homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools


Post new thread  Post a reply
My profile login | Register | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   » Community discussion   » Hell   » Bunch of bell ends (Page 4)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: Bunch of bell ends
Bishops Finger
Shipmate
# 5430

 - Posted      Profile for Bishops Finger   Email Bishops Finger   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Methinks the gentleman aka YMSCR doth protest too much...

Ian J.

--------------------
The future is another country - they might do things differently there...

Posts: 7424 | From: With The Glums At The Bus Stop | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
Zacchaeus
Shipmate
# 14454

 - Posted      Profile for Zacchaeus   Email Zacchaeus   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
The ringers have posted a response.

They really need to stop digging - they've just admitted that contrary to what was said before, they knew exactly why the band was disbanded.

"Due process" in that context is utter garbage, the Dean has a responsibility to take action, not to convene a pseudo-court where the bellringers try to tell her why her own policy shouldn't be applied.

which implies just how much they thought that they could argue against/disgregard what dean and chapter were saying all along
Posts: 1882 | From: the back of beyond | Registered: Jan 2009  |  IP: Logged
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768

 - Posted      Profile for Penny S     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
But they do say:

quote:
All of Chapter’s policies have been implemented in full, at all times. YMSCR take health and safety, security and safeguarding with the utmost seriousness. The Dean and Chapter have not been able to point to any evidence that suggests the contrary.

Posts: 5535 | Registered: May 2009  |  IP: Logged
Marvin the Martian

Interplanetary
# 4360

 - Posted      Profile for Marvin the Martian     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
The ringers have posted a response.

They really need to stop digging - they've just admitted that contrary to what was said before, they knew exactly why the band was disbanded.
Where? At no point did they say they already knew the reason, they just know it now.

quote:
"Due process" in that context is utter garbage, the Dean has a responsibility to take action, not to convene a pseudo-court where the bellringers try to tell her why her own policy shouldn't be applied.
In what context is that? As previously noted, there's no suggestion of criminal wrongdoing so where's the need for immediate unilateral action?

--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar

Posts: 29667 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Where? At no point did they say they already knew the reason, they just know it now.

from the statement:

quote:
Individuals within YMSCR have privately expressed concerns to the Dean and Chapter over whether due process was followed during their action regarding a member of the bell ringing community. As a direct result of doing so, the entire team had their volunteer agreements terminated.
quote:
In what context is that? As previously noted, there's no suggestion of criminal wrongdoing so where's the need for immediate unilateral action?
In the context that the bellringers could loudly complain to the Dean about "due process" relating to an incident that the Dean and Chapter is responsible for and expect a hearing on "due process"

As Lamb Chopped has ably explained above, there may have been "concerns" which had not gotten to the stage of being illegal. Who knows.

But that's totally irrelevant. The Dean and Chapter set the rules, it isn't a democracy, the bellringers don't get a special vote as to whether the rules apply to them and the Dean and Chapter can decide to take appropriate action without first consulting a group of volunteers.

--------------------
my new book: Biblical But Bollocks. Available in all good bookshops.

Posts: 8352 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528

 - Posted      Profile for Lamb Chopped   Email Lamb Chopped   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
It's entirely possible that the ringers-as-a-group became aware of this safeguarding problem thingy yesterday, just before it hit the news, there were a bunch of agitated phone calls and emails where they expressed various stuff to the authorities, and THAT is what they are referring to that looks like previous knowledge. Or else that they're writing carelessly, and the protests made at the time that the original person was sanctioned (which were quite possibly made in ignorance of the reason for said sanction) are being conflated with due process for safeguarding issues, as they now know. We can't be sure.

The only thing I can fault them on as a group in this letter is failure to realize that there might be one or more of their members who IS in fact acting obstructively, etc. who has not made that activity known to the rest of the group (who are being more reasonable). It happens.

And again, the Dean et al are not likely to say, "Yo, Joe Blow and Jane Doe have been giving us a hard time by doing x and y and z and we can't get them to behave in the reasonable way that would allow us all to carry on as normal, nor can we tell you about it, for fear of lawsuits" and so on.

Confidentiality really sucks some times, esp. when the alternative is likely to be lawsuits.

[ 17. October 2016, 20:35: Message edited by: Lamb Chopped ]

--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!

Posts: 19540 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
BroJames
Shipmate
# 9636

 - Posted      Profile for BroJames   Email BroJames   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
In our patch the safeguarding policy says
quote:
Every effort should be made to maintain confidentiality and guard against publicity while an allegation is being investigated or considered.
ISTM entirely possible that not all the ringers knew of the situation, though some clearly did.

