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 7)

 - 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
BroJames
Shipmate
# 9636

 - Posted      Profile for BroJames   Email BroJames   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
in this case the DPP, found that there was no case to answer.

No, that's not what a decision not to prosecute means or implies. While a decision not to prosecute can mean no case to answer, it quite often means insufficient evidence for there to be a reasonable probability of obtaining a conviction (i.e. proving beyond reasonable doubt). This can be because the evidence is lacking or because the source of the evidence may not be able to stand up in court - e.g. the witness is a child or vulnerable person, or because of a judgement about the harm that may be done to them by requiring them to give evidence.
Posts: 3245 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748

 - Posted      Profile for Doc Tor     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
And of course, we'd all entrust our beloved children to someone who'd been repeatedly under investigation for inappropriate behaviour with minors, and who had to agree to modify such behaviour.

Sorry, but you can fuck right off with that. And as for the "they would say that" comment? You can fuck right off with that too. I have absolutely no doubt that the Chapter's statement has been through the hands of several senior lawyers and checked for libel, because if it's not true, they'll get their arses sued off them.

--------------------
Forward the New Republic

Posts: 8839 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 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 Lyda*Rose:
Does anyone have an idea of what "The judge decided that no sanction would be imposed and the person concerned made certain undertakings" means?

I could guess. The first part is easy - the judge declined to impose the sexual risk order that the police were seeking. The second part? The man in question had previously taught in a primary school. He had been accused of offences against young girls. Perhaps he undertook not to seek a position (either paid or voluntary) where he would be responsible for children? Not to teach bellringing to kiddies? It's probably some sort of "I won't put myself in a position where another accusation could arise" promise.

I should say, by the way, that I was (and remain) rather critical of the letter full of nonsense that was given to the ringers (and was subsequently publicized.) This statement, by contrast, is almost a model of clarity, and sets out clearly (but without unnecessary detail) what the Minster's problem was and why it took the action it did.

Posts: 4839 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013  |  IP: Logged
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815

 - Posted      Profile for Gee D     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
So due judicial process is just so much bunk? If you are accused, you should be treated as if you are guilty? Call me old fashioned, but I'm rather attached to the idea of innocent unless proven guilty.

Of course, there are actions that could have been taken which might have resolved the situation in a win-win fashion, but that would have meant discussion between the ringers and the D&C, a course which they declined to take.

Ten years ago, even five, I would have wholeheartedly agreed with you, but the evidence coming out in the Royal Commission shows the need for a different approach with allegations like these. The first step is to leave any prosecution entirely for the police/DPP. The DPP will have standard guidelines on when to prosecute and when not. Those almost certainly in the UK, as they do here, are not simply a matter of looking at the evidence. They will involve the matters others have referred to.

The next is to decide whether as a matter of good governance of the school/cathedral/what you will there is an unacceptable risk if no action is taken. The D & C would have looked at the allegation, then at the response of the person whose conduct is being considered. In the old days, the benefit of any doubt would have been given to that person. These days, and enshrined here in legislation, there is a reverse onus. That may seem harsh to you as it used to me; reading the evidence at the Royal Commission*, and of decisions involving the giving of a working with children certificate, have led me to the opposite conclusion.

*I have not read all of the transcript, but certainly have read a fair amount for professional as well as personal reasons. I've also read quite a bit of the newspaper reporting.

--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican

Posts: 6713 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008  |  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 
There are different levels of proof for social care and the police in these situations. The police have to have proof positive to prosecute and charge someone. Social care can act and ask for undertakings where there is reasonable suspicion that there are concerns. In safeguarding situations both bodies will be involved.

I am currently involved in a safeguarding situation where the police have dropped the investigation due to lack of proof leading to a prosecution, but social care are still hugely involved and are insisting on safeguarding actions being put in place around the individual concerned.

If you have social care concerns on your record you cannot get a clean DBS certificate to work with young people (or older vulnerable people).

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

Posts: 13542 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296

 - Posted      Profile for Jolly Jape   Email Jolly Jape   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Whilst I can see that there might be a case for certain restrictions on activities in certain cases, for example, the stipulation that a person must have another adult present when interacting with children or young people, it is difficult to see how this might be relevant in the case of ringing, which is, as far as I know, an activity which is, by its very nature, highly communal. It's not as if the guy wanted to teach young people's groups.

