|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Rev Paul Flowers
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by moonlitdoor:
quote:
posted by Doc Tor
Like a great many chairmen and CEOs of companies, he was supposed to look the part and nothing else.
You must have worked for some very different companies from me. In my experience it wouldn't be too hard to take issue with their ethics, but they've all had a lot of knowledge about the company and its activities and I am sure they could have spoken intelligently to MPs about what the company was doing.
No, this is exactly what I meant. All Flowers had to do, all any CEO has to do, is act their little socks off and pretend. They are the public face of the company, and when they get wheeled out at corporate events - or in front of a panel of MPs - they have to know their lines.
I can absolutely guarantee you that for £120,000pa, almost anyone here (and who possesses more than half a brain cell) would have done the required reading before entering the Palace of Westminster.
That he failed even on this shows what a poor choice he was. Compare and contrast his performance (that being the apposite word) with that of the power companies' chiefs a couple of weeks previously. They knew their lines. Hell, they'd even learnt them together. They were a complete disgrace, but they stuck to the script and got out in one piece. Job done.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
My experience of Methodism is that the protection of children and vulnerable people has become an issue of increasing regulation over the past ten years. Perhaps Paul Flowers' infractions in this area occurred before the Methodist Church had a standardised response mechanism.
To be clear, there have been no suggestions that Mr Flowers partners were anything other than consenting adults.
I was indeed thinking of his inappropriate behaviour regarding consenting adults, both his conviction for gross indecency in 1981, and the images on his laptop that led to his resignation as a local councillor in 2011 after they were discovered. After the latter incident he became the chairman of governors of a primary school. Did this public elevation calm any concerns that the Methodist Church might have had about this discovery? Regarding the former incident, the Church was apparently not overly concerned at the time. I don't know if that would be the case had it happened just a few years ago.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2510897/Co-op-chief-Paul-Flowers-quit-charity-150-000-false-expenses-claims.html
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
Britannia Building Society was well known in the Industry for having a toxic mortgage book: you only had to look at its target market. Until 2008 that was no problem - a rising market safeguarded any losses down to poor products and underwriting.
As far back as 1991, the Government was "persuading" banks and financial institutions to take over dodgy business where it looked like another bank would fail. (It happened as far back as the 1960's with the Grays Building Society - prompting the 1962 Act). In 1991 it was BCCI where a number of institutions were "invited" to bail out BCCI: they refused on account of the obvious fraud they saw. Since then it's happened again and again: mergers aren't always what they're cracked up to be on the surface.
I happened to be in a position of some seniority in that world and was involved in the BCCI invitation amongst others. Nothing changes - esp the snouts in the trough.
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
Something I find quite troubling about this, if the various stories now in the press are true, which of course they might not be, is what was this chap's conscience like, what did he feel like when he knelt down to pray? For a Minister of Religion, he seems to have let his shortcomings run riot through an unusually wide ranging and disparate number of areas of his life. What did he appear to be giving the Methodist Church, the Co-Op Bank, his local Labour Party etc that caused a large number of people either to turn a blind eye to or not be able to see, that there was something very flawed?
If someone is able to pull the wool over lots of peoples' eyes, it is his or her responsibility to answer for that, not those that they take in, their victims, even if it's surprising that so many people and institutions seem to have been misled.
Is it yet another example that there are some people who just have to take big risks? Something inside them drives them to. It gives them a buzz. It makes them feel more alive. Or is it that we all manage to pull the wool over our own eyes, but most of us don't get to the sort of places where we get such spectacular temptations?
Has he actually been functioning as a Minister recently, taking services Sunday by Sunday etc? Or was he just Rev because he had formerly done so?
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
betjemaniac
Shipmate
# 17618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Something I find quite troubling about this, if the various stories now in the press are true, which of course they might not be, is what was this chap's conscience like, what did he feel like when he knelt down to pray? For a Minister of Religion, he seems to have let his shortcomings run riot through an unusually wide ranging and disparate number of areas of his life. What did he appear to be giving the Methodist Church, the Co-Op Bank, his local Labour Party etc that caused a large number of people either to turn a blind eye to or not be able to see, that there was something very flawed?
If someone is able to pull the wool over lots of peoples' eyes, it is his or her responsibility to answer for that, not those that they take in, their victims, even if it's surprising that so many people and institutions seem to have been misled.