It's easy to envisage a situation where York City Council is aware of an allegation against someone which is being investigated. They need to inform other places where a risk of the kind alleged may also arise. The Dean and Chapter as a result take advice from the relevant safeguarding authority and are told they have to exclude the person from ringing pending the outcome of the investigation, and they remove the person's key. They don't make the reason known, but some of the person's friends are aware. Subsequently the person is seen somewhere in the cathedral where they should not be. Which is a safeguarding issue and a H&S issue, No explanation is given or can be found for how this happened, and some of the bell ringers continue to challenge the Dean and Chapter's suspension of the person. As a result the Dean and Chapter feel that they have no alternative but to require the return of all the bell ringers keys and suspend ringing until new arrangements can be put in place. Because the allegation is still under investigation they feel unable to give the full reasons be for their actions.

[ 17. October 2016, 21:27: Message edited by: BroJames ]

Posts: 3156 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
Nightlamp
Shipmate
# 266

 - Posted      Profile for Nightlamp   Email Nightlamp   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Seems like there was rubbish communication going on. I think that the Bell ringers should have been suspended until such time as what ever investigation is completed and the safeguarding issue is resolved.

The suspension seems to be justified, but the ending of the community that was around the Bells tower does not. The Chapter seem to have over-reacted but in these circumstances it is better than under-reaction.

--------------------
I don't know what you are talking about so it couldn't have been that important- Nightlamp

Posts: 8437 | From: Midlands | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715

 - Posted      Profile for ExclamationMark   Email ExclamationMark   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Nightlamp:
Seems like there was rubbish communication going on. I think that the Bell ringers should have been suspended until such time as what ever investigation is completed and the safeguarding issue is resolved.

The suspension seems to be justified, but the ending of the community that was around the Bells tower does not. The Chapter seem to have over-reacted but in these circumstances it is better than under-reaction.

Safeguarding rewrites all the normal rules - the legal requirement is to all that is necessary and appropriate to immediately minimise risk, preferably eliminating it. To do the latter often requires what seems to be draconian action to close something down, enabling things to be kept "as is" pending further investigation. . Niceness doesn't come into it - the only issue is the safety of a vulnerable individual (it doesn't have to be a child).

It is entirely possible that the Minister acted as it did on Legal and/or Police advice and were specifically told not to flag it in any other way. Whether I agree with this is moot - it is often necessary in my experience and would mirror the approach adopted by schools in the UK - ie suspend and/or act first, without prejudice, address peripheral issues later.

It's now rather more interesting now to consider the knee jerk response of people like the Lord Mayor who probably wishes he'd kept his trap shut.

Posts: 3619 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715

 - Posted      Profile for ExclamationMark   Email ExclamationMark   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Perhaps, but I'd have expected to see the North Yorkshire Constabulary mentioned if the issue was a criminal one. Involving the city council could be for any number of policy-related reasons.

Well there might be a element of truth to that - but again, I still think it sounds that it is a rather more systematic and widespread issue if those outside bodies are involved.

quote:
That said, I imagine (without any evidence other than the articles posted here, so take with a pinch of the condiment of your choice) the real issue is that one of the ringers had a skeleton in his/her closet, the Minster wanted to get rid of him/her because of it, but the other ringers didn't want him/her to be got rid of.
Maybe. It is a rather strange combination of agencies involved, I'm struggling to think of a scenario where the local authority would be consulted about an issue at a church which wasn't criminal.

There's a lot of investigation going on at the moment (schools, denominations) into historical issues.

It might (just) be that the local authority has checked someone and a "past" has been revealed. If they know that person is involved in activities involving vulnerable people elsewhere, they should disclose it.

Posts: 3619 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715

 - Posted      Profile for ExclamationMark   Email ExclamationMark   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
A "safeguarding issue" doesn't necessarily mean any crime has been committed. It could be something as daft as them not always ensuring they have two or more adults in the car when ferrying the kids to and from band practice.

I don't think the local authority would be involved if the Child Safeguarding policy of York Minster stated that two adults had to be in a car but the bellringers refused to co-operate.
They would if a child disclosed this at school.
Posts: 3619 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged
BroJames
Shipmate
# 9636

 - Posted      Profile for BroJames   Email BroJames   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
This, from a local source is the is the fullest report I've seen of the Arcbishop of York's press conference yesterday. It does suggest there was a fair bit more going on behind the scenes than was made public, and that the economy of information was not simply an effort to protect the Minster or the Dean and Chapter.

Obviously the fact that a ringer is under investigation in relation to a vulnerable adult safeguarding issue will be uncomfortable for all the ringers, and it will make it more difficult to find some kind of normal even if the investigation concludes that there is nothing amiss.

