|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: The Bishop Peter Ball Affair
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
Yes, I do mean that. I think it's perfectly reasonable to criticize a newspaper column that complains about insufficient "public expression of sadness or sympathy ... from the current crop of archbishops and bishops" and suggests Lord Carey is being too harshly treated for merely running afoul of changing "cultural attitudes and standards."
That's not what was asked though. What was asked was whether or not it was reasonable for a family member to lend support to one of their own. Criticising a "newspaper column" is not the same as criticising the individual concerned, which you have done relentlessly here. Spawn has been in here and said he was misrepresented in the interview. If you don't believe that can happen, you've never been interviewed by a journalist.
Besides, I have no idea of your family circumstances, but you would apparently see it as quite normal that should you do anything wrong, in no circumstances should your immediate friends and family offer you any sympathy or support whatsoever, and should any of them be so much as alleged to have done anything wrong you would treat them in just the same way. I'm no fan of cover-ups, but I find that prospect chilling. quote:
quote:
Something has gone wrong with a society's moral compass if it is expecting people publicly to shun their kindred who go off the rails or make mistakes.
No one has expressed such an expectation, though, have they? And is the Careys' plight really the salient feature of this sordid affair that gives you cause for concern about society's moral compass?
You have steadfastly and persistently ignored people's acknowledgement of the primary source of concern (the abuse and the institution's poor response). You have also consistently referred to George Carey's involvement and Andrew Carey's response with the liberal use of derogatory language. Failing any evidence to the contrary, your position appears to be that the Careys deserve everything that can be thrown at them, with no mitigation whatsoever.
As far as I'm concerned, justice is not a zero-sum game in which offenders should be made to suffer as much as possible, and indiscriminately.
(You have only barely acknowledged that you wrongly conflated father and son's missteps, and you haven't acknowledged at all the fact that more people than the former Archbishop have a share of responsibility in this).
[ 07. July 2017, 05:14: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Huia:
Can someone explain the idea behind giving a Police Caution please?
Does it mean that the police at that time were taking the abuse less seriously?
Is the defendant admitting some guilt in accepting a caution?
Thanks
Huia
Good questions.
The relevant part of the report is on page 54 onwards ('5.3 the decision to caution').
I'm not an expert, and not spending hours on this, but as I understand it (and am open to being corrected):
- at the time accepting a caution did not involve formally acknowledging guilt¹²
- the decision to caution was recommended by the police
- the report says elsewhere that one of the reasons behind the decision was (rightly or wrongly) to spare the victims the pain of a court appearance
- there is little doubt it was also felt such a decision would keep the case out of the media and that this might be in the interests of the CoE (as well as of the victims)
It seems to me that the issue of whether or not the police took the alleged offences seriously at the time is almost impossible to determine. If you read that part of the reporrt, they seemed to take the view there was not enough evidence to be sure of a conviction, but whether this view was influenced by the CoE lobbying to hush up the matter is not I think as clear as one might imagine (although it's certainly believable).
If it had gone to trial and the case against Ball collapsed, it would not have been much fun for the victims either.
Again, it's easy to be wise after the event (especially, here, in view of Ball's subsequent actual conviction), but I think that in many cases of this kind the decision on whether or not to go to trial can be an agonising one³. Such decisions could be wholly or partly the resut of unethical 'backroom deals' and influence-peddling, but not necessarily.
--
¹Contrary to what Dave W alleges here. Which makes it easier to understand how Carey could, at the time, albeit erroneously, have "believed" Ball to be "basically innocent".
²The report says this is no longer the case today. This is the sort of reason why people have been arguing, correctly in my view, that it is hard to pass judgement on the matter so long after the fact. Things change, including the law.
³ Restorative justice offers some interesting alternatives in which victims' concerns are better taken into account, although I'm not convinced it would have worked here given Ball's recorded manipulativeness.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
Yes, I do mean that. I think it's perfectly reasonable to criticize a newspaper column that complains about insufficient "public expression of sadness or sympathy ... from the current crop of archbishops and bishops" and suggests Lord Carey is being too harshly treated for merely running afoul of changing "cultural attitudes and standards."
That's not what was asked though. What was asked was whether or not it was reasonable for a family member to lend support to one of their own. Criticising a "newspaper column" is not the same as criticising the individual concerned, which you have done relentlessly here. Spawn has been in here and said he was misrepresented in the interview. If you don't believe that can happen, you've never been interviewed by a journalist.
What interview? Spawn complained that journalists didn't pick up the phone and check their stories about the column he wrote.
