There is a world of difference between proven and alleged. Innocent people have died in jail by effectively being presumed guilty on the basis of unsupported allegations
![[Mad]](angryfire.gif)
quote:I'm unsure what you're implying we need to learn from Islam. To suggest that there's no abuse in Islam seems somewhat naive.
Originally posted by Martin60:
Something else we need to learn from Islam.
quote:Your argument is an idiot, Martin. On several levels.
Originally posted by Martin60:
And in the 11 years since? And before? And more? No allegations? Is the conspiracy of silence that effective? Domestic abuse in the Muslim community is reported. Grooming of vulnerable non-Muslim girls by Muslim men was known for YEARS by the police before they acted upon it. Human nature is human nature, but what is it about Islam that means that in mosques and madrasas predation appears to be pre-empted? Or are the - male - victims all too terrified? Including too terrified to take their vengeance as men?
I suspect it's that in a positive sense there is no privacy.
quote:He is not entitled to this as an explanation. The article says this is "uncomfortable reading", but it isn't. It is outrageous.
"I believed Peter Ball's protestations and gave too little credence to the vulnerable young men and boys behind these allegations," he [Carey] said.
quote:Recent case:
Originally posted by Martin60:
And in the 11 years since? And before? And more? No allegations? Is the conspiracy of silence that effective? Domestic abuse in the Muslim community is reported. Grooming of vulnerable non-Muslim girls by Muslim men was known for YEARS by the police before they acted upon it. Human nature is human nature, but what is it about Islam that means that in mosques and madrasas predation appears to be pre-empted? Or are the - male - victims all too terrified? Including too terrified to take their vengeance as men?
I suspect it's that in a positive sense there is no privacy.
quote:Very sad for the victims, of course. Sad too for George Carey. He wasn't my favourite ABofC, he fucked up massively over this, but he was a servant of Christ who did much good elsewhere. Sad too for Peter Ball. Not that I'm excusing him for the terrible things he has done, but he is a fellow Christian. I grieve for them all.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I'm curious who this is sad for? Undoubtedly for the victims, but who else? Surely not for those who covered it all up?
quote:A friend ran an archaeological dig in Damascus 35 years ago. He had two prepubescent lads with him (there mother not long dead). He was told to let them go where they like, no one would touch them. So he did and no one did. I wouldn't have mind.
Originally posted by Rocinante:
quote:Recent case:
Originally posted by Martin60:
And in the 11 years since? And before? And more? No allegations? Is the conspiracy of silence that effective? Domestic abuse in the Muslim community is reported. Grooming of vulnerable non-Muslim girls by Muslim men was known for YEARS by the police before they acted upon it. Human nature is human nature, but what is it about Islam that means that in mosques and madrasas predation appears to be pre-empted? Or are the - male - victims all too terrified? Including too terrified to take their vengeance as men?
I suspect it's that in a positive sense there is no privacy.
Koran teacher guilty of Cardiff mosque sex abuse
No religion or institution is free of child sex abuse. It is endemic in our society.
quote:And I grew up in the C of E at around the same time and never experienced any hint of anything untoward, despite being alone or in small groups with priests and other authority figures, with no other adults present. At the time, I don't think anyone would have thought twice about this. However, others were not so lucky.
Originally posted by Martin60:
quote:A friend ran an archaeological dig in Damascus 35 years ago. He had two prepubescent lads with him (there mother not long dead). He was told to let them go where they like, no one would touch them. So he did and no one did. I wouldn't have mind.
Originally posted by Rocinante:
quote:Recent case:
Originally posted by Martin60:
And in the 11 years since? And before? And more? No allegations? Is the conspiracy of silence that effective? Domestic abuse in the Muslim community is reported. Grooming of vulnerable non-Muslim girls by Muslim men was known for YEARS by the police before they acted upon it. Human nature is human nature, but what is it about Islam that means that in mosques and madrasas predation appears to be pre-empted? Or are the - male - victims all too terrified? Including too terrified to take their vengeance as men?
I suspect it's that in a positive sense there is no privacy.
Koran teacher guilty of Cardiff mosque sex abuse
No religion or institution is free of child sex abuse. It is endemic in our society.
quote:No. Unless the UK are so far behind underpopulated hillbilly Sask. We had proper procedures in place from the mid 1980s.