Posts: 3156 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564

 - Posted      Profile for Leorning Cniht   Email Leorning Cniht   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:
This, from a local source is the is the fullest report I've seen of the Arcbishop of York's press conference yesterday. It does suggest there was a fair bit more going on behind the scenes than was made public, and that the economy of information was not simply an effort to protect the Minster or the Dean and Chapter.

I'm afraid I still think that last week's letter was a complete bodge.

Last week's letter opened with a discussion of the strategic plan to have a "fully trained, motivated and engaged community of staff and volunteers", about how the Chapter has been working on this plan since 2014, and that now it's bellringing's turn, and in order to begin the process of recruiting a new head ringer, ringing stops today.

And that's basically a lie.

All the facts are true, but the logical connection between them is not. And it caused the uproar, because telling people that we have a six-year strategic plan in progress, and guess what? Your number suddenly came up today! makes no sense at all. Did anyone notice the Minster being without flowers, Police, or tourist staff for six months while the Minster recruited new leadership for those operations? No, of course not.

The Archbishop wishes in his statement that people wouldn't assume it's because of incompetence and so on. What does he expect when people read that letter?

Don't include any of the bollocks about strategic plans, 2020, and the strong implication of "other teams have had this - now it's your turn". Just write something about how an ongoing review of Minster operations has revealed significant flaws in the security and safeguarding protocols under which the ringers operate, that the Minster cannot permit the situation to continue, and so regretfully all bellringing operations must be suspended until adequate systems can be put in place.

It would have done no harm to add a sentence about how the service the ringers provide is valued by the Chapter either.

Posts: 4259 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013  |  IP: Logged
Zacchaeus
Shipmate
# 14454

 - Posted      Profile for Zacchaeus   Email Zacchaeus   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
The ABY said in his statement how much he appreciated the bell ringers

He also said that nothing could be disclosed until they had the permission of the victim.
In situations like this you wold not necessarily publicise the reasons, as much as anything to protect the person being investigated, if everything was found to be groundless after all – that is why Cliff Richard is suing the police for his life being ‘tainted’. And would not have made so much public noise if the bellringer involved had kept out of the press. It was a statement designed to keep things as calm and quiet as possible but the bellringers themselves did exactly the opposite
Sagfegarding is an act now situation.

The bellringers statement itself shows that some knew exactly what was going on – they in fact say that:-

“Individuals within YMSCR have privately expressed concerns to the Dean and Chapter over whether due process was followed during their action regarding a member of the bell ringing community. As a direct result of doing so, the entire team had their volunteer agreements terminated.”
They say that it was because of their expressed concerns about the process, that the direct result was that termination happening. To express concerns some at least must have been aware what was going on.

It just says to me that the bellringers have been disingenuous all along and have been trying to force their own way, by the weight of public opinion, while the chapter had to be quiet for privacy reasons.

I think they have shown themselves up and shown exactly why they couldn’t be worked with as they were.

To create this amount of publicity and vilification of the authority of the minster, when at least some of them knew what was happening, shows how out of touch with safeguarding and procedures they must be. And so why this action was necessary.

Posts: 1882 | From: the back of beyond | Registered: Jan 2009  |  IP: Logged
Zacchaeus
Shipmate
# 14454

 - Posted      Profile for Zacchaeus   Email Zacchaeus   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
And I am afraid the bellingers have also shown up, how much they put their own desires above the good of the place they claim to love
Posts: 1882 | From: the back of beyond | Registered: Jan 2009  |  IP: Logged
Bishops Finger
Shipmate
# 5430

 - Posted      Profile for Bishops Finger   Email Bishops Finger   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
ISTM that at least some of the ringers, along with the press, and the Lord Mayor (exactly what use is a Lord Mayor, anyway?) should all be thoroughly ashamed of themselves.

Can we expect a public apology to the Archbishop, Dean, and Chapter? Somehow, I doubt it.

Ian J.

--------------------
The future is another country - they might do things differently there...

Posts: 7424 | From: With The Glums At The Bus Stop | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713

 - Posted      Profile for Sioni Sais   Email Sioni Sais   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
ISTM that at least some of the ringers, along with the press, and the Lord Mayor (exactly what use is a Lord Mayor, anyway?) should all be thoroughly ashamed of themselves.

Can we expect a public apology to the Archbishop, Dean, and Chapter? Somehow, I doubt it.

Ian J.

No one has come out of this with any credit. A joint statement might clear the air. Double helpings of humble pie would be needed.