What I don't get is 1. why Spawn thinks they should have called him up and asked him what he said in a published newspaper column; 2. how three different journalists writing for three different publications messed up in the same way writing articles about his column.
quote:
Besides, I have no idea of your family circumstances, but you would apparently see it as quite normal that should you do anything wrong, in no circumstances should your immediate friends and family offer you any sympathy or support whatsoever, and should any of them be so much as alleged to have done anything wrong you would treat them in just the same way. I'm no fan of cover-ups, but I find that prospect chilling.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif) No, you don't know anything about the W family.
Lending private support is one thing. I'm sure Spawn is now quite rightly doing just that for his father, rather than spend time sparring with people here. Publishing a column in support of someone is quite another thing, and publishing a column complaining about others' lack of public support is still another. Your effort to separate the personal and the public -- the person who wrote the column and the column itself -- is really not going to wash, because the column is supremely personal.
The point Andrew Carey wants to make about how standards and practices have changed may be a point that should be made. I would argue, however, that it doesn't need to be made in this case, as Lord Carey probably doesn't need to earn a living and can simply retire. If the point were being made in the service of salvaging the clerical career of someone younger, someone not in a position to retire, someone who hadn't occupied such a high position in the church, I'd probably be more open to hearing it. I would also argue that in any case a family member can't creditably make this point.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
What interview? Spawn complained that journalists didn't pick up the phone and check their stories about the column he wrote.
You're right, that's sloppiness on my part. It wasn't an interview. But journalistic misrepresentation is an issue.
If you look back at the flagging up of the Times report on this thread, it appears to have originally borne the headline "criticism of my father is an unforgivable sin...". If you click on that link now, the headline says something quite different - and a whole lot more accurate: "My father was victim of changing attitudes to abuse".
That suggests to me that an original, grossly misrepresentative headline was corrected. Choosing my words carefully here, one can assume the Times was presented with compelling reasons to change it. It certainly deserved to be complained about (as discussed previously, I have a thing about clickbaity headlines).
quote:
What I don't get is 1. why Spawn thinks they should have called him up and asked him what he said in a published newspaper column; 2. how three different journalists writing for three different publications messed up in the same way writing articles about his column.
"Publish and be damned", indeed. I don't think everyone messed up the way the Times did, though.
quote:
No, you don't know anything about the W family.
No, I don't, which is why I said that, and I stand by what I said in that respect.
quote:
Lending private support is one thing. I'm sure Spawn is now quite rightly doing just that for his father, rather than spend time sparring with people here.
Fine. But for his part, Dave W has not made anything approaching such a generous assumption. At all. quote:
Publishing a column in support of someone is quite another thing, and publishing a column complaining about others' lack of public support is still another.
With this I agree; I certainly can't see myself doing the same thing, as a family member, in print.
But the wisdom or otherwise of such a move is in turn a separate issue to the more serious question of whether the whole exercise is just the institution still protecting its own today - an allegation that publication of the report itself tends to discredit.
[ 07. July 2017, 07:32: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
I think the point here is that someone is in a fortunate position to have a journalistic platform and has used that to publicly say some things about a perceived lack of support for his own father, a senior cleric who was found to have failed with regard to how the church dealt with serious allegations.
It is true that Lord Carey is not the only person who has failed here, however he was the person in ultimate charge of the Church of England at the time and as such cannot shirk his responsibility. In a very real sense, if the Archbishop of Canterbury cannot be held to account for this kind of poor decision, then nobody can.
As to Andrew Carey, it seems correct to say that a phrase he used was taken out of context. However the correct context doesn't make the whole thing better. As far as I understand, he was apparently saying that his father had committed the "unforgiveable sin" which means that he is now ostracised from the church.
I think that's a very unfortunate phrase to have used, compounded by a misunderstanding by other media outlets as to the context. But even sweeping both of those things away and ignoring the actual words used, Spawn appears to be complaining about the lack of support that Lord Carey got, leading to criticism in the Ball investigation report and being asked to leave an honorary bishopric.
That's just not credible. What exactly should the church have done when faced with evidence that senior clerics failed in one of their most important roles?
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
What I don't get is 1. why Spawn thinks they should have called him up and asked him what he said in a published newspaper column; 2. how three different journalists writing for three different publications messed up in the same way writing articles about his column.
"Publish and be damned", indeed. I don't think everyone messed up the way the Times did, though.