Is it yet another example that there are some people who just have to take big risks? Something inside them drives them to. It gives them a buzz. It makes them feel more alive. Or is it that we all manage to pull the wool over our own eyes, but most of us don't get to the sort of places where we get such spectacular temptations?
Has he actually been functioning as a Minister recently, taking services Sunday by Sunday etc? Or was he just Rev because he had formerly done so?
On your last point, according to the BBC this evening his house is the property of the Methodist Church.....
--------------------
And is it true? For if it is....
Posts: 1481 | From: behind the dreaming spires | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Avila
Shipmate
# 15541
|
Posted
My understanding is that until suspension he has had part time ministry in a couple of chapels in Bradford. He may be pleading to take the Christmas service, but no way will that happen.
The Methodist Church is aware of risks from moving around hiding patterns. Currently it is in the midst of a major review seeking anything anyone knows about anything and review of all past cases from 1950.
Andreas - as someone without a professional expertise in safeguarding can you outline your basic concerns with current policies? Or were these the policies a few years ago when the focus on the police checks overshadowed everything else. Currently everyone has to do a training session as well as the checks and the ministers and paid staff have had a heavier advanced course about these issues and what bucks we carry and how to do that.
--------------------
http://aweebleswonderings.blogspot.com/
Posts: 1305 | From: west midlands | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Schroedinger's cat
Ship's cool cat
# 64
|
Posted
The thing that amazes me is that he had a record of fiddling expenses and porn on his computer. Those should have indicated that a)He was probably not a suitable person to be a Methodist Minister and b) he was definitely not a suitable person to run a bank.
And yet he was given this job, which he was not particularly qualified for. And he did a lousy job, it would seem. This is incompetence by others as well.
--------------------
Blog
Music for your enjoyment
Lord may all my hard times be healing times
take out this broken heart and renew my mind.
Posts: 18859 | From: At the bottom of a deep dark well. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
... he's popular with his 'parishioners', which presumably means he's liked by his congregation and other folk who know him in the local community.
And how many times do we see this repeated throughout history ? People who have the sheer audacity to behave improperly/immorally , (call it what you will), and yet still enjoy unswerving loyalty from their followers .
Of course the media want to big up the fact that this fellow was a church man . It helps bolster the view that all things church are bad whereas all things secular are not.
Do your class A drugs , do your computer porn, just don't do it and pretend to be holier than thou.
--------------------
Change is the only certainty of existence
Posts: 3206 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
andras
Shipmate
# 2065
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Avila:
My understanding is that until suspension he has had part time ministry in a couple of chapels in Bradford. He may be pleading to take the Christmas service, but no way will that happen.
The Methodist Church is aware of risks from moving around hiding patterns. Currently it is in the midst of a major review seeking anything anyone knows about anything and review of all past cases from 1950.
Andreas - as someone without a professional expertise in safeguarding can you outline your basic concerns with current policies? Or were these the policies a few years ago when the focus on the police checks overshadowed everything else. Currently everyone has to do a training session as well as the checks and the ministers and paid staff have had a heavier advanced course about these issues and what bucks we carry and how to do that.
Andras, actually, not Andreas!
I was indeed referring to the current system of the Training Session; without doubt this has sometimes been done well, but I have come across some truly horrific stories about sessions which have been, basically, a run-through of what Basil Fawlty refers to as the 'bleeding obvious' read out of a manual while denying those attending any opportunity to refer to their own experience; the line has sometimes (not always) been 'Shut up and listen to me, we don't want to hear about you.'
The whole thing was, I believe, put together by 'experts' from the NSPCC, who may have known a lot about the protection of children but whose knowledge of church procedures and of the protection of vulnerable adults leave a lot to be desired.
So now the Methodist Church has got itself into the daft situation where people actually experienced in protection issues are told to take a hike, while 'visiting preachers' - who may have all sorts of skeletons in their closets - are welcomed with no checks at all.
And, of course, when Grandma and Grandpa visit the church and want to go into Sunday School / Junior Church / Whatever with the little ones there are few congregations that will bar them on a protection basis - though the simple fact is that most abuse actually happens within the family (and I have myself have had to deal professionally with cases of rape within the family).
The Church's response to these objections has simply been that At least something has been done. But an ineffectual something is worse than nothing. The policy seems to exist simply so that when the manure hits the rotating ventilation system the hierarchy can say, We did all we could, we organised a Course. Pathetic.