I'm sorry, but there is, in my view, no justification for abandoning presumption of innocence. It would be just too dangerous to do so.
What if you were the person falsely or mistakenly accused. After all, we all know there's no smoke without fire.

--------------------
To those who have never seen the flow and ebb of God's grace in their lives, it means nothing. To those who have seen it, even fleetingly, even only once - it is life itself. (Adeodatus)

Posts: 3011 | From: A village of gardens | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748

 - Posted      Profile for Doc Tor     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Thank you for proving you have no understanding how grooming works. I and everyone else here can simply ignore anything you say on the subject from now on.

--------------------
Forward the New Republic

Posts: 8839 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 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 Jolly Jape:
Whilst I can see that there might be a case for certain restrictions on activities in certain cases, for example, the stipulation that a person must have another adult present when interacting with children or young people, it is difficult to see how this might be relevant in the case of ringing, which is, as far as I know, an activity which is, by its very nature, highly communal. It's not as if the guy wanted to teach young people's groups.

I'm sorry, but there is, in my view, no justification for abandoning presumption of innocence. It would be just too dangerous to do so.
What if you were the person falsely or mistakenly accused. After all, we all know there's no smoke without fire.

Do you know for certian that he does not teaching of ringing?
Posts: 1886 | From: the back of beyond | Registered: Jan 2009  |  IP: Logged
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296

 - Posted      Profile for Jolly Jape   Email Jolly Jape   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I'm open to being corrected but I wouldn't have thought that it was possible to teach ringing one-on-one. The whole point is that ringing is a team activity.

--------------------
To those who have never seen the flow and ebb of God's grace in their lives, it means nothing. To those who have seen it, even fleetingly, even only once - it is life itself. (Adeodatus)

Posts: 3011 | From: A village of gardens | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296

 - Posted      Profile for Jolly Jape   Email Jolly Jape   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Thank you for proving you have no understanding how grooming works. I and everyone else here can simply ignore anything you say on the subject from now on.

You're welcome. Thank you for proving you have no understanding of what it is like to be falsely accused.

--------------------
To those who have never seen the flow and ebb of God's grace in their lives, it means nothing. To those who have seen it, even fleetingly, even only once - it is life itself. (Adeodatus)

Posts: 3011 | From: A village of gardens | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
passer

Indigo
# 13329

 - Posted      Profile for passer   Email passer   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
I'm open to being corrected but I wouldn't have thought that it was possible to teach ringing one-on-one. The whole point is that ringing is a team activity.

Please refer to Doc Tor's earlier comment.
Posts: 1271 | From: Sheffield | Registered: Jan 2008  |  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 Jolly Jape:
Whilst I can see that there might be a case for certain restrictions on activities in certain cases, for example, the stipulation that a person must have another adult present when interacting with children or young people, it is difficult to see how this might be relevant in the case of ringing, which is, as far as I know, an activity which is, by its very nature, highly communal. It's not as if the guy wanted to teach young people's groups.

I'm sorry, but there is, in my view, no justification for abandoning presumption of innocence. It would be just too dangerous to do so.
What if you were the person falsely or mistakenly accused. After all, we all know there's no smoke without fire.

See the trouble in the football world at the moment, because of past abuse issues and Crewe director Dario Gradi, has been suspended because of the way he handled a complaint way back in the 1970’s .

Abuse cases currently have long shadows the D&C at York will be making absolutely certain that they are not laying themselves open to future problems.

As others have said just because there was no police prosecution, does not mean there are no concerns and other agencies appear to be still involved. Iif the D&C let the ringer in question carry on regardless they will be accused of being negligent.

Posts: 1886 | 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 Jolly Jape:
I'm open to being corrected but I wouldn't have thought that it was possible to teach ringing one-on-one. The whole point is that ringing is a team activity.

Actually there are two elements to successful ringing. One is the handling of the bell, and the whole technique and safe practice of ringing a bell. This does tend to be taught individually and not as part of a regular tower practice session, or, at least, not while the other ringers are ringing.