Spawn said: quote:
I find myself in despair that journalists from The Times, Telegraph and Christian Today didn't just follow old fashioned conventions and pick up the phone to check the story. But that's another matter.
I don't think "publish and be damned" about this. I just think it's all kind of weird. Why would he expect them to call him up to "check the story" when the story is simply what his column said? They can just read it and see what he said. And The Times' mistake is clear, but what were the mistakes the other two publications made?
quote:
quote:
No, you don't know anything about the W family.
No, I don't, which is why I said that, and I stand by what I said in that respect.
You stand by what you said about not knowing anything about the family? Or about the disparaging things you said about it?
quote:
quote:
Lending private support is one thing. I'm sure Spawn is now quite rightly doing just that for his father, rather than spend time sparring with people here.
Fine. But for his part, Dave W has not made anything approaching such a generous assumption. At all.
You don't know what Dave is assuming; he hasn't expressed assumptions about the Carey family. You only know what he's arguing, and why should he argue about what Spawn is doing privately when that's not part of his point?
And if generosity is so important to you, why did you make such ungenerous assumptions about Dave's family?
quote:
quote:
Publishing a column in support of someone is quite another thing, and publishing a column complaining about others' lack of public support is still another.
With this I agree; I certainly can't see myself doing the same thing, as a family member, in print.
But the wisdom or otherwise of such a move is in turn a separate issue to the more serious question of whether the whole exercise is just the institution protecting its own - an allegation that publication of the report itself tends to discredit.
Protecting Lord Carey? From what? How has he suffered here? He has had to step down from an honorary position, and he has suffered damage to his reputation. That's all, and that's what happens when people learn years later that you did something really wrong. Andrew Carey says his father is being held "accountable" for "cultural attitudes and standards" that have changed -- but in fact he is not being held accountable in some unfair way. If people truly were retroactively applying the current standards to his previous behavior, Lord Carey would be suffering a lot more than the loss of an honorary position and damage to his reputation.
A report saying Lord Carey and others "colluded" with Peter Ball is a blot upon all off those people's records. They should simply accept that. Children were abused. Mr. Todd is dead, at his own hand. Lord Carey should retire quietly and give thanks that he can do so.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
You stand by what you said about not knowing anything about the family? Or about the disparaging things you said about it?
I didn't say anything disparaging about it. I stand by my statement that I find chilling the prospect of anyone thinking that it would be quote:
quite normal that should you do anything wrong, in no circumstances should your immediate friends and family offer you any sympathy or support whatsoever, and should any of them be so much as alleged to have done anything wrong you would treat them in just the same way.
That's how Dave W's position comes across to me and other people seem to feel the same way, because they've challenged him along similar lines. You don't come across that way, because you've acknowledged that there is at least a place for support in private.
quote:
You don't know what Dave is assuming; he hasn't expressed assumptions about the Carey family. You only know what he's arguing, and why should he argue about what Spawn is doing privately when that's not part of his point?
It's similar to the distinction between attacking the issue and the person. Dave W could have made the same distinction you did between private and public support earlier, when he answered Enoch's question, phrased in terms of "sticking up for a close family member" (not in terms of "writing an article") here, but chose not to. quote:
And if generosity is so important to you, why did you make such ungenerous assumptions about Dave's family?
I didn't assume anything about his family. I was formulating the impression his statements made on me. That is all. quote:
Protecting Lord Carey? From what?
I wasn't referring to protecting him, but to the broader charge (prior to the resurrection of this thread) that the Ball affair was a case of the CoE protecting its institution.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
BroJames
Shipmate
# 9636
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by Huia:
Can someone explain the idea behind giving a Police Caution please?
Does it mean that the police at that time were taking the abuse less seriously?
Is the defendant admitting some guilt in accepting a caution?
Thanks
Huia
Good questions.
The relevant part of the report is on page 54 onwards ('5.3 the decision to caution').
I'm not an expert, and not spending hours on this, but as I understand it (and am open to being corrected):
- at the time accepting a caution did not involve formally acknowledging guilt<snip>
No I think this is incorrect. An admission of guilt was required (and has always been AFAICT. What the CPS said in 2015 about it was quote:
Furthermore, in order for a caution to be given, a suspect must first make full and frank admissions to the alleged offence... such admissions were not made in the appropriate way.
I think some kind of admission was made, but not one that the CPS, on reviewing the process, felt was adequate. This would be consistent with some kind of story being pitched by Peter Ball to the Archbishop that he was not really guilty.