--------------------
God's on holiday.
(Why borrow a cat?)
Adrian Plass
Posts: 544 | From: Tregaron | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jammy Dodger
Half jam, half biscuit
# 17872
|
Posted
Wow! Thanks for all the responses to my OP. Wasn't expecting quite such a response but that's why I love being on board ship - you always get replies you hadn't expected.
With these things I am always interested in what the systemic failures were that allowed the situation to arise. It seems that someone who had a track record of being asked to leave previous positions for various types of impropriety was still able to gain a position as the chairman of a bank.
Contrary to some of the views expressed already in the thread I don't think chairpersons of companies are ornamental. A chairman (along with the other non-Exec directors) is there explicitly to hold the chief Exec and the other Exec directors to account. Yes the Exec directors are ultimately responsible for day-to-day operations but a chairman has considerable influence in the board to say question the competence of/confidence in the chief exec. As such in most companies, especially financial institutions, the chairman iis expected to have a strong business background and has usually run other financial companies themselves - I.e. Has the relevant experience to hold the chief exec to account. Maybe it works differently in a mutual but there appear to be basic qualifications for the role that were missing quite aside from any issues of personal integrity.
However, there is always the issue that a determined and clever person can find a way around even the best policies and procedures (which also applies to the parallel discussion around safeguarding). It's not a reason not to have robust processes but just to be realistic around their limitations.
--------------------
Look at my eye twitching - Donkey from Shrek
Posts: 438 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
lowlands_boy
Shipmate
# 12497
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by andras:
quote:
Originally posted by Avila:
My understanding is that until suspension he has had part time ministry in a couple of chapels in Bradford. He may be pleading to take the Christmas service, but no way will that happen.
The Methodist Church is aware of risks from moving around hiding patterns. Currently it is in the midst of a major review seeking anything anyone knows about anything and review of all past cases from 1950.
Andreas - as someone without a professional expertise in safeguarding can you outline your basic concerns with current policies? Or were these the policies a few years ago when the focus on the police checks overshadowed everything else. Currently everyone has to do a training session as well as the checks and the ministers and paid staff have had a heavier advanced course about these issues and what bucks we carry and how to do that.
Andras, actually, not Andreas!
I was indeed referring to the current system of the Training Session; without doubt this has sometimes been done well, but I have come across some truly horrific stories about sessions which have been, basically, a run-through of what Basil Fawlty refers to as the 'bleeding obvious' read out of a manual while denying those attending any opportunity to refer to their own experience; the line has sometimes (not always) been 'Shut up and listen to me, we don't want to hear about you.'
The whole thing was, I believe, put together by 'experts' from the NSPCC, who may have known a lot about the protection of children but whose knowledge of church procedures and of the protection of vulnerable adults leave a lot to be desired.
So now the Methodist Church has got itself into the daft situation where people actually experienced in protection issues are told to take a hike, while 'visiting preachers' - who may have all sorts of skeletons in their closets - are welcomed with no checks at all.
And, of course, when Grandma and Grandpa visit the church and want to go into Sunday School / Junior Church / Whatever with the little ones there are few congregations that will bar them on a protection basis - though the simple fact is that most abuse actually happens within the family (and I have myself have had to deal professionally with cases of rape within the family).
The Church's response to these objections has simply been that At least something has been done. But an ineffectual something is worse than nothing. The policy seems to exist simply so that when the manure hits the rotating ventilation system the hierarchy can say, We did all we could, we organised a Course. Pathetic.
Well, a visting preacher, as in, one from outside the circuit, should only be getting a slot on the plan at the superintendents discression. If they are just from a different circuit, they should have sat through the pointless couple of hours themselves in that circuit.
But what opportunities are there for local preachers to have unsupervised access to children? None, in my church.
I had to do the course as a circuit steward - also a position that doesn't entail any such access. I pointed out that they'd be better off sending me on a pointless course that re-iterated that I shouldn't use my position to commit financial fraud.
--------------------
I thought I should update my signature line....
Posts: 836 | From: North West UK | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jammy Dodger:
Contrary to some of the views expressed already in the thread I don't think chairpersons of companies are ornamental.
I think you are confusing 'is' with 'ought' here. We are certainly not saying they ought to be ornamental but that frequently they are.