The other element is the whole business of ringing your bell in relation to others, whether in rounds or in call changes or in methods. It requires a basic level of competence in handling a bell and it obviously is a team activity.

Posts: 3245 | 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:
The furore seems to have been reignated by an eponymous and anonymous Anglican blogger/tweeter claiming that the dispute was over an insignificant issue, the Dean responding and a bunch of bellringers from Leeds refusing to go to York in solidarity with their "sacked" brethren.

Maybe it is about time that certain muckspreading gossipmongers shut up.

I have also seen on the web somewhere. That the Leeds Bellringers said that they turned down the invition to ring, because they were too busy over Christmas with Leeds ringing, to have time to ring at York. Nothing to so with solidarity.
Posts: 1886 | From: the back of beyond | Registered: Jan 2009  |  IP: Logged
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296

 - Posted      Profile for Jolly Jape   Email Jolly Jape   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Zacchaeus:
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Whilst I can see that there might be a case for certain restrictions on activities in certain cases, for example, the stipulation that a person must have another adult present when interacting with children or young people, it is difficult to see how this might be relevant in the case of ringing, which is, as far as I know, an activity which is, by its very nature, highly communal. It's not as if the guy wanted to teach young people's groups.

I'm sorry, but there is, in my view, no justification for abandoning presumption of innocence. It would be just too dangerous to do so.
What if you were the person falsely or mistakenly accused. After all, we all know there's no smoke without fire.

See the trouble in the football world at the moment, because of past abuse issues and Crewe director Dario Gradi, has been suspended because of the way he handled a complaint way back in the 1970’s .

Abuse cases currently have long shadows the D&C at York will be making absolutely certain that they are not laying themselves open to future problems.

As others have said just because there was no police prosecution, does not mean there are no concerns and other agencies appear to be still involved. Iif the D&C let the ringer in question carry on regardless they will be accused of being negligent.

The point in the football case was that the complaints were not investigated at the time. Therein lay the negligence. Had the club asked for a police investigation at the time, there would have been no negligence (and the perpetrator would, no doubt, have been charged and convicted). As Gee D said upthread, the correct procedure was to hand over the matter to the civil authorities, and take no further part in the investigation, save answering any questions as required.

--------------------
To those who have never seen the flow and ebb of God's grace in their lives, it means nothing. To those who have seen it, even fleetingly, even only once - it is life itself. (Adeodatus)

Posts: 3011 | From: A village of gardens | 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 Chamois:
Well I'm not convinced.

The BBC website report says "No charges were brought against the individual and an application for a Sexual Risk Order was refused by magistrates in December 2015". In other words, there isn't much evidence that this person did commit the alleged indecent assault.

I think if this person were someone who was a member of the same church music group as myself, in these circumstances I would make a strong protest if the church said that person were to be excluded. This person hasn't been convicted of (or even charged with) an offence. There are concerns. OK. But to exclude them from a music group? I mean, it's not as though they were running a children's group. The Yorkshire Association of Change-ringers has a child protection policy in place on their website and I'd be astonished if the Minster ringers hadn't signed up to it. Exclusion seems totally disproportionate and also unjust to the individual who has got this matter hanging over him although there isn't any substantive evidence.

The ringers say they are upset because the Dean and Chapter refused to enter into any discussion, and then sacked the entire band. I wouldn't go on social media myself but then I don't use social media. Perhaps if you are a Facebook fan it's what you do.

I'm not surprised the Minster is having trouble replacing the ringers. They obviously had no conception of the time, talent and dedication you need to become a top-class 12-bell ringer. It's as though they had sacked the City of Birmingham Symphony Orchestra and then expected to recruit a replacement orchestra of the same standard from unemployed musicians. With the added problem that there is a national shortage of bell-ringers of any standard and therefore there isn't an "unemployed" pool to draw on.

I think it's a great pity the Dean and Chapter acted in this way.

The dean and chapter only wanted to exclude the one individual – it got to this point because the rest of the bell ringers refused to do that and kept including this individual in their plans.