--------------------
If someone takes a shot at President Trump will his bodyguards shout "Donald Duck"?

Posts: 23627 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38

 - Posted      Profile for Honest Ron Bacardi   Email Honest Ron Bacardi   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:
This, from a local source is the is the fullest report I've seen of the Arcbishop of York's press conference yesterday. It does suggest there was a fair bit more going on behind the scenes than was made public, and that the economy of information was not simply an effort to protect the Minster or the Dean and Chapter.

Obviously the fact that a ringer is under investigation in relation to a vulnerable adult safeguarding issue will be uncomfortable for all the ringers, and it will make it more difficult to find some kind of normal even if the investigation concludes that there is nothing amiss.

The fact that the case involves the safeguarding of a vulnerable adult does explain the involvement of the various parties. The Care Act 2014 obliges the local council to take the lead role in managing any case involving vulnerable adults - as the minster has been fronting the public side of things, I assume this indicates that City of York Council is content with the way things have been handled from the perspective of safeguarding.

Five or six years ago, I was involved in a vulnerable adult safeguarding case*. This was before the current act, but the prevoius requirements were similar. In fact, I was the one who reported it initially to the local adult safeguarding officer. The action taken was immediate - both I and the vulnerable adult were interviewed at length by the police, and no doubt others were too, unknown to me. The victim was interviewed in a safe house. It was agreed that my proposals for sorting it out were appropriate (as I was in a position to intervene), which is what I did, and matters were resolved, albeit with quite a lot of grief en route. But my point is that on hearing of the incident, the local council immediately assumed a central involvement.

(* - nothing to do with any church)

--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic

Posts: 4711 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
latecomer
Apprentice
# 8966

 - Posted      Profile for latecomer         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
This sort of announcement/standoff/clarification cycle seems to happen fairly regularly in the CofE (and other large organisations). Wouldn't you hope that somewhere behind the scenes a communications/PR person was saying "let's work out NOW our strategy for the next time something like this needs to be announced".

Oh ... sorry ... there goes another flying pig

--------------------
Keep it simple - I can do simple

Posts: 27 | From: Somerset | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
Zacchaeus
Shipmate
# 14454

 - Posted      Profile for Zacchaeus   Email Zacchaeus   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by latecomer:
This sort of announcement/standoff/clarification cycle seems to happen fairly regularly in the CofE (and other large organisations). Wouldn't you hope that somewhere behind the scenes a communications/PR person was saying "let's work out NOW our strategy for the next time something like this needs to be announced".

Oh ... sorry ... there goes another flying pig

The public relations nightmare happens in cases with the local authorities too.

The basic reason is the authorities are bound by privacy rules etc. that other people and groups aren't. It means that individuals and groups such as bell ringers can say what they like in public and the authorities can't answer back. In this case the minster had to get the permission of the potential victim before being allowed to say anything about what it was really about.

There would have been none of this fuss if the bell ringers hadn’t kicked up stink about it

Posts: 1882 | From: the back of beyond | Registered: Jan 2009  |  IP: Logged
anne
Shipmate
# 73

 - Posted      Profile for anne   Email anne   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Zacchaeus:
quote:
Originally posted by latecomer:
This sort of announcement/standoff/clarification cycle seems to happen fairly regularly in the CofE (and other large organisations). Wouldn't you hope that somewhere behind the scenes a communications/PR person was saying "let's work out NOW our strategy for the next time something like this needs to be announced".

Oh ... sorry ... there goes another flying pig

The public relations nightmare happens in cases with the local authorities too.

The basic reason is the authorities are bound by privacy rules etc. that other people and groups aren't. It means that individuals and groups such as bell ringers can say what they like in public and the authorities can't answer back. In this case the minster had to get the permission of the potential victim before being allowed to say anything about what it was really about.

There would have been none of this fuss if the bell ringers hadn’t kicked up stink about it

There would have been none of this fuss if the bell ringers at least some of whom knew about the problem and why the decision had been taken hadn’t kicked up stink about it.

--------------------
‘I would have given the Church my head, my hand, my heart. She would not have them. She did not know what to do with them. She told me to go back and do crochet' Florence Nightingale

Posts: 336 | From: Devon | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Another article in today's Guardian.

--------------------
my new book: Biblical But Bollocks. Available in all good bookshops.

Posts: 8352 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Teekeey Misha
Shipmate
# 18604

 - Posted      Profile for Teekeey Misha     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Another article in today's Guardian.

And it is an article that, perhaps, puts a rather different slant on the story as far as the ringers' "not knowing" theory goes.

quote:
Other members of the bellringing team rallied round their former captain. Some say there followed an attempt to frustrate the church’s safeguarding efforts, particularly by members of Potter’s extended family, who form the core of the team of bellringers.