Posts: 3374 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:
What the CPS said in 2015 about it was quote:
Furthermore, in order for a caution to be given, a suspect must first make full and frank admissions to the alleged offence... such admissions were not made in the appropriate way.
I think some kind of admission was made, but not one that the CPS, on reviewing the process, felt was adequate.
Yes, you're right; I stand corrected on this point. It doesn't seem to be clear what kind of admission was made. quote:
This would be consistent with some kind of story being pitched by Peter Ball to the Archbishop that he was not really guilty.
Yes indeed; all the more so in that the report does immediately go on to say quote:
Ball had not unequivocally or formally
admitted guilt
which to my mind, and again with reference to a case (unrelated to sexual abuse) I investigated in far more detail, suggests some very expert wriggling on his part; wriggling which would be very hard for those around him to see through (including, apparently, the police at that time).
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
You're right - Carey shouldn't be held accountable for his son's weak, minimizing complaint. That's all on Spawn. But the publication of that column is part of the reason for the continued focus on Carey.
Do you really mean that? I can hardly think of any circumstance when one can legitimately criticise someone or condemn them for sticking up for a close family member in adversity, particularly not for one's parent or child. Certainly, if such a circumstance exists, this is not one of them.
Yes, I do mean that. I think it's perfectly reasonable to criticize a newspaper column that complains about insufficient "public expression of sadness or sympathy ... from the current crop of archbishops and bishops" and suggests Lord Carey is being too harshly treated for merely running afoul of changing "cultural attitudes and standards."
You are as entitled to your view as mine, but if you are saying what you seem to be saying, our fundamental takes on this are too far apart for us to be able to have any meaningful engagement. quote:
quote:
Whatever one thinks of his father's record in this case, good for Spawn for leaping to his support. Something has gone wrong with a society's moral compass if it is expecting people publicly to shun their kindred who go off the rails or make mistakes.
No one has expressed such an expectation, though, have they? And is the Careys' plight really the salient feature of this sordid affair that gives you cause for concern about society's moral compass?
Of course there is a sense in which society's moral compass is a tangent to this discussion. But if the view that it was wrong for Spawn to go public in defence of his father were to become the prevailing assumption in society, then I would say that something had gone awry with society's moral compass, yes. quote:
quote:
One can, for example, criticise others in this depressing saga for listening too much to Bishop Michael Ball's attempts to stick up for his brother, for giving those attempts too much credence. One can hardly criticise him for trying.
Can't one? I imagine the victims might see things differently.
I am not a victim of Bishop. Nor are you. We should therefore both be expected, and expect ourselves, to be objective. One thing this means is recognising that the feelings of the victims in this case of someone else, not Lord Carey and not Spawn, do not automatically trump everything else. Otherwise we put ourselves in the same position as the community groups of Kensington and Chelsea who are objecting to the retired judge selected to conduct the Grenfell Tower enquiry because he doesn't start from a position sufficiently biased in their favour.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
Yes, I do mean that. I think it's perfectly reasonable to criticize a newspaper column that complains about insufficient "public expression of sadness or sympathy ... from the current crop of archbishops and bishops" and suggests Lord Carey is being too harshly treated for merely running afoul of changing "cultural attitudes and standards."
That's not what was asked though.What was asked was whether or not it was reasonable for a family member to lend support to one of their own. Criticising a "newspaper column" is not the same as criticising the individual concerned, which you have done relentlessly here.
Nonsense. What was asked was "Do you really mean that?" I refer you to my statement above. You and Enoch seem to think my criticism of that column means I must condemn all expressions of familial sympathy and support. That is not a reasonable interpretation of my remarks.
quote:
Spawn has been in here and said he was misrepresented in the interview. If you don't believe that can happen, you've never been interviewed by a journalist.
Are you really following what's going here at all? There was no interview - he complained about a misprint in a quote of his column (a misprint which makes no difference to my criticism, BTW.) quote:
Besides, I have no idea of your family circumstances, but you would apparently see it as quite normal that should you do anything wrong, in no circumstances should your immediate friends and family offer you any sympathy or support whatsoever, and should any of them be so much as alleged to have done anything wrong you would treat them in just the same way. I'm no fan of cover-ups, but I find that prospect chilling.
Quite a statement from someone who warns others about overconfidence in their own powers of discernment! Again, a ludicrous assertion completely unjustified by the contents of my criticism of a newspaper column. quote:
quote:
quote:
Something has gone wrong with a society's moral compass if it is expecting people publicly to shun their kindred who go off the rails or make mistakes.