So the dean and chapter had to take more drastic action – the ringers seem to have really thought that they could let them carry regardless doing their own thing without reference to the rest of the cathedral policy

Posts: 1886 | 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 Jolly Jape:
The point in the football case was that the complaints were not investigated at the time. Therein lay the negligence. Had the club asked for a police investigation at the time, there would have been no negligence (and the perpetrator would, no doubt, have been charged and convicted). As Gee D said upthread, the correct procedure was to hand over the matter to the civil authorities, and take no further part in the investigation, save answering any questions as required.

I am not any kind of expert in this area, but I'm fairly sure that the problem was not simple about the lack of police investigation.

If you know that a person has been getting too close to children - whether or not they've done anything which the police and authorities could or did anything about - you have a responsibility to do something about it, and not just allow the thing to carry on regardless.

One of the most shocking things about the Saville saga was not that everything he did was a crime or would have been prosecutable - it was that so many knew what he was like (which in the mildest form was a total letch) but didn't think it was their job to stop him getting close to the vulnerable.

The Dean has done exactly the right thing. Volunteering is a privilege not a right, if you have admitted your behaviour is an issue and have agreed to certain changes then you should stick to them. If you can't, you are out. No question.

--------------------
arse

Posts: 10188 | 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 Jolly Jape:
quote:
Originally posted by Zacchaeus:
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Whilst I can see that there might be a case for certain restrictions on activities in certain cases, for example, the stipulation that a person must have another adult present when interacting with children or young people, it is difficult to see how this might be relevant in the case of ringing, which is, as far as I know, an activity which is, by its very nature, highly communal. It's not as if the guy wanted to teach young people's groups.

I'm sorry, but there is, in my view, no justification for abandoning presumption of innocence. It would be just too dangerous to do so.
What if you were the person falsely or mistakenly accused. After all, we all know there's no smoke without fire.

See the trouble in the football world at the moment, because of past abuse issues and Crewe director Dario Gradi, has been suspended because of the way he handled a complaint way back in the 1970’s .

Abuse cases currently have long shadows the D&C at York will be making absolutely certain that they are not laying themselves open to future problems.

As others have said just because there was no police prosecution, does not mean there are no concerns and other agencies appear to be still involved. Iif the D&C let the ringer in question carry on regardless they will be accused of being negligent.

The point in the football case was that the complaints were not investigated at the time. Therein lay the negligence. Had the club asked for a police investigation at the time, there would have been no negligence (and the perpetrator would, no doubt, have been charged and convicted). As Gee D said upthread, the correct procedure was to hand over the matter to the civil authorities, and take no further part in the investigation, save answering any questions as required.
In the 70’s the world did not understand abuse and dealt with it very differently. Just one small example, they thought abusers would stop once confronted and had shown contrition. But as we are seeing now there are many people regretting making the wrong call at the time.

In York the chapter did involve other agencies in the decision, the result of which is that the ringer was felt too much of a risk to carry on.


“In line with the Church’s guidance and national law, Chapter commissioned a detailed risk assessment of the individual to decide whether or not Chapter’s safeguarding requirements for children would be fully met if the person was reinstated. Following a detailed review of the matter and with guidance from national agencies, Chapter felt that the person presented an ongoing risk and that the potential severity of the risk meant they could not be reinstated.”
If the risk assessment said that, then there is no way on earth they can keep him as a ringer.

Posts: 1886 | 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 
Attitudes certainly have changed and - rightly - we don't want to give people the chance to abuse children if we think they exhibit risky behaviours.

It seems to me that it is basically the same as being a school bus driver who is often drunk. It might well be true that he hasn't been drunk at the wheel - or even that he has but has miraculously been able to avoid police attention or accident.

But if you are the school principal and you are aware that his behaviour is problematic even after confrontation, you do something about it (perhaps including insisting he stops driving) before someone gets killed.

--------------------
arse

Posts: 10188 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748

 - Posted      Profile for Doc Tor     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Thank you for proving you have no understanding how grooming works. I and everyone else here can simply ignore anything you say on the subject from now on.

You're welcome. Thank you for proving you have no understanding of what it is like to be falsely accused.
I was a teaching assistant for eight years. Imagine my middle finger saluting you in solitary splendour.