As ranks closed, the minster authorities were forced to act to regain control of the bell tower. It was in the hands of a “fiefdom”, said one church insider.



--------------------
Misha
Don't assume I don't care; sometimes I just can't be bothered to put you right.

Posts: 286 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2016  |  IP: Logged
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Yes, you are right.

I think we'd do well to follow your lead and not name names here, even though they are in the guardian article.

--------------------
my new book: Biblical But Bollocks. Available in all good bookshops.

Posts: 8352 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Marvin the Martian

Interplanetary
# 4360

 - Posted      Profile for Marvin the Martian     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Another article in today's Guardian.

Well, that just makes me even more sure that the bellringers are in the right. When I mentioned skeletons in closets earlier in this thread I was thinking of proven wrongdoing, not baseless accusations.

Innocent until proven guilty is still a foundational tenet of law in this country. And innocent people should not be punished or otherwise treated as if they are guilty. Especially by the Church.

--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar

Posts: 29667 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564

 - Posted      Profile for Leorning Cniht   Email Leorning Cniht   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

Innocent until proven guilty is still a foundational tenet of law in this country. And innocent people should not be punished or otherwise treated as if they are guilty. Especially by the Church.

Consider Lamb Chopped's story upthread about the guy who was making inappropriate friendship suggestions towards teens.

He wasn't committing a crime. Suggesting to your teenage friend that you should go camping together isn't criminal, and may be completely innocent. But that doesn't mean that you can allow the behaviour - partly because it might be a problem, and partly because it might open the adult up to false accusations.

As the Archbishop said in his statement, safeguarding rules protect everyone.

I'm certainly not about to rush in and judge the rights and wrongs of a safeguarding decision based on incomplete information.

Posts: 4259 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013  |  IP: Logged
Boogie

Boogie on down!
# 13538

 - Posted      Profile for Boogie     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Absolutely, put all the safeguarding measures in place. Sack the one or two who refuse to comply if you think it's appropriate to do so.

Sack the whole team and silence the bells? Why?

--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk

Posts: 12177 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
On this is seems the church can't win: either they await evidence and sufficient proof for the case to go to trial - which, as we know, is hard to get - or they're accused of jumping the gun and not following "due process".

I suspect a very large percentage of those child abuse cases we've all heard about which were buried by churches of various denominations were because of a lack of evidence beyond he-said-she-said. And as a result offenders were moved around parishes to offend again.

Once again, volunteering is not employment and the church does not need sufficient evidence to convict in a criminal court. Enough evidence for something to be a worry is enough for them to take action, as they've been reminded time and time again.

--------------------
my new book: Biblical But Bollocks. Available in all good bookshops.

Posts: 8352 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757

 - Posted      Profile for Ricardus   Author's homepage   Email Ricardus   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Absolutely, put all the safeguarding measures in place. Sack the one or two who refuse to comply if you think it's appropriate to do so.

Sack the whole team and silence the bells? Why?

It may be a question of trust. Generally speaking, it's the tower captain, or whoever the captain puts in charge, who decides whether an individual is allowed to ring a bell or not. The PCC has no involvement because generally the PCC cannot assess anyone's bell handling ability. But if the PCC can no longer trust the captain, then it's not clear they can allow the captain to make that decision.

--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)

Posts: 6891 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
Callan
Shipmate
# 525

 - Posted      Profile for Callan     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Innocent until proven guilty is still a foundational tenet of law in this country. And innocent people should not be punished or otherwise treated as if they are guilty. Especially by the Church.
That has never been what "innocent until proven guilty" means. If there is serious grounds to suspect someone of a crime they quite often have to accept restrictions on their liberty until the matter is resolved. A teacher, or other professional may be suspended in post, a suspected criminal may be remanded in custody. It's not much fun for them if they do turn out to be innocent but it might not be much fun for someone else if they are not and are left unsupervised to get on with it whilst they still can.

--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton

Posts: 9585 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Teekeey Misha
Shipmate
# 18604

 - Posted      Profile for Teekeey Misha     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Well, that just makes me even more sure that the bellringers are in the right. When I mentioned skeletons in closets earlier in this thread I was thinking of proven wrongdoing, not baseless accusations.

Innocent until proven guilty is still a foundational tenet of law in this country. And innocent people should not be punished or otherwise treated as if they are guilty. Especially by the Church.