A lot of companies adopt the view that the chairman is simply that - the chairman of the board, and it's up to the board as a whole to hold the CEO to account. If you look at the various mutuals - board members (and thus potential chairmen) without financial experience aren't that unusual.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I was indeed thinking of his inappropriate behaviour regarding consenting adults
Sure, but you are conflating things by mentioning children and vulnerable adults in the same sentence, afaict to date there is no suggestion at all that Flowers preyed on such groups. He was picking up most of his partners via Grindr.
quote:
both his conviction for gross indecency in 1981,
On a sidenote, this was often a way of prosecuting consensual acts between homosexuals
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
moonlitdoor
Shipmate
# 11707
|
Posted
quote:
posted by Doc Tor
All Flowers had to do, all any CEO has to do, is act their little socks off and pretend. They are the public face of the company, and when they get wheeled out at corporate events - or in front of a panel of MPs - they have to know their lines.
That's the part I don't recognise. The chairman and chief executive of the company I work for are not figureheads by any stretch of the imagination. If called before MPs I am sure they would be doing some preparation on how to cast their past decisions and future plans in the most favourable light and how to answer criticisms that might be made of them. But they wouldn't need to do any preparation to know a lot about the company's business, since they already do.
--------------------
We've evolved to being strange monkeys, but in the next life he'll help us be something more worthwhile - Gwai
Posts: 2210 | From: london | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
andras
Shipmate
# 2065
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Avila:
Well, a visting preacher, as in, one from outside the circuit, should only be getting a slot on the plan at the superintendents discression. If they are just from a different circuit, they should have sat through the pointless couple of hours themselves in that circuit.
But what opportunities are there for local preachers to have unsupervised access to children? None, in my church.
I had to do the course as a circuit steward - also a position that doesn't entail any such access. I pointed out that they'd be better off sending me on a pointless course that re-iterated that I shouldn't use my position to commit financial fraud.
--------------------
God's on holiday.
(Why borrow a cat?)
Adrian Plass
Posts: 544 | From: Tregaron | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
andras
Shipmate
# 2065
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Avila:
Well, a visting preacher, as in, one from outside the circuit, should only be getting a slot on the plan at the superintendents discression. If they are just from a different circuit, they should have sat through the pointless couple of hours themselves in that circuit.
But what opportunities are there for local preachers to have unsupervised access to children? None, in my church.
I had to do the course as a circuit steward - also a position that doesn't entail any such access. I pointed out that they'd be better off sending me on a pointless course that re-iterated that I shouldn't use my position to commit financial fraud.
Sorry - I managed to post an empty message!
I suppose I have no particular problem if the Church wants to impose this or that restriction on those exercising whatever sort of ministry: if they want the preacher to hop into the pulpit on one leg while reciting the alphabet backwards, then that's up to them and those as don't want to do it will stop preaching.
My real problem is that as soon as I started raising objections I was told in no uncertain terms that this was a question of official policy and therefore as a matter of obedience I should keep quiet in public.
Seems to me that it's exactly that sort of We know best, don't dare to ask questions or express concerns that have got us where we are today.
And round here visiting preachers are likely to come from abroad (we have a well-respected theology department in a local university) or from other denominations either locally or further afield. And now that so many LPs have been suspended for not 'wasting a couple of hours in a pointless course' there are an awful lot of Local Arrangements in the circuit which are filled by who-knows-who, and the Super's probably just pleased it's not his problem. Yet.
--------------------
God's on holiday.
(Why borrow a cat?)
Adrian Plass
Posts: 544 | From: Tregaron | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lowlands_boy
Shipmate
# 12497
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by andras:
quote:
Originally posted by Avila:
Well, a visting preacher, as in, one from outside the circuit, should only be getting a slot on the plan at the superintendents discression. If they are just from a different circuit, they should have sat through the pointless couple of hours themselves in that circuit.
But what opportunities are there for local preachers to have unsupervised access to children? None, in my church.
I had to do the course as a circuit steward - also a position that doesn't entail any such access. I pointed out that they'd be better off sending me on a pointless course that re-iterated that I shouldn't use my position to commit financial fraud.
Sorry - I managed to post an empty message!
I suppose I have no particular problem if the Church wants to impose this or that restriction on those exercising whatever sort of ministry: if they want the preacher to hop into the pulpit on one leg while reciting the alphabet backwards, then that's up to them and those as don't want to do it will stop preaching.
My real problem is that as soon as I started raising objections I was told in no uncertain terms that this was a question of official policy and therefore as a matter of obedience I should keep quiet in public.