--------------------
Forward the New Republic

Posts: 8839 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 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:
Attitudes certainly have changed and - rightly - we don't want to give people the chance to abuse children if we think they exhibit risky behaviours.

It seems to me that it is basically the same as being a school bus driver who is often drunk. It might well be true that he hasn't been drunk at the wheel - or even that he has but has miraculously been able to avoid police attention or accident.

But if you are the school principal and you are aware that his behaviour is problematic even after confrontation, you do something about it (perhaps including insisting he stops driving) before someone gets killed.

That’s exactly what it is like – in your example the driver may not have been convicted of drink driving but he is still known by people to be a risk because of his drinking

This is the same principle – the ringer may not have been convicted but his behaviour (including assessment by outside agencies) is seen to be too risky, to allow him to continue.

An extreme case of this was Ian Huntley, he had been flagged up but had never been convicted so was allowed to work in a school.

Posts: 1886 | From: the back of beyond | Registered: Jan 2009  |  IP: Logged
Anselmina
Ship's barmaid
# 3032

 - Posted      Profile for Anselmina     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
I'm open to being corrected but I wouldn't have thought that it was possible to teach ringing one-on-one. The whole point is that ringing is a team activity.

I think the point is whether or not the person in question has access to children, where they may be vulnerable to unscrupulous treatment.

A kid on the team - or indeed in any group which has both kids and adults - might well stop by Mr X's house, or arrive early for practice, for any legitimate group related reason. So the point is that Mr X, by virtue of the position of responsibility given him by his church, has fairly easy access and influence over any kids who are part of his team. In short, the assumption is he's a safe person to be left in charge - sole or otherwise - of someone's children.

If there is reasonable doubt that this is so, I'm pretty sure the church would be the first organization to get a rocket up the arse for allowing it to happen.

--------------------
Irish dogs needing homes! http://www.dogactionwelfaregroup.ie/ Greyhounds and Lurchers are shipped over to England for rehoming too!

Posts: 9952 | From: Scotland the Brave | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815

 - Posted      Profile for Gee D     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Jolly Jape, I think you're asking the wrong question. If the question whether X is guilty of a criminal offence arises in criminal proceedings (of course) it's up to the prosecutor to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. That's the question you're asking.

The D & C at York asked a different question, one that they were correct in posing. That question was whether X could show that he did not pose an unacceptable risk by continuing to be a bell-ringer at the Minster. It seems that he decided not even to try to answer that and so was excluded.

In the context of a church or similar organisation, this may not be limited simply to children; there is a wider group of those who are vulnerable. Let's look at Newcastle Anglican Diocese again. Y was a parish priest, single and in his mid to late 30s. He was popular and had built attendances to a good level in an area where you might have expected a decline. He had an affair with a parishioner in her late 30s, single and apparently consenting. In due course, the affair came to an end, the woman complained to the Bishop and there was an investigation. After a hearing before a church tribunal, Y's orders were revoked.

The waters were muddied a bit by the manner in which the diocese obtained some of the evidence used against Y, but basically the decision was correct. The relationship between priest and parishioner can never be an equal one, but is tilted heavily in favour of the priest. Much the same applies between doctor and patient. Y's problem was that he could not understand just how inappropriate the relationship was. To use some legalese, he could not prove (on the balance of probabilities) that there was no unacceptable risk in his continuing in ministry. The same with this bell-ringer, or the bus driver who gets drunk every night. Or now very commonly, a person acquitted of a criminal offence against a young person but where there is some lingering doubt about how the relationship came into existence to begin with.

[ 17. December 2016, 20:11: Message edited by: Gee D ]

--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican

Posts: 6713 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008  |  IP: Logged
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296

 - Posted      Profile for Jolly Jape   Email Jolly Jape   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Thank you for proving you have no understanding how grooming works. I and everyone else here can simply ignore anything you say on the subject from now on.