The article states that "other safeguarding measures were put in place by other authorities." We do not know and so cannot say what those measures were or by whom they were put in place, or with what cause. Proven innocent or guilty (in regard to safeguarding) is, alas, not an issue under the tenets of the law in this country any more. We can, though, be sure that "other safeguarding measures" are not just "put in place by other authorities" solely on the grounds of "baseless accusations" - they are often put in place on the grounds of "well-founded but unproven accusations".

In terms of safeguarding, experience has taught the church (and/or any other body that might be involved) that "no charges were brought" does not mean "not guilty" (especially if accusations have been made more than once, as the article suggests), whatever idealistic thoughts of "innocent until proven guilty" we may harbour.

In this case, though, that's all largely irrelevant; if the bellringers have, as the article suggests, attempted "to frustrate the church’s safeguarding efforts", then they are not "in the right"; whether the person in question has been accused, charged, tried, found guilty, sentenced and flogged or not, the ringers are very much "in the wrong."

If the ringers were concerned about the way a particular ringer was being treated with regards to safeguarding, their duty was to challenge the D&C's reaction to that particular ringer's case, but absolutely not to attempt to frustrate the whole system under which that reaction was formulated.

The D&C has handled this (it seems to me) very badly, but at least it has handled it. In terms of safeguarding, that is (for better or worse) the priority whether in the church or any other organisation.

[I'm concerned by the suggestion that the "core" of the ringing company is the "extended family" of the man in question. That seems to me to suggest that the company is indeed the sort of clique-y private club I don't like to see. In any church, clique-y private clubs are a bad thing but if they are going to exist then, in a church run by a Dean and Chapter, there's only room for one clique-y private club - and that's the Dean and Chapter!]

--------------------
Misha
Don't assume I don't care; sometimes I just can't be bothered to put you right.

Posts: 286 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2016  |  IP: Logged
Marvin the Martian

Interplanetary
# 4360

 - Posted      Profile for Marvin the Martian     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
That has never been what "innocent until proven guilty" means. If there is serious grounds to suspect someone of a crime they quite often have to accept restrictions on their liberty until the matter is resolved.

According to the article, both issues were resolved without any charge being made.

--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar

Posts: 29667 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Zacchaeus
Shipmate
# 14454

 - Posted      Profile for Zacchaeus   Email Zacchaeus   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Another article in today's Guardian.

Well, that just makes me even more sure that the bellringers are in the right. When I mentioned skeletons in closets earlier in this thread I was thinking of proven wrongdoing, not baseless accusations.

Innocent until proven guilty is still a foundational tenet of law in this country. And innocent people should not be punished or otherwise treated as if they are guilty. Especially by the Church.

Sorry in any safeguarding situation the first thing to be done is to remove the person who has had an allegation made against them, no matter what.
In a school for instance s/he will be suspended straight away until after any investigation is over. You do not wait until the outcome of any investigation and that is what they dean and chapter will have been advised by any of the safeguarding professionals involved.

Posts: 1882 | From: the back of beyond | Registered: Jan 2009  |  IP: Logged
Marvin the Martian

Interplanetary
# 4360

 - Posted      Profile for Marvin the Martian     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Teekeey Misha:
We can, though, be sure that "other safeguarding measures" are not just "put in place by other authorities" solely on the grounds of "baseless accusations"

Can we? I wish I shared your optimistic view of the situation.

quote:
they are often put in place on the grounds of "well-founded but unproven accusations".

In terms of safeguarding, experience has taught the church (and/or any other body that might be involved) that "no charges were brought" does not mean "not guilty" (especially if accusations have been made more than once, as the article suggests), whatever idealistic thoughts of "innocent until proven guilty" we may harbour.

How can you believe that and not live in abject fear of one day having a false accusation made against you, given that even if the police throw it out as soon as they look at it (or even if you successfully defend yourself against it in court) there will be all sorts of people who just know that "not guilty" doesn't really mean "not guilty". As a result you're no longer allowed to do any job or volunteering role that even tangentially involves children (so that's everything at church out for a start), and you get to live like a pariah for the rest of your days, safe in the knowledge that your name will forever be on every nasty little list going. But hey, it's all for the greater good, right?

--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar

Posts: 29667 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Marvin the Martian

Interplanetary
# 4360

 - Posted      Profile for Marvin the Martian     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Zacchaeus:
until after any investigation is over.

I refer you to my post immediately above yours.

--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar

Posts: 29667 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128

 - Posted      Profile for Baptist Trainfan   Email Baptist Trainfan   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
On this is seems the church can't win: either they await evidence and sufficient proof for the case to go to trial - which, as we know, is hard to get - or they're accused of jumping the gun and not following "due process".