Seems to me that it's exactly that sort of We know best, don't dare to ask questions or express concerns that have got us where we are today.
And round here visiting preachers are likely to come from abroad (we have a well-respected theology department in a local university) or from other denominations either locally or further afield. And now that so many LPs have been suspended for not 'wasting a couple of hours in a pointless course' there are an awful lot of Local Arrangements in the circuit which are filled by who-knows-who, and the Super's probably just pleased it's not his problem. Yet.
In the interests of clarity, I should say the post you quoted was actually from me. And that I can spell discretion properly.
--------------------
I thought I should update my signature line....
Posts: 836 | From: North West UK | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I was indeed thinking of his inappropriate behaviour regarding consenting adults
Sure, but you are conflating things by mentioning children and vulnerable adults in the same sentence, afaict to date there is no suggestion at all that Flowers preyed on such groups.
No one has accused Flowers of preying on anyone. The question is whether the Methodist Church, whose safeguarding policies cover both children and vulnerable adults, should have been concerned that his inappropriate behaviour outside church made his position among children and vulnerable adults within the church problematic. It's quite possible that church leaders reflected on this and deemed the answer to be no.
The other question that arises out of this discussion is why exactly the Methodist Church have suspended Paul Flowers. Which of his activities are they most concerned about? Or is it the cumulative effect of his different activities that have freaked them out?
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
lowlands_boy
Shipmate
# 12497
|
Posted
Well, I think we can safely assume that the Rev. Flowers has done a number of things that breach CPD (Constitution, Practice and Discipline) - but at the moment he is under criminal investigation on very serious charges. He's suspended partly because the Methodist disciplinary process won't go any further until criminal (and any other) investigations are concluded.
--------------------
I thought I should update my signature line....
Posts: 836 | From: North West UK | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Schroedinger's cat
Ship's cool cat
# 64
|
Posted
Of course, if he had been found drinking alcohol, the Methodists would have thrown him out immediately.
--------------------
Blog
Music for your enjoyment
Lord may all my hard times be healing times
take out this broken heart and renew my mind.
Posts: 18859 | From: At the bottom of a deep dark well. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
both his conviction for gross indecency in 1981,
On a sidenote, this was often a way of prosecuting consensual acts between homosexuals
Yes, I did wonder about that.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
both his conviction for gross indecency in 1981,
On a sidenote, this was often a way of prosecuting consensual acts between homosexuals
Yes, I did wonder about that.
His 1981 conviction involved "performing a sex act with a trucker in a public toilet", which I believe is as illegal now as it was then.
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
His 1981 conviction involved "performing a sex act with a trucker in a public toilet", which I believe is as illegal now as it was then.
It may still be illegal, but these days HM Constabulary is far more likely to solicit the opinions of such regular "users" of the public toilets than to arrest them.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
Of course, if he had been found drinking alcohol, the Methodists would have thrown him out immediately.
I assume you said this tongue in cheek?
Alcohol can't be supplied, sold or used on Methodist premises, nor may Methodist premises be used to promote its use or sale. Communion wine is non-alcoholic. But this does not apply to domestic occasions in private homes - alcohol can be kept and consumed by ministers in their own homes.
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Schroedinger's cat
Ship's cool cat
# 64
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
Of course, if he had been found drinking alcohol, the Methodists would have thrown him out immediately.
I assume you said this tongue in cheek?
Alcohol can't be supplied, sold or used on Methodist premises, nor may Methodist premises be used to promote its use or sale. Communion wine is non-alcoholic. But this does not apply to domestic occasions in private homes - alcohol can be kept and consumed by ministers in their own homes.
Yes it was. My upbringing was Methodist, and my parents would have been frowned on for making home-brew wine. It struck me as odd, for a denomination that was very hot on teetotalism, that a minister who was clearly breaking every other rule was still considered acceptable.
I know that, in my day, a minister being caught drunk in public would have been gone. I wonder if Flowers took a lot of care to not fall foul of the rules specifically, while flouting them in principle.
--------------------
Blog
Music for your enjoyment
Lord may all my hard times be healing times
take out this broken heart and renew my mind.
Posts: 18859 | From: At the bottom of a deep dark well. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
both his conviction for gross indecency in 1981,
On a sidenote, this was often a way of prosecuting consensual acts between homosexuals
Yes, I did wonder about that.