Originally posted by leo:
I loathe Carey - but I can't help thinking that he is being judged by 21st Century standards for attitudes and procedures (or lack of them) which were commonly held in the 20th Century (and I know that doesn't make everything right)
quote:A lot of us remember the 20th century, having been alive then. Even way back then at the dawn of recorded history most of us knew that child rape was a) morally wrong and b) a crime. For some reason the pretense that neither of these facts was widely known way back in the dim mists of the late twentieth century seems particularly common when some clergyman is accused of this kind of wrongdoing.
Originally posted by leo:
I loathe Carey - but I can't help thinking that he is being judged by 21st Century standards for attitudes and procedures (or lack of them) which were commonly held in the 20th Century (and I know that doesn't make everything right)
quote:Child molesters, as they were then rather quaintly known, were no more tolerated back in the 70s & 80s than they are now. However, back then most people would have reacted with consternation to the idea that molestation of children could have occurred in a religious context (or in the BBC, or in a hospital, etc.). It is now a matter of public policy that being a well-known and respected pillar of society is no guarantee of sexual morality or trustworthiness. Back then this notion was kept under wraps.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:A lot of us remember the 20th century, having been alive then. Even way back then at the dawn of recorded history most of us knew that child rape was a) morally wrong and b) a crime. For some reason the pretense that neither of these facts was widely known way back in the dim mists of the late twentieth century seems particularly common when some clergyman is accused of this kind of wrongdoing.
Originally posted by leo:
I loathe Carey - but I can't help thinking that he is being judged by 21st Century standards for attitudes and procedures (or lack of them) which were commonly held in the 20th Century (and I know that doesn't make everything right)
quote:Personally, I'm not sad, I'm spitting tacks. I am reconciled to the Church of England operating on the basis that one gets on if one is a good chap but I really draw the line on the reporting of child abuse being done on that basis.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I'm curious who this is sad for? Undoubtedly for the victims, but who else? Surely not for those who covered it all up?
quote:Sorry, does a 13 year old count as an adult in the U.K.? Or does the fact that Ball cut a deal and so was never formally tried or convicted on that particular allegation mean that it definitely didn't happen?
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
Ball was convicted of sexually abusing 18 'teenagers and young men', so no children as such. Fair point.
quote:I remember when a 21 year old man sleeping with an 17 year old man was legally child rape.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
]A lot of us remember the 20th century, having been alive then. Even way back then at the dawn of recorded history most of us knew that child rape was a) morally wrong and b) a crime.
quote:"[H]e was never actually convicted" seems a problematic standard to apply to situation like this. The article you linked to at the top of this thread deals with church collusion in a cover-up of accusations. I don't think it's reasonable to receive credible accusations of child rape and then wave them away with "he's never been convicted". That's gaming the system to insure he'll never be convicted.
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
Sorry, I missed that bit, but, as you point out, he was never actually convicted of abusing underage boys.
quote:Shame they missed all the real abuse happening at the same time.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
I also remember when groups of conservative Christian social workers launched a series of groundless accusations of ritual abuse of children: some of the most notorious cases were just prior to Carey's installment as Archbishop of Canterbury.
quote:This does not mean it is OK to ignore or dismiss any complaints of abuse.
The tabloids are still prone to witch hunts against paedophiles once the paedophiles have been publically identified.
quote:ISTM, it was more that such things were not spoken of and whatever excuse it took to not investigate was used.
So my impression is that reasonable people could have considered that concerns about child abuse were a matter of moral panic.
quote:.. but equally everyone knew the horror of rape and wouldn't have wanted it to happen to their own children.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
So my impression is that reasonable people could have considered that concerns about child abuse were a matter of moral panic.
quote:Are they "bad enough"? We go from assertions that "the issue with Peter Ball" had nothing to do with children (and 13 years old apparently being adulthood by mr cheesy standards), and then suddenly there's a shift from vague talk of "the issue" to a hyper-legalistic focus on criminal conviction, without which the allegations and cover-up don't really count as "bad enough".