---

Once again, volunteering is not employment and the church does not need sufficient evidence to convict in a criminal court. Enough evidence for something to be a worry is enough for them to take action, as they've been reminded time and time again.

You are exactly right. But the whole process saps at trust and implies guilt even when there is none.
Posts: 8505 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009  |  IP: Logged
BroJames
Shipmate
# 9636

 - Posted      Profile for BroJames   Email BroJames   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Charges are brought only if there is a reasonable likelihood of being able to prove them beyond reasonable doubt and a prosecution is 'in the public interest'. So even when, on the balance of probabilities someone has committed an offence charges will not be brought.

However, if on the balance of probabilities someone has done something to harm a child or vulnerable adult, an organisation is expected to take steps to prevent them doing so. This may include excluding them from places or activities.

This is particularly germane where a child or vulnerable adult is involved who may be unable to testify in a court of law.

[ 19. October 2016, 16:59: Message edited by: BroJames ]

Posts: 3156 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
Curiosity killed ...

Ship's Mug
# 11770

 - Posted      Profile for Curiosity killed ...   Email Curiosity killed ...   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
My meeting tomorrow morning is the next in a series dealing with a safeguarding disclosure that was as bad as they get followed by a withdrawal of the allegations. I was the lucky person who took the disclosure and had to follow protocol and report it on, withdrawal or not. That disclosure has opened a huge can of worms revealing a history of concerns going back years.

Following a joint police and social care investigation there is no proof, which in this case would be additional disclosures, but the Child Protection Conference - all the professionals concerned - was unanimous in voting for child protection plans because the concerns were so great.

See any parallels with the situation above?

A Safeguarding plan (or child protection plan) puts a series of actions in place to safeguard everyone while things are further investigated and monitored. And if those actions are not followed additional actions may be taken.

--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat

Posts: 13130 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged
Teekeey Misha
Shipmate
# 18604

 - Posted      Profile for Teekeey Misha     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
How can you believe that and not live in abject fear of one day having a false accusation made against you, given that even if the police throw it out as soon as they look at it (or even if you successfully defend yourself against it in court) there will be all sorts of people who just know that "not guilty" doesn't really mean "not guilty".

Yup. Sucks, doesn't it? Welcome to the world in which lots of people live.

--------------------
Misha
Don't assume I don't care; sometimes I just can't be bothered to put you right.

Posts: 286 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2016  |  IP: Logged
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528

 - Posted      Profile for Lamb Chopped   Email Lamb Chopped   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
It sucks horribly to be the one accused. But the one thing you CAN'T do, if you are innocent and wish to remain in the right, is to circumvent the safeguards and restrictions put in place, however unreasonable they may seem. That just destroys your whole case right there, and everyone in doubt will feel justified.

Helping X circumvent the restrictions was about the worst thing the others could do, and I don't see anything the authorities could do in response but to remove everybody. And I suspect that getting back into a position will require a clear commitment to follow rules in the future, regardless of whether one regards them as unnecessary or not.

I am really unhappy they decided to publish X's name. I've been on the receiving end of false accusations, and the stink still lingers more than 10 years later.

--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!

Posts: 19540 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
How can you believe that and not live in abject fear of one day having a false accusation made against you, given that even if the police throw it out as soon as they look at it (or even if you successfully defend yourself against it in court) there will be all sorts of people who just know that "not guilty" doesn't really mean "not guilty". As a result you're no longer allowed to do any job or volunteering role that even tangentially involves children (so that's everything at church out for a start), and you get to live like a pariah for the rest of your days, safe in the knowledge that your name will forever be on every nasty little list going. But hey, it's all for the greater good, right?

Because the alternative is letting abusers get a pass - and continue with what they're doing - because there isn't enough evidence for a conviction.

In the case of "innocent" activities which only had the potential to be abusive and which were misconstrued, then it is hard cheese.

In the case of actual false allegations, that is a slightly different thing.

It seems to me that in the context of a church group, the difference way well be if someone was getting rather too "friendly" with youngsters and wasn't taking the hint to back off. And comparing that to a false claim that someone who had actually instigated an abusive relationship.

The former might just have been clumsy behaviour mixed in with bone-headed refusal to listen to the advice of others. It might have never led to the abuse everyone is afraid of happening on their watch.

Who knows. But do we really want to let things get to the serious category before taking action?

[ 19. October 2016, 17:29: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]

--------------------
my new book: Biblical But Bollocks. Available in all good bookshops.

Posts: 8352 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Zacchaeus
Shipmate
# 14454

 - Posted      Profile for Zacchaeus   Email Zacchaeus   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Zacchaeus:
until after any investigation is over.