No one has expressed such an expectation, though, have they? And is the Careys' plight really the salient feature of this sordid affair that gives you cause for concern about society's moral compass?
You have steadfastly and persistently ignored people's acknowledgement of the primary source of concern (the abuse and the institution's poor response).
Do you really need my affirmation for acknowledging that? quote:
You have also consistently referred to George Carey's involvement and Andrew Carey's response with the liberal use of derogatory language.
Don't forget, I'm also too naive, too confident, blind, nasty and vindictive.
quote:
Failing any evidence to the contrary, your position appears to be that the Careys deserve everything that can be thrown at them, with no mitigation whatsoever.
I have criticized a newspaper column and quoted parts of an independent review. That is not a reasonable basis for this ridiculously overblown assertion.
quote:
(You have only barely acknowledged that you wrongly conflated father and son's missteps, and you haven't acknowledged at all the fact that more people than the former Archbishop have a share of responsibility in this).
As with the invective, I find I'm overmatched - it turns out I haven't been maintaining a list of things you have failed to do to my satisfaction, Eutychus. Should I start one now, or do you think it's too late?
Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
... Lending private support is one thing. I'm sure Spawn is now quite rightly doing just that for his father, rather than spend time sparring with people here. Publishing a column in support of someone is quite another thing, and publishing a column complaining about others' lack of public support is still another. ...
So it's all right if a son gives his father moral support of some sort, metaphorically holds his hand, in private, at home, where nobody can see either of them, then that's all right. But as soon as he speaks out for his father in the public forum, that becomes reprehensible.
I'm sorry. That doesn't wash. The criticism of Lord Carey is in the public forum. It is now a public matter. The son is entitled to go public in defence of his father. Even if you don't agree with what he's saying, at least give him the credit for having the moral courage to have spoken out for his father in public, and drawn upon himself the criticism you and others are now throwing at him.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Otherwise we put ourselves in the same position as the community groups of Kensington and Chelsea who are objecting to the retired judge selected to conduct the Grenfell Tower enquiry because he doesn't start from a position sufficiently biased in their favour.
No. It isn't about being biased in their favour it is about the fact that - as the judge himself acknowledges - the proposed inquiry will not investigate the wider causes of the tragedy and thus nobody will be held to account for their failings.
In the Ball situation, someone has been named as failing in an independent report and some here seem to be falling over themselves to wonder why that person shouldn't feel - even symbolically - something of the distaste that the institution feels about it.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
So it's all right if a son gives his father moral support of some sort, metaphorically holds his hand, in private, at home, where nobody can see either of them, then that's all right. But as soon as he speaks out for his father in the public forum, that becomes reprehensible.
I wouldn't call it reprehensible, but the simple fact is that most of us do not have a platform on which we can say these things.
quote:
I'm sorry. That doesn't wash. The criticism of Lord Carey is in the public forum. It is now a public matter. The son is entitled to go public in defence of his father. Even if you don't agree with what he's saying, at least give him the credit for having the moral courage to have spoken out for his father in public, and drawn upon himself the criticism you and others are now throwing at him.
I don't think anyone said he isn't entitled to write comment pieces in national newspapers. I think most here are saying it was an unwise thing to do.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Host
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I'm not an expert, and not spending hours on this, but as I understand it (and am open to being corrected):
- at the time accepting a caution did not involve formally acknowledging guilt
Strictly, a person cannot be cautioned for an offence unless they have admitted guilt.
It doesn't always happen that way in the real world. I was involved in a traffic accident in the mid 90s, and I received a notification that I'd been cautioned for careless driving in a letter from the police. I know for a fact that I hadn't said anything to admit guilt, since I hadn't even spoken to a police officer except to confirm my name and address before going to hospital to get my head checked. I would have been well within my rights to insist that they prosecute me instead. Of course, I did no such thing, because a caution meant that they aren't going to do anything about the allegation.
I would be slow to conclude from the fact that someone accepted a caution that they were genuinely confessing to guilt. An innocent person who does not consider that a caution will adversely affect their career might well think it wise to accept the offer to "admit you did it and we'll let you off", which is effectively what a caution is.
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
Don't forget, I'm also too naive, too confident, blind, nasty and vindictive.
Nonsense. I've certainly never said you were "too" anything. I've used some of those adjectives to describe how various different remarks of yours come across to me. You are not your remarks.
I think that relating how others' remarks come across is part of effective two-way communication. As is acknowledging points made by the other person when they are accepted as valid. I think that's how bridges are built and further mutual understanding arrived at.