You're welcome. Thank you for proving you have no understanding of what it is like to be falsely accused.
I was a teaching assistant for eight years. Imagine my middle finger saluting you in solitary splendour.
Since that is the case, I'm very surprised that you haven't come across anyone, directly or indirectly, who has been the victim of a mistaken or malicious accusation running along safeguarding lines. If you have come across such a person, I'm astonished that you feel it is in any way OK for that person to be put in a position where, even if he or she had been totally vindicated, they would be treated as if they were guilty. As a teaching assistant, you must have known that there was a possibility that you yourself might have accusations laid at you, no matter how scrupulously you behaved. How can it be in any way defensible or just that you might be still considered guilt by inference. The lesson of the whole Savile affair is that all incidences of abuse should be investigated thoroughly, (had that happened, he would have been imprisoned thirty years or so ago for his vile crimes) rather than that everyone accused of abuse should be treated as if guilty, even when they have been duly investigated and the evidence against them has been shown to be so slim as to be effectively baseless. How does that in any way help to protect vulnerable people?

--------------------
To those who have never seen the flow and ebb of God's grace in their lives, it means nothing. To those who have seen it, even fleetingly, even only once - it is life itself. (Adeodatus)

Posts: 3011 | From: A village of gardens | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748

 - Posted      Profile for Doc Tor     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
No, you're just very surprised that someone could have been a TA for eight years, and known someone(s) (or been someone) who had a mistaken or malicious accusation made against them, might have the temerity to disagree with you and agree with the safeguarding protocols that the school and LA have in place.

Having had the crap scared out of me by the (mandatory) safeguarding training I received, I was completely onboard with why and how responses were made to accusations. Responses, I will add, that were as much designed to protect the accusee as they were the accuser.

Given that, if the Dean and Chapter, supported by their lawyers, have decided that on balance and on the evidence, this one person shouldn't be around minors, then I'm going to both respect and support that decision.

--------------------
Forward the New Republic

Posts: 8839 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
BroJames
Shipmate
# 9636

 - Posted      Profile for BroJames   Email BroJames   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
But in this case the person was not "totally vindicated". Although there was a decision not to prosecute, both police and child protection authorities remained concerned. A Sexual Risk Order was sought, and although it was not granted, the person concerned gave certain undertakings to the court.

A further multi-agency investigation concluded that there was a risk. It appears that the bell ringers disagreed and sought to undermine the safeguarding measures. That's the point at which the D&C pulled the plug.

Good safeguarding practice is not only to protect children and vulnerable adults, but also to ensure that those who work with them are unlikely to be vulnerable to false accusations.

[cross-posted with Doc Tor]

[ 17. December 2016, 21:24: Message edited by: BroJames ]

Posts: 3245 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296

 - Posted      Profile for Jolly Jape   Email Jolly Jape   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
No, you're just very surprised that someone could have been a TA for eight years, and known someone(s) (or been someone) who had a mistaken or malicious accusation made against them, might have the temerity to disagree with you and agree with the safeguarding protocols that the school and LA have in place.

Having had the crap scared out of me by the (mandatory) safeguarding training I received, I was completely onboard with why and how responses were made to accusations. Responses, I will add, that were as much designed to protect the accusee as they were the accuser.

Given that, if the Dean and Chapter, supported by their lawyers, have decided that on balance and on the evidence, this one person shouldn't be around minors, then I'm going to both respect and support that decision.

Doc, I usually find that refraining from putting words in another's mouth is an aid to good communication, so would be obliged if you forbear doing so. I have no idea what your LA or school has in the way of safeguarding policy, and even if I did, I have no idea what you might think of them. Clearly I hold a different point of view to you with regard to the principle of holding someone innocent until proven otherwise. I consider this a bedrock, perhaps the bedrock of the English common-law system. On the evidence of your own words, you seem to disagree with me about this. That's fine. We disagree. As I understand it, disagreement is allowed, even (especially?) in Hell? So, whence the "temerity"?

--------------------
To those who have never seen the flow and ebb of God's grace in their lives, it means nothing. To those who have seen it, even fleetingly, even only once - it is life itself. (Adeodatus)

Posts: 3011 | From: A village of gardens | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815

 - Posted      Profile for Gee D     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Jolly Jape, your last post indicates that you're still not grappling with the difference between a criminal prosecution, where the prosecutor bears the burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt , and child/vulnerable person situations where a person needs to prove on the balance of probabilities that they do not present an unacceptable risk.