I refer you to my post immediately above yours.
I didn't say police investigation.
Posts: 1882 | From: the back of beyond | Registered: Jan 2009  |  IP: Logged
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:


I am really unhappy they decided to publish X's name. I've been on the receiving end of false accusations, and the stink still lingers more than 10 years later.

Yes, I'm not sure why that's been done. Even publishing that there had been an allegation against a named individual seems to me to be skirting rather close to the legal knuckle.

--------------------
my new book: Biblical But Bollocks. Available in all good bookshops.

Posts: 8352 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Paul.
Shipmate
# 37

 - Posted      Profile for Paul.   Author's homepage   Email Paul.   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
I am really unhappy they decided to publish X's name.

"They" being the Guardian rather than the Minster. FWIW.

--------------------
"Being an adult is learning to live with regret",
- Elizabeth Craft's friend Karin, as quoted by Andrea Silenzi on the Why Oh Why podcast.

Posts: 3628 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Paul.:
"They" being the Guardian rather than the Minster. FWIW.

According to the Guardian, both parties named the individual.

--------------------
my new book: Biblical But Bollocks. Available in all good bookshops.

Posts: 8352 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
BroJames
Shipmate
# 9636

 - Posted      Profile for BroJames   Email BroJames   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
I am really unhappy they decided to publish X's name. I've been on the receiving end of false accusations, and the stink still lingers more than 10 years later.

I agree. Judging by the account in The Guardian story, there was already information in previous stories in the public domain which pointed to X. All the journalists from The Times, which published X's name, needed to do was a little basic investigation, probably initially with the belp of Mr. Google PI, and after that by making some enquiries by phone or in person. I haven't looked, but wonder if X is still in the paid employment he was in when previous allegations were made. There would be safeguarding questions there as well.
Posts: 3156 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
Zacchaeus
Shipmate
# 14454

 - Posted      Profile for Zacchaeus   Email Zacchaeus   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:


I am really unhappy they decided to publish X's name. I've been on the receiving end of false accusations, and the stink still lingers more than 10 years later.

Yes, I'm not sure why that's been done. Even publishing that there had been an allegation against a named individual seems to me to be skirting rather close to the legal knuckle.
Rightly or wrongly, they can probably name him because there is no current criminal investigation. So they are not doing anything illegal, though maybe immoral
But very sadly if the bell ringers hadn't forced the issue with the publicity, by which they were trying to force the Minster’s hand, then it would have stayed quiet and the press would not have dug the name out

Posts: 1882 | From: the back of beyond | Registered: Jan 2009  |  IP: Logged
BroJames
Shipmate
# 9636

 - Posted      Profile for BroJames   Email BroJames   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Paul.:
"They" being the Guardian rather than the Minster. FWIW.

According to the Guardian, both parties named the individual.
Actually The Guardian's rather carefully worded, "But accounts from both sides suggest that the dispute centres on…" suggests to me that no one involved was willing directly to name X. According to York's The Press, the person was first named in print by The Times (which is behind a paywall so I can't see where their information might but have come from).

[ 19. October 2016, 17:54: Message edited by: BroJames ]

Posts: 3156 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Zacchaeus:
Rightly or wrongly, they can probably name him because there is no current criminal investigation. So they are not doing anything illegal, though maybe immoral
But very sadly if the bell ringers hadn't forced the issue with the publicity, by which they were trying to force the Minster’s hand, then it would have stayed quiet and the press would not have dug the name out

Well defamation isn't a criminal issue.

In a hypothetical situation whereby someone was rather annoyed that a newspaper had published their name in connection with an incident, it would be down to the publisher to prove it was true - or that there was public interest in printing it in a defamation case.

I'm not a lawyer, I've no idea what would happen in a situation like this. For me it just feels better not to use his name.

--------------------
my new book: Biblical But Bollocks. Available in all good bookshops.

Posts: 8352 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Marvin the Martian

Interplanetary
# 4360

 - Posted      Profile for Marvin the Martian     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Teekeey Misha:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
How can you believe that and not live in abject fear of one day having a false accusation made against you, given that even if the police throw it out as soon as they look at it (or even if you successfully defend yourself against it in court) there will be all sorts of people who just know that "not guilty" doesn't really mean "not guilty".

Yup. Sucks, doesn't it? Welcome to the world in which lots of people live.
And you're all OK with that? With knowing that your reputation, hobbies and livelihood can all be taken away by one kid with a grudge against you?

--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar

Posts: 29667 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7 
 
Post new thread  Post a reply Close thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
Check out Reform magazine
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
  ship of fools