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
Fair point, and I apologise if I appeared to condone or wave away his crimes. The fact remains that he wasn't convicted of abusing children, but I think that he should have been accused, and tried accordingly. The crimes themselves are bad enough, without the Church's shameful collusion and covering-up.
quote:Just a second. I thought that Ball was accused of abusing adults. It appears this impression was because he was convicted of a small number of incidents and that there were other incidents that were covered up or negotiated away.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Are they "bad enough"? We go from assertions that "the issue with Peter Ball" had nothing to do with children (and 13 years old apparently being adulthood by mr cheesy standards), and then suddenly there's a shift from vague talk of "the issue" to a hyper-legalistic focus on criminal conviction, without which the allegations and cover-up don't really count as "bad enough".
quote:I think the telling phrase here is 'people... didn't understand'. Better knowledge about human behaviours, and how those in positions of power can misuse it, plus improving means of finding out about it will, one can only hope, lessen such abuses in the future.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
One of the most shocking things about it is how Ball was gradually rehabilitated, so much so, that he ended up working in schools. I get that this was a while ago, when people probably didn't really understand the nature of groomers, and also their addictive behaviour. But time and time again, the victims come last.
quote:Not really. Even those of us old enough to remember the 20th century know that the general default position of not really wanting to believe that clergy do anything wrong was untenable.
Originally posted by leo:
but I can't help thinking that he is being judged by 21st Century standards for attitudes and procedures (or lack of them) which were commonly held in the 20th Century
quote:And don't forget that at least 1 bishop offended rather than just mis-handled complaints. Bp Greg Thompson, recently retired as bishop of Newcastle, has recounted how he was molested by Bp Ian Shevill, who was bishop there in the 1970s. Until this disclosure, Bp Ian had had a glowing reputation for his episcopacy in both North Queensland and Newcastle.
Originally posted by Vulpior:
We have seen some damning criticism of the Anglican Church and of individual bishops during the hearings of our Royal Commission into Institutional Child Abuse. Bishops have resigned and been defrocked (the latter subsequently reversed), or stepped aside prematurely from their duties, when their failings in handling allegations have come to light.
Cardinal Pell has been the subject of much public focus, but the past behaviour of the Anglican hierarchy is shaming.
quote:Your last sentence is certainly true, but after reading the BBC report mentioned in the first post several times I would not rush too quickly to judgement before reading the original report.
Originally posted by Pyx_e:
I can not get my head around Carey's actions and words in this matter when aligned with his words and actions in others. Our ability to fool ourselves seems limitless.
quote:I was born in the 1950s so have what might be described as working knowledge of the attitudes of the 20th century. At no time was it ever considered acceptable for young people - whether male or female - to be preyed upon by adults for their sexual gratification. In particular, as a clergy child I can attest that some bishops from the late 1950s onwards who were very aware of the danger of paedophile priests and who did their utmost to stop them in their tracks (writing honest references, refusing to appoint, etc) and some archdeacons also refused to shield paedophiles from prosecution.
I loathe Carey - but I can't help thinking that he is being judged by 21st Century standards for attitudes and procedures (or lack of them) which were commonly held in the 20th Century (and I know that doesn't make everything right)
quote:What makes the appointment of Ball to Gloucester even more grotesque is that as early as 1985 diocesan representatives in Norwich successfully opposed his appointment as bishop there, saying "...we needed someone married and that Norwich really could not take a group of young men living with the bishop in the bishop’s house – nor was this pastorally wise for the bishop - this is quoted in Dame Moira's report. While the notion that a bishop "needs" a wife might strike us as quaint, it was well-known shorthand for the time that they recognised the candidate as homosexual which, coupled with the comment about the "group of young men" left little doubt of their reading of the bishop and his proclivities.
Of the 18 victims cited when Ball was sentenced in 2015, five had encountered Ball while they were still at school. At least one abusive encounter took place on school premises.
quote:As many have pointed out, there was never a time - during the time in question - when this behaviour was tolerated by society or that didn't have some manner of of legislative standard or procedure to at least criminalise if not prevent. You do however raise an important issue; namely that at that time it was thought by some that this behaviour could be halted in some way and that those who committed such crimes had simply succumbed to temptation. Whether we like it or not, there was an attitude in the church (and not just the CofE) that moving a person could, or might, help alleviate or halt the issue.
I loathe Carey - but I can't help thinking that he is being judged by 21st Century standards for attitudes and procedures (or lack of them) which were commonly held in the 20th Century (and I know that doesn't make everything right)
quote:and his earlier post adds additional background and is in itself pretty damning:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
Richard Bartholomew has a fairly measured piece on his blog, with extracts from the review and his own comments on them - drawing in additional context:
http://barthsnotes.com/2017/06/23/some-notes-on-the-independent-review-into-bishop-peter-ball/
quote:I disagree. If we want to understand what kind of a person Peter Ball is and was, then it's important to look at his behaviour and how he influenced those around him. Adrian Plass didn't just say Ball was a nice guy. He held him up as one of the most spiritual people he met; an inspiration in his own spiritual journey. He based one of the major characters in his 'Sacred Diary' books on him.