--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican

Posts: 6713 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008  |  IP: Logged
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748

 - Posted      Profile for Doc Tor     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
This. No one's sending this bloke to prison. But his behaviour around kids (or specific children) that enough people - people in positions of statutory responsibility who've seen this shit go down before - are concerned enough to do something about it. Which is in itself is quite a high threshold.

I appreciate that we've all had enough of experts. But really?

--------------------
Forward the New Republic

Posts: 8839 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Anselmina
Ship's barmaid
# 3032

 - Posted      Profile for Anselmina     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Jolly Jape, your last post indicates that you're still not grappling with the difference between a criminal prosecution, where the prosecutor bears the burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt , and child/vulnerable person situations where a person needs to prove on the balance of probabilities that they do not present an unacceptable risk.

I think this kind of covers it for me, too. When Ian Huntley - the Soham child killer, was brought to Justice there was a huge outcry that the police had had some pretty big question marks over his previous behaviour, but that there was nothing prosecutable. So he got a job in a school as a janitor, and then went on to abduct and murder two little girls.

--------------------
Irish dogs needing homes! http://www.dogactionwelfaregroup.ie/ Greyhounds and Lurchers are shipped over to England for rehoming too!

Posts: 9952 | From: Scotland the Brave | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Twilight

Puddleglum's sister
# 2832

 - Posted      Profile for Twilight     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Thank you for proving you have no understanding of what it is like to be falsely accused.

I haven't been falsely accused of something like this, but I've observed reaction to it. A few years ago my husband was working as a taxi driver. One hot day he parked under a shade tree to read his paperback and wait for a call to come in. It was his bad luck that the shade tree was opposite a playground. A teacher called the police who came along and questioned him. That's all that happened, they saw his taxi driver license and understood why he was parked in the only shady place on the street. Nevertheless, my husband was so horrified, that he said he felt sick, he washed his hands a dozen times that day and has not driven on that street in the years since, even if it means going out of his way.

What seems oddest to me about this man, is that he wants to continue with this group under such an odious cloud. If it were me I would hate the very sound of bells by now.

Posts: 6687 | Registered: May 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 Anselmina:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Jolly Jape, your last post indicates that you're still not grappling with the difference between a criminal prosecution, where the prosecutor bears the burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt , and child/vulnerable person situations where a person needs to prove on the balance of probabilities that they do not present an unacceptable risk.

I think this kind of covers it for me, too. When Ian Huntley - the Soham child killer, was brought to Justice there was a huge outcry that the police had had some pretty big question marks over his previous behaviour, but that there was nothing prosecutable. So he got a job in a school as a janitor, and then went on to abduct and murder two little girls.
yes - this is what I was trying to say above
Posts: 1886 | From: the back of beyond | Registered: Jan 2009  |  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 
The Church of England guidelines around safeguarding and including individuals who have queries about their behaviour around vulnerable people and or have a past history of misdemeanours is that those people are not allowed to be in positions of responsibility, particularly in any service open to the full range of the community.

Protecting all God's Children (pdf) says in paragraph 1.12:
quote:
Our congregations can be a refuge for those who have perpetrated abuse but are seeking help in maintaining a non-abusive way of life. We have also to be aware that some who abuse may see church membership as an opportunity to be close to children or vulnerable parents in order to continue their abusive patterns of behaviour. Experience shows that whether penitent or not, those who abuse need support in taking responsibility for their own actions and in stopping their abusive behaviour: in addition, of course, the vulnerable need protection from them. The genuine penitent will accept the need for careful arrangements, including some restrictions, for his or her return to church fellowship. This is in line with the Church’s realistic understanding of sin and its effects, and the Church’s responsibility to love all God’s people.
In dealing with a suspected offender, York Minster will have offered arrangements, including some restrictions on their operations to the suspected person. If the person under suspicion has refused to co-operate then unfortunately, they've waived the right to participate. The usual requirement is an agreed contract as to which behaviours are deemed safe for the vulnerable and which not.