His 1981 conviction involved "performing a sex act with a trucker in a public toilet", which I believe is as illegal now as it was then.
Not great, but hardly Jimmy Saville - personally I think the culture of cottaging grew out of the widespread oppression of healthy homosexual relationships.
More pertinently, I think it is important to understand that he has not been convicted or disciplined (AFAIK) for accessing illegal material or for any form of violence - sexual or otherwise. This maybe why the risk assessments have not come out the way people might have expected.
His behaviour over the last few years has been a problem, and I wonder if this dates from his becoming an addict or whether he might have another health problem. Early onset dementia can be preceded by several years by personality changes and increasing disinihibition before cognitive impairment becomes obvious. If his cognitive skills were just starting to go, that would also partly explain his apprent poor preparation for the select comittee. (He might not be an experienced banker, but he could have been much better prepared.)
He is about the right age for such a condition. I hope I am wrong, because it is a hideous illness - but i would not be surprised if this turns out to be the case.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
Of course, if he had been found drinking alcohol, the Methodists would have thrown him out immediately.
I assume you said this tongue in cheek?
Alcohol can't be supplied, sold or used on Methodist premises, nor may Methodist premises be used to promote its use or sale. Communion wine is non-alcoholic. But this does not apply to domestic occasions in private homes - alcohol can be kept and consumed by ministers in their own homes.
Yes it was. My upbringing was Methodist, and my parents would have been frowned on for making home-brew wine. It struck me as odd, for a denomination that was very hot on teetotalism, that a minister who was clearly breaking every other rule was still considered acceptable.
I know that, in my day, a minister being caught drunk in public would have been gone. I wonder if Flowers took a lot of care to not fall foul of the rules specifically, while flouting them in principle.
It seems to me that the country and the media commentators have raised their eyebrows at this Reverend gentleman simply because they still believed that Methodists were abstemious.
Someone on a question time programme asked 'what happened to the pledge?'
I myself have been quite surprised at the almost 'student culture' attitude to drink amongst some Methodists I've come across - ministers included.
I was quite surprised to find a female deacon who was an afficianado of real ale and another who had been banned for drink driving and suffered no hiatus in his ministry.
When the world deplores the church's lowering standards something must be wrong.
There was a time when no evangelical would be seen dead having alcohol...not that Methodists have retained their essential evangelicalism.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I was a big real ale fan when I was more evangelical than I am now.
Wesley recommended beer as an alternative to gin. Which was the crack-cocaine of his day.
However, like you, I've noticed a rather self-conscious attitude towards drink among those Methodists who do imbibe. It's as if they've got something to prove.
It's bit like the old stories of convent girls unleashed from the constraints of their particular settings ...
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Actually, Mudfrog, you must have had a sheltered life or a rather narrow exposure to a particular form of evangelicalism if you assert that no evangelical would ever have been seen dead drinking alcohol ...
Complete abstinence was never a requirement in all evangelical circles. It was only a feature of particular strands - and understandably so in some settings.
I'm not sure about Spurgeon and alcohol but he was rather fond of an occasional cigar.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I was a big real ale fan when I was more evangelical than I am now.
Wesley recommended beer as an alternative to gin. Which was the crack-cocaine of his day.
Oh and Wesley was against that other demon drink...
Tea.
(strange fact picked up recently; the evidence suggests that it was both a luxury item at the time, and he had caffeine addiction from the amount he drank before giving it up.)
Jengie
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I was a big real ale fan when I was more evangelical than I am now.
Wesley recommended beer as an alternative to gin. Which was the crack-cocaine of his day.
Oh and Wesley was against that other demon drink...
Tea.
(strange fact picked up recently; the evidence suggests that it was both a luxury item at the time, and he had caffeine addiction from the amount he drank before giving it up.)
Jengie
I think if I was riding a horse for hundreds of miles a day i'd need a caffeine addiction too! LOL
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
I have only a layman's background, DT, but I'd had similar thoughts. His behaviour suggests either extreme compartmentalisation, or some serious loss of both self awareness and inhibition.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
lowlands_boy
Shipmate
# 12497
|
Posted
I'm a cradle Methodist and like most Methodists I've seen plenty of ministers come and go. I've known ones who were gay, bisexual, ones who liked a drink and ones who caused a scandal when they left their spouses.
