have got away with one or other of these but not now- and especially not given that he chaired the nearest thing we had to a Labour Party bank and the right-wing media are in full attack pre-election mode already.
I worked for an ecumenical body at one time, and our treasurer was a Methodist minister. He was, frankly, awful (although very definitely not in a Paul Flowers sort of way)- we weren't allowed petty cash or delegated signing powers and everything had to be sent to him, 100 miles from head office, for signing. But I don't think that he was like this because he was a Methodist.
Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on
:
I'm a cradle Methodist and like most Methodists I've seen plenty of ministers come and go. I've known ones who were gay, bisexual, ones who liked a drink and ones who caused a scandal when they left their spouses.
The real reason Paul Flowers is in the national papers is because he was the chairman of a bank, and that profession has had a lot of focus recently. If he hadn't had a very prominent position, I don't think "Minister buys some drugs" would reallly get anywhere beyond a few column inches in a local paper otherwise.
Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on
:
Hmm-seem to have managd to repost something from yesterday...
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Having (legal, AIUI) porn on his laptop wasn't why he had to resign; neither was his cottaging conviction. He went because of the drug deals he was filmed taking part in and because the bank had ploughed into the ground on his watch. Time was he might have got away with one or other of these but not now- and especially not given that he chaired the nearest thing we had to a Labour Party bank and the right-wing media are in full attack pre-election mode already.
I worked for an ecumenical body at one time, and our treasurer was a Methodist minister. He was, frankly, awful (although very definitely not in a Paul Flowers sort of way)- we weren't allowed petty cash or delegated signing powers and everything had to be sent to him, 100 miles from head office, for signing. But I don't think that he was like this because he was a Methodist.
He resigned from the coop in the summer, the drugs issue didn't become known till much more recently.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
DT
I think you are doing a good job in sifting through what is in the public domain. There are some pretty puzzling features of this whole tale which your take seems to illuminate. Certainly some deterioration over the last few years.
Posted by Qoheleth. (# 9265) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Certainly some deterioration over the last few years.
I hold no brief for Paul Flowers, but having known him some 38 years ago, I can recognise some of the youthful personality traits which have now led to his public disgrace. Hindsight is a wonderful psychoanalyst.
There but for the grace of God go we all, as John Wesley might have said.
![[Votive]](graemlins/votive.gif)
for all whose character defects have damaged themselves and others.
![[Mad]](angryfire.gif)
for all who should have exercised the checks and balances intended to save us from ourselves.
Posted by Qoheleth. (# 9265) on
:
PS - context from here. quote:
in 1975 [he] joined the team at the West London Chaplaincy of the University of London where he busied himself for several years with the pastoral care of students.
Posted by andras (# 2065) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Qoheleth.:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Certainly some deterioration over the last few years.
I hold no brief for Paul Flowers, but having known him some 38 years ago, I can recognise some of the youthful personality traits which have now led to his public disgrace. Hindsight is a wonderful psychoanalyst.
There but for the grace of God go we all, as John Wesley might have said.
for all whose character defects have damaged themselves and others.
for all who should have exercised the checks and balances intended to save us from ourselves.
Well, I lit a candle for Rev. Flowers on Sunday. God help him and all of us.
In my own head at least Purgatory (the place, not the forum!) is precisely the spot where with God's good grace we finally get everything sorted out, however painful that will be and however long it takes - a bit like Groundhog Day!)
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
Tangent alert, but this matters
quote:
Originally posted by Qoheleth.:
... for all who should have exercised the checks and balances intended to save us from ourselves.
NO. NEVER.
That idea is far too prevalent at the moment. So it's the GMC's fault or the local family practitioner committee or local health authority's fault that Harold Shipman killed his patients, rather than his?
It is not, never has been and must never be somebody else's job to protect us from ourselves. That was Adam's excuse. It didn't work for him, it doesn't work for us and it doesn't work for anyone else.
[ 26. November 2013, 16:27: Message edited by: Enoch ]
Posted by Qoheleth. (# 9265) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Tangent alert, but this matters
quote:
Originally posted by Qoheleth.:
... for all who should have exercised the checks and balances intended to save us from ourselves.
NO. NEVER.
That idea is far too prevalent at the moment. So it's the GMC's fault or the local family practitioner committee or local health authority's fault that Harold Shipman killed his patients, rather than his?
It is not, never has been and must never be somebody else's job to protect us from ourselves. That was Adam's excuse. It didn't work for him, it doesn't work for us and it doesn't work for anyone else.
Thanks, Enoch, for picking me up on a lazy piece of framing. It would have been better said as:
quote:
... all who should have exercised the checks and balances intended to save others from ourselves.
However, ISTM that PJF's friends, colleagues, episcope etc all had a duty of care to point out to him the increasingly egregious errors of his ways.
Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Something I find quite troubling about this, if the various stories now in the press are true, which of course they might not be, is what was this chap's conscience like, what did he feel like when he knelt down to pray?
Dunno, but probably pretty much how I feel when I kneel down to pray. That is to say, I can't see any reason for presuming he feels differently.
Posted by andras (# 2065) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Something I find quite troubling about this, if the various stories now in the press are true, which of course they might not be, is what was this chap's conscience like, what did he feel like when he knelt down to pray?
Dunno, but probably pretty much how I feel when I kneel down to pray. That is to say, I can't see any reason for presuming he feels differently.
In The Last Chronicle of Barset, the Archdeacon, furious at his son's marriage plans, goes straight to his lawyer and disinherits the lad, knowing that he will never otherwise get through as we forgive those that trespass against us in his evening devotions.
Trollope could be very perceptive about human nature! (They are reconciled before the end of the novel, though!)
Posted by justlooking (# 12079) on
:
What I find particularly troubling is the allegation that he supplied hard drugs to others in order to induce them into sexual activity with him.
There's a wider picture here. I'm familiar with a locality in which young boys sell themselves for sex with older men. Drugs are part of this scene too. These boys are not necessarily gay and looking for sexual encounters, they are poor and looking for money. Impoverished people, especially impoverished children, are among the most vulnerable in our society.
Posted by andras (# 2065) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by justlooking:
What I find particularly troubling is the allegation that he supplied hard drugs to others in order to induce them into sexual activity with him.
There's a wider picture here. I'm familiar with a locality in which young boys sell themselves for sex with older men. Drugs are part of this scene too. These boys are not necessarily gay and looking for sexual encounters, they are poor and looking for money. Impoverished people, especially impoverished children, are among the most vulnerable in our society.
Indeed, which is why my immediate thought was that this was, among other things, a protection issue. (Being of a somewhat literary bent, I'm reminded of Chaucer's Summoner, who, among other things, is responsible for the diocesan youth work!)
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0