That's clearly not what's happening here, so I'm done with this aspect of the discussion.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I'm not an expert, and not spending hours on this, but as I understand it (and am open to being corrected):
- at the time accepting a caution did not involve formally acknowledging guilt
Strictly, a person cannot be cautioned for an offence unless they have admitted guilt.
It doesn't always happen that way in the real world. I was involved in a traffic accident in the mid 90s, and I received a notification that I'd been cautioned for careless driving in a letter from the police. I know for a fact that I hadn't said anything to admit guilt, since I hadn't even spoken to a police officer except to confirm my name and address before going to hospital to get my head checked. I would have been well within my rights to insist that they prosecute me instead. Of course, I did no such thing, because a caution meant that they aren't going to do anything about the allegation.
I would be slow to conclude from the fact that someone accepted a caution that they were genuinely confessing to guilt. An innocent person who does not consider that a caution will adversely affect their career might well think it wise to accept the offer to "admit you did it and we'll let you off", which is effectively what a caution is.
My understanding of the matter - IANAL - that a caution is, as you say, theoretically supposed to hinge on an admission of guilt. I think that one of the reasons that a caution is treated more lightly than an actual conviction is partly because of the comparative lack of seriousness of the offence and partly because an opaque procedure taking place in a police station does not have the same stature as a trial in an open courtroom with a verdict delivered by either a magistrate or twelve good persons and true.
Given what we now know, of course, a caution was utterly laughable. It's the kind of thing that one gets for possession of small amounts of drugs, or rucks where no-one gets seriously hurt or incautious driving where no serious damage is done. A caution, effectively, says "you've been bad, you admit you've been bad, we'll save the cost of the court case and don't do it again". Not for the sort of thing that Peter Ball got up to.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
Don't forget, I'm also too naive, too confident, blind, nasty and vindictive.
Nonsense. I've certainly never said you were "too" anything. I've used some of those adjectives to describe how various different remarks of yours come across to me. You are not your remarks.
I think that relating how others' remarks come across is part of effective two-way communication. As is acknowledging points made by the other person when they are accepted as valid. I think that's how bridges are built and further mutual understanding arrived at.
That's clearly not what's happening here, so I'm done with this aspect of the discussion.
That comes across to me as a nifty way to get away with playing the man instead of the ball in Purgatory. Or to try, at any rate.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Given what we now know, of course, a caution was utterly laughable. It's the kind of thing that one gets for possession of small amounts of drugs, or rucks where no-one gets seriously hurt or incautious driving where no serious damage is done. A caution, effectively, says "you've been bad, you admit you've been bad, we'll save the cost of the court case and don't do it again". Not for the sort of thing that Peter Ball got up to.
I'd be interested to hear a lawyer's take on cautions but my impression is that they're used when the various authorities lack the resources or evidence or political will (or all three) to pursue something to a criminal trial. Maybe because they think it'd come down to "he said, he said".
Maybe that's part of the problem - given the status of the bishop and the Church of England, maybe it was decided behind closed doors that it was better for this thing to slip quietly away by having Ball admit to fairly minor offenses and take a caution.
Which is fairly obviously ridiculous, but I can see how those whose interest is the institution of the CofE (never mind those who might want to protect the institution of "The Establishment" as a whole in England) might prefer to admit some things to prevent other dirty washing being aired in public.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tubbs
Miss Congeniality
# 440
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
So it's all right if a son gives his father moral support of some sort, metaphorically holds his hand, in private, at home, where nobody can see either of them, then that's all right. But as soon as he speaks out for his father in the public forum, that becomes reprehensible.
I wouldn't call it reprehensible, but the simple fact is that most of us do not have a platform on which we can say these things.
quote:
I'm sorry. That doesn't wash. The criticism of Lord Carey is in the public forum. It is now a public matter. The son is entitled to go public in defence of his father. Even if you don't agree with what he's saying, at least give him the credit for having the moral courage to have spoken out for his father in public, and drawn upon himself the criticism you and others are now throwing at him.
I don't think anyone said he isn't entitled to write comment pieces in national newspapers. I think most here are saying it was an unwise thing to do.
Pretty much. One of the central points in the article – that you can’t expect something that happened back then to be dealt with in the way it would be now or hold people to current standards – was made in the report. There wasn’t any need for anyone to make it again, but I understand why Carey Jnr would wish too.
The other point, that people haven’t supported ++Carey in the way he’d hoped was definitely best left unsaid. Carey Jnr has been around enough to know a Church Times article on a subject like this is likely to be picked up in the mainstream media and won’t play well. No one in these circumstances gets to do the whole “poor me” thing.