The real reason Paul Flowers is in the national papers is because he was the chairman of a bank, and that profession has had a lot of focus recently. If he hadn't had a very prominent position, I don't think "Minister buys some drugs" would reallly get anywhere beyond a few column inches in a local paper otherwise.
--------------------
I thought I should update my signature line....
Posts: 836 | From: North West UK | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
dv
Shipmate
# 15714
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
Not great, but hardly Jimmy Saville - personally I think the culture of cottaging grew out of the widespread oppression of healthy homosexual relationships.
Perhaps that was a reason for cottaging in the 1950s but hardly in the 1980s when gay venues were available in any large UK town - unless one was getting off on doing something illicit and dangerous, too?
Posts: 70 | From: Lancs UK | Registered: Jun 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by dv:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
Not great, but hardly Jimmy Saville - personally I think the culture of cottaging grew out of the widespread oppression of healthy homosexual relationships.
Perhaps that was a reason for cottaging in the 1950s but hardly in the 1980s when gay venues were available in any large UK town - unless one was getting off on doing something illicit and dangerous, too?
Has anyone compared him to Jimmy Saville?
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
1981 is now 32 years ago. My recollection of those days is that it would have been well before notions of gay rights, not discriminating on grounds of orientation etc started to become diffused in even progressive parts of society, yet alone churches. And the offence doesn't even sound as though it related to a steady, but under the standards of those times, irregular, relationship. I don't know much about Methodism in that era, but from what I remember of attitudes generally, I'd have thought it's quite surprising that a person who committed such an offence then wasn't given the simple choice between resigning or being pushed.
Would the position be that much different now? It isn't a context of a stable and faithful relationship. It sounds more like the gay equivalent of devouring one's living with harlots?
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
BTW, how normal is it for a member of the clergy to be the chairman of a bank? I've never heard of that before. (In fact, as a Methodist I've never even come across a Methodist layperson who works in a bank!) I suppose there's no automatic conflict of interest in holding both of these roles, but it seems to be an unusual combination.
Did the Co-op's PR folk think that having a Methodist minister and Labour man at the helm would somehow appear earthy and authentic? Would Barclay's Bank or Lloyds have chosen a Quaker??
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by dv:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
Not great, but hardly Jimmy Saville - personally I think the culture of cottaging grew out of the widespread oppression of healthy homosexual relationships.
Perhaps that was a reason for cottaging in the 1950s but hardly in the 1980s when gay venues were available in any large UK town - unless one was getting off on doing something illicit and dangerous, too?
Has anyone compared him to Jimmy Saville?
It was being conflated with child and adult protection issues earlier in the thread. It is easy to read the sense of gross indecency as similar to indecent assault.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
Doublethink
Once again, in NO sense was I suggesting that what Paul Flowers did was anything like what Saville did.
Protecting both children and vulnerable adults - which are 'conflated', if you wish, by church safeguarding policies that cover BOTH issues - generally requires considering people's activities outside of church. True, none of Flowers' activities, legal or otherwise, make it inevitable that he'd be a danger to any churchgoers. But I would expect any church with safeguarding policies to reflect seriously on whether this might be a concern, and to take professional advice if a good assessment cannot be made internally. (At this point, though, the matter of Methodist safeguarding policies and disciplinary procedures has to be on the back burner, as lowland_boy has noted.)
As I said above, Flowers apparently remains popular with his congregation(s). This stands in his favour. Whatever happens to him, I hope that his positive contributions to the worshipping life of current and/or previous circuits will be noted.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
Actually, I was thinking of Andras post earlier. As conflating abuse itself with the Flowers allegations.
If one takes the view that one night stands or accessing porn makes you a danger to children and vulnerable adults, then we are going to have a huge amount of parents to worry about.
That is a separate issue to whether you are a fit and proper person to be a minister.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
andras
Shipmate
# 2065
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
Actually, I was thinking of Andras post earlier. As conflating abuse itself with the Flowers allegations.
If one takes the view that one night stands or accessing porn makes you a danger to children and vulnerable adults, then we are going to have a huge amount of parents to worry about.
That is a separate issue to whether you are a fit and proper person to be a minister.
But we do have a huge amount of parents to worry about; as I've said earlier, most abuse is actually within the family, a fact that the Government's ill-advised former 'stranger danger' campaign carefully ignored.