My daughter had a college friend who picked up an underage girl in a bar (where she should not have been) and was temporarily on the sex offenders register. Over the six months while this was investigated, this friend complied with all the requirements, including those that meant he couldn't see his younger siblings unsupervised or take part in certain events, and when the case was reviewed was cleared totally. This young man was devastated that he had got into the situation and was a lot more careful afterwards.

It's a very different world out there since all those sex abuse scandals have all come to light and there is far more awareness of how abuse can be perpetrated and more thorough investigations of dubious situations.

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

Posts: 13542 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged
Chamois
Shipmate
# 16204

 - Posted      Profile for Chamois   Email Chamois   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
The Minster ringers have now published a statement which gives more information.

--------------------
The steadfast love of the Lord never ceases

Posts: 977 | From: Hill of roses | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815

 - Posted      Profile for Gee D     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Chamois:
The Minster ringers have now published a statement which gives more information.

That statement shows 2 matters:

1. The writer(s) fail to understand the difference between criminal proceedings and proceedings for the protection of young/vulnerable people; and

2. They equally fail to understand the government of a C of E cathedral is not in the hands pf bellringers, but in those of the Dean and Chapter.

--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican

Posts: 6713 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008  |  IP: Logged
Bishops Finger
Shipmate
# 5430

 - Posted      Profile for Bishops Finger   Email Bishops Finger   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Nothing new there, then. Their failure to comprehend the situation has been a feature of the whole sorry saga, ISTM, whatever the real or imagined failings of the D & C.

Whether the ringers are being deliberately obtuse, or just plain stupid, is a matter of conjecture.

IJ

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

Posts: 9162 | From: Passing The Glums At The Bus Stop | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
Pyx_e

Quixotic Tilter
# 57

 - Posted      Profile for Pyx_e     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
This whole safeguarding game makes me puke. You can not square the circle. In regard to this situation (York) the only thing so far not mentioned is - the legal advice, which they have to take or they are not insured. Which means they are liable. Courage, right and wrong, Truth all are washed away in the hidden reality - Money talks.

And Diocesan leadership will NEVER do anything that their lawyers do not sign off on, so no point blaming them. In fact they only do what the lawyers say. Welcome to the real world.

Pyx_e

p.s I try and follow every guideline and law, and I would do ANYTHIGN to keep children and vulnerable adults safe. But this much power corrupts safe guarders and lawyers care more about money than they do children. sad face

--------------------
It is better to be Kind than right.

Posts: 9778 | From: The Dark Tower | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296

 - Posted      Profile for Jolly Jape   Email Jolly Jape   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyx_e:
This whole safeguarding game makes me puke. You can not square the circle. In regard to this situation (York) the only thing so far not mentioned is - the legal advice, which they have to take or they are not insured. Which means they are liable. Courage, right and wrong, Truth all are washed away in the hidden reality - Money talks.

And Diocesan leadership will NEVER do anything that their lawyers do not sign off on, so no point blaming them. In fact they only do what the lawyers say. Welcome to the real world.

Pyx_e

p.s I try and follow every guideline and law, and I would do ANYTHIGN to keep children and vulnerable adults safe. But this much power corrupts safe guarders and lawyers care more about money than they do children. sad face

This.

--------------------
To those who have never seen the flow and ebb of God's grace in their lives, it means nothing. To those who have seen it, even fleetingly, even only once - it is life itself. (Adeodatus)

Posts: 3011 | From: A village of gardens | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Bishops Finger
Shipmate
# 5430

 - Posted      Profile for Bishops Finger   Email Bishops Finger   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Given that there should be a comma after 'safeguarders', yes, I agree, up to a point.

What fucktards those ringers are, though.

IJ

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

Posts: 9162 | From: Passing The Glums At The Bus Stop | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296

 - Posted      Profile for Jolly Jape   Email Jolly Jape   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Calling anyone interested to Purgatory

--------------------
To those who have never seen the flow and ebb of God's grace in their lives, it means nothing. To those who have seen it, even fleetingly, even only once - it is life itself. (Adeodatus)

Posts: 3011 | From: A village of gardens | Registered: Sep 2002  |  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