Carey Snr (rightly) apologised. But he didn’t offer to resign. He had to be told. In the circumstances, I’d have thought that would be blooming obvious. If he had resigned instantly, it might have made it easier for others to offer him support publically as well.
Tubbs
--------------------
"It's better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than open it up and remove all doubt" - Dennis Thatcher. My blog. Decide for yourself which I am
Posts: 12701 | From: Someplace strange | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
Don't forget, I'm also too naive, too confident, blind, nasty and vindictive.
Nonsense. I've certainly never said you were "too" anything.
Really? You certainly said somebody here was too naive and too confident, and it was in a post responding to me, so ... quote:
I've used some
Blind, nasty, and vindictive all in one post. quote:
of those adjectives to describe how various different remarks of yours come across to me. You are not your remarks.
I think that relating how others' remarks come across is part of effective two-way communication.
Is that what you call it? Now I see my error! I was "using derogatory language", whereas you were simply "relating how others' remarks come across". Of course! quote:
I think that's how bridges are built and further mutual understanding arrived at.
That's clearly not what's happening here, so I'm done with this aspect of the discussion.
Well, it's been really fun hanging out with you on the 7 1/2 floor. I suppose now I'll have to look elsewhere for such wildly unjustified flights of fancy as this:
quote:
... you would apparently see it as quite normal that should you do anything wrong, in no circumstances should your immediate friends and family offer you any sympathy or support whatsoever, and should any of them be so much as alleged to have done anything wrong you would treat them in just the same way.
Ah well. All good things...
Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I'm not an expert, and not spending hours on this, but as I understand it (and am open to being corrected):
- at the time accepting a caution did not involve formally acknowledging guilt
Strictly, a person cannot be cautioned for an offence unless they have admitted guilt.
It doesn't always happen that way in the real world. I was involved in a traffic accident in the mid 90s, and I received a notification that I'd been cautioned for careless driving in a letter from the police. I know for a fact that I hadn't said anything to admit guilt, since I hadn't even spoken to a police officer except to confirm my name and address before going to hospital to get my head checked. I would have been well within my rights to insist that they prosecute me instead. Of course, I did no such thing, because a caution meant that they aren't going to do anything about the allegation.
I would be slow to conclude from the fact that someone accepted a caution that they were genuinely confessing to guilt. An innocent person who does not consider that a caution will adversely affect their career might well think it wise to accept the offer to "admit you did it and we'll let you off", which is effectively what a caution is.
My understanding of the matter - IANAL - that a caution is, as you say, theoretically supposed to hinge on an admission of guilt. I think that one of the reasons that a caution is treated more lightly than an actual conviction is partly because of the comparative lack of seriousness of the offence and partly because an opaque procedure taking place in a police station does not have the same stature as a trial in an open courtroom with a verdict delivered by either a magistrate or twelve good persons and true.
Given what we now know, of course, a caution was utterly laughable. It's the kind of thing that one gets for possession of small amounts of drugs, or rucks where no-one gets seriously hurt or incautious driving where no serious damage is done. A caution, effectively, says "you've been bad, you admit you've been bad, we'll save the cost of the court case and don't do it again". Not for the sort of thing that Peter Ball got up to.
But a caution creates a criminal record and, thus, the person is debarred from certain jobs, sometimes for life.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
But a caution creates a criminal record and, thus, the person is debarred from certain jobs, sometimes for life.
Like so many things in this case, this is not as clear as might be imagined.
The report says: quote:
In August 2004 a routine criminal records check was carried out by the Church and indicated that Ball had no criminal record, when the check was expected to show that he had been cautioned
(point 3.8.10) quote:
there was a clear Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) check in 2004 and his file also contains a CRB check dated 28/9/10 which states “None recorded” for convictions, cautions, reprimands and warnings. Gloucestershire Police have advised that cautions were not entered onto the Police National Computer until 1996 (Ball was cautioned in 1993). Consequently the caution did not automatically appear when CRB certificates were issued
(point 3.10.6).
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
A lot of the child protection legislation was enacted in the Children's Act 1989, but the requirement to check for paedophiles did not come in until the Protection of Children Act 1999. I have been working with children from 1989, and was trained in the Children's Act 1989, but did not need to use a CRB and later a DBS certificate until 2004 or 2005, I suspect as part of the requirements of either the Protection of Children Act 1999 or the Children's Act 2004, which was enacted following the Victoria Climbié enquiry.