Part of my concern about the various safeguarding policies which are out there in a number of different organisations is that they are often unclear about who they are aimed at: is the purpose to show people how to recognise the symptoms of abuse and what to do if you suspect that it may have happened (which is valuable and sensible and should have happened much earlier); or is it intended to actually persuade people to stop abusing vulnerable children or adults (in which case it's probably a total waste of time).
As regards the current scandal, I remember C.S. Lewis' dictum that Careless lives cost talk. How true!
--------------------
God's on holiday.
(Why borrow a cat?)
Adrian Plass
Posts: 544 | From: Tregaron | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by andras:
But we do have a huge amount of parents to worry about;
Yes, but our basis for worrying about them isn't that they accessed (legal) porn, or engaged in one night stands, which I think was doublethink's point.
[ 25. November 2013, 09:05: Message edited by: chris stiles ]
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
mark_in_manchester
not waving, but...
# 15978
|
Posted
Maurice Glasman in yesterday's Observer gives a pretty accurate impression of what has been going on at Co-op bank.
Svitlana suggested she'd never known a Methodist who works in a bank. Well...I know of one or two... ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
--------------------
"We are punished by our sins, not for them" - Elbert Hubbard
(so good, I wanted to see it after my posts and not only after those of shipmate JBohn from whom I stole it)
Posts: 1596 | Registered: Oct 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
Andras wrote: quote:
As regards the current scandal, I remember C.S. Lewis' dictum that Careless lives cost talk.
Thanks for that one - I hadn't heard it before!
In the discussion of safeguarding children, we seem to have slid seamlessly from "family" to "parent". If that line is to be pursued, can I suggest greater rigour. From my recollection of the stats. (which was from several years back) those things are far from interchangeable. Though in fact I would suggest it is a blind alley anyway. I fail to see any evidence that Paul Flowers has been any kind or risk either to children or old people directly.
So far as the cottaging incident is concerned - it was a long time ago and there is no evidence I have seen that he has repeated it. In fact the evidence seems to point the other way.
Which leaves all the rest of the stuff. To be honest, it all seems to be lifted straight from the Boy's Own Book of Stereotypes (see under section B for Bankers). How many more stories of coke-fuelled threesomes with hookers do we need to hear about? This one just seems to have the minor variant that he is gay. If anything it's showing that the "masters of the universe" self-image is still with us in the financial sector.
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mark_in_manchester
not waving, but...
# 15978
|
Posted
quote:
Did the Co-op's PR folk think that having a Methodist minister and Labour man at the helm would somehow appear earthy and authentic?
That sounds horribly plausible - add 'proud and incompetent' and he seems even more the ideal frontman / cover. Poor bastard.
[ 25. November 2013, 09:46: Message edited by: mark_in_manchester ]
--------------------
"We are punished by our sins, not for them" - Elbert Hubbard
(so good, I wanted to see it after my posts and not only after those of shipmate JBohn from whom I stole it)
Posts: 1596 | Registered: Oct 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mark_in_manchester:
Svitlana suggested she'd never known a Methodist who works in a bank. Well...I know of one or two...
Ah, well. You mix in more elevated Methodist circles than I do, clearly. Let's say no more!
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
... True, none of Flowers' activities, legal or otherwise, make it inevitable that he'd be a danger to any churchgoers. ...
So the Bank may have chosen him to reassure those who might think, 'the Chairman's one of our Revs. So our life savings must be safe'. But that doesn't make him a danger to churchgoers because it's only their life savings that were at risk and no paedophilia was involved. And, he paid for sex, but as he was gay, no women were exploited. So that's all OK then.
And besides, no one has suggested so far that the people he bought his chemical and sexual pleasures from were Methodists. So he wasn't leading his own flock astray. All right again?
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
lowlands_boy
Shipmate
# 12497
|
Posted
I'm a Methodist, and I have worked in a bank.
Paul Flowers appears to have ended up as chairman of the Co-op bank on the back of a power struggle in the co-operative movement, according to a few things I've read.
--------------------
I thought I should update my signature line....
Posts: 836 | From: North West UK | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
So that's all OK then.
I'm not sure how you meant your post, but I don't think people were attempting to exculpate him.
The problem is that as honest Ron says above on one level:
"How many more stories of coke-fuelled threesomes with hookers do we need to hear about? This one just seems to have the minor variant that he is gay."
ISTM that on at least one level, a lot of the fuss is down to that minor variant, and a lot of the other details - like being in charge of a bank that floundered - are treated as incidental.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