The integration of police services to include all information from all counties was part of the recommendations following the Soham murders in 2002 and led to the Safeguarding Vulnerable Individuals Act 2006.
Timeline of child protection (The Guardian)
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Huia:
Can someone explain the idea behind giving a Police Caution please?
Does it mean that the police at that time were taking the abuse less seriously?
Is the defendant admitting some guilt in accepting a caution?
Thanks
Huia
Accepting a caution is always a matter of guilt – if you deny guilt, it’s tested in the courts.
In 2004 no caution showed up in his CRB check. Cautions weren’t entered on police computer until 1996
I have now read the whole report – Carey comes across far better than his critics suggest.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
One of the biggest criticisms levelled at the standard 'CRB' check was that it missed out on many things, yet penalised those who might have a minor youthful offence on their record - say for shoplifting or similar.
That is why things like reports to employers of bad behaviour are vitally important: even if Peter Ball had not been found guilty of a sexual offence in court, the letters of complaint or concern sent to bishops, etc, from the 1970s onwards should have been entered onto his central personnel record. While it may not have reflected proof of aberrant behaviour, it would have given an indication that concerns had been expressed and that PB should have been treated with greater circumspection when it came to either being given autonomy over part of a diocese or being appointed to his own see.
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tubbs
Miss Congeniality
# 440
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
One of the biggest criticisms levelled at the standard 'CRB' check was that it missed out on many things, yet penalised those who might have a minor youthful offence on their record - say for shoplifting or similar.
That is why things like reports to employers of bad behaviour are vitally important: even if Peter Ball had not been found guilty of a sexual offence in court, the letters of complaint or concern sent to bishops, etc, from the 1970s onwards should have been entered onto his central personnel record. While it may not have reflected proof of aberrant behaviour, it would have given an indication that concerns had been expressed and that PB should have been treated with greater circumspection when it came to either being given autonomy over part of a diocese or being appointed to his own see.
Not convinced. I doubt that few people would consider it good practice to keep that kind of material on someone’s personnel file back then. The current regime of child protection as we know it didn’t start until the late 1990’s. But even if they had, all it would have told them there had been some complaints. Someone would still have to judge whether those complaints were sufficiently concerning to justify some sort of action / investigation.
If you ask most clergy what their biggest fears in ministry are, most of them would mention safeguarding issues. The potential for getting it wrong, and the human cost of that, are so huge.
Tubbs
--------------------
"It's better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than open it up and remove all doubt" - Dennis Thatcher. My blog. Decide for yourself which I am
Posts: 12701 | From: Someplace strange | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
That is why things like reports to employers of bad behaviour are vitally important: even if Peter Ball had not been found guilty of a sexual offence in court, the letters of complaint or concern sent to bishops, etc, from the 1970s onwards should have been entered onto his central personnel record.
(a) But this could reflect badly on a blameless person if an individual, or a group of people, mounted a totally baseless campaign against them out of sheer spite or malevolence. These things do happen.
(b) To what extent does or should an individual have the right to see - and comment on - what is held on their file?
[ 11. July 2017, 13:28: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tubbs
Miss Congeniality
# 440
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
That is why things like reports to employers of bad behaviour are vitally important: even if Peter Ball had not been found guilty of a sexual offence in court, the letters of complaint or concern sent to bishops, etc, from the 1970s onwards should have been entered onto his central personnel record.
(a) But this could reflect badly on a blameless person if an individual, or a group of people, mounted a totally baseless campaign against them out of sheer spite or malevolence. These things do happen.
(b) To what extent does or should an individual have the right to see - and comment on - what is held on their file?
I had a paragraph in my original post that I deleted about this. Someone at a previous church was the victim of a stalker. The stalker distributed flyers alleging they’d been sexual assaulted and the person at my church who’d done it worked with children. The allegations were investigated; found to be totally untrue but the whole process took years and was totally horrible for the person being stalked.
Under current data protection laws, people have the right to see what’s on their files, but employers can with-hold information if it would make detecting a crime more difficult. (So these kinds of letters might not be shared). But the personal data needs to be adequate and relevant, accurate and up-to-date. Letters from years ago might be considered excessive, out-dated and a breach of the relevant legislation. So no, you couldn’t just bung that kind of stuff on someone’s file.
Tubbs
--------------------
"It's better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than open it up and remove all doubt" - Dennis Thatcher. My blog. Decide for yourself which I am
Posts: 12701 | From: Someplace strange | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