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
What Adrian Plass says about him is immaterial to the case.
quote:I've now read the original report. I can't see that it puts Lord Carey in any better light than the press reporting.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:Your last sentence is certainly true, but after reading the BBC report mentioned in the first post several times I would not rush too quickly to judgement before reading the original report.
Originally posted by Pyx_e:
I can not get my head around Carey's actions and words in this matter when aligned with his words and actions in others. Our ability to fool ourselves seems limitless.
quote:I wonder if theological training courses deal with the tie-up and possible confusion between spirituality and sexuality. This is well known in meditation circles, and I remember the warnings we used to give people on Zen retreats, that you may well get a raging horn on. In fact, we had a ban on sexual activity.
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
quote:I disagree. If we want to understand what kind of a person Peter Ball is and was, then it's important to look at his behaviour and how he influenced those around him. Adrian Plass didn't just say Ball was a nice guy. He held him up as one of the most spiritual people he met; an inspiration in his own spiritual journey. He based one of the major characters in his 'Sacred Diary' books on him.
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
What Adrian Plass says about him is immaterial to the case.
So, what happened? Did Ball just pull the wool over Plass's eyes? Is Plass just a bad judge of character? Was Ball just a contradiction (as we all are) of the light and the dark? Was Ball just a plain evil manipulator?
To stop stuff like this happening we need to understand the behaviour and personality types of abusers. So, how they can mislead those close to them is incredibly pertinent. I get you're probably talking about merely the criminal case against him, and yes, what Plass thinks is immaterial in terms of guilt. But in terms of sentencing, who this abuser was and how he operated is important, and character evidence is part of that. And in terms of preventing future abuse by spotting the signs early, and not allowing those in power to manipulate (or be manipulated), it's even more important.
quote:The review specifically deals with this question:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
So, what happened? Did Ball just pull the wool over Plass's eyes? Is Plass just a bad judge of character? Was Ball just a contradiction (as we all are) of the light and the dark? Was Ball just a plain evil manipulator?
quote:Hmmm. Between uni and work I did one of those year-out theological/volunteering courses (DNA, with Pioneer). Lots of teenagers and early 20's people getting together in quite an emotional / spiritual growth environment... They had a ban on new relationships for that year. I believe YWAM have the same rule for DTS. It seemed draconian at the time but I can see the wisdom of it.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I wonder if theological training courses deal with the tie-up and possible confusion between spirituality and sexuality. This is well known in meditation circles, and I remember the warnings we used to give people on Zen retreats, that you may well get a raging horn on. In fact, we had a ban on sexual activity.
But maybe this seems too oriental or too indelicate for the C of E?
quote:There are those who are odd, socially awkward, don't fit in or eccentric who need protecting too. If there is a witch hunt looking for a paedophile in every bush or vestry then these are the people who tend to get caught on the ducking stool. Think of
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
It is stressful as hell. And it is hell. Diabolical. And it does sometimes change or end careers if an unsubstantiated complaint is investigated. But what can you do? Do you let a Ball type person go because you have empathy? Is this what happened here? Looks so. How many more of these are there of which this might be tip of the iceberg? There is lots of data to indicate that a groomed person is likely to self-blame and that the majority are not reported.
quote:Sounds reasonable. Except for a few things: Some abusers are very careful, victims often fear to speak and it is only by a long-term pattern that they are found out.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
It does look pretty damning, and is all the more concerning to me in that I personally crossed paths with some of the people named in these reports (not Peter Ball though).
That said, I have some sympathy when it comes to entertaining (or passing on) serious but unsubstantiated accusations against a colleague - especially if some of the accusations are from third parties.
As someone who oversees quite a number of individuals involved in ministry, I find it challenging to find the right balance between responsibly investigating complaints (thankfully none of this order!) and preserving my team against unwarranted, divisive attacks. I would certainly be less inclined to take an accusation made via a third party seriously if the victim is themselves in a position to complain.
quote:A massive percentage of molestation is by men in heterosexual marriages. So, yes, Norwich saved themselves trouble, but not as you appear to mean.
Originally posted by andras:
St Paul's advice to Timothy that a bishop should be a married man with one wife (ok, I know the Greek is a little ambiguous, but that's the usually-taken sense of it) would seem to suggest that Norwich were taking the Scripture seriously. Certainly they saved themselves a lot of trouble.
quote:Yes, my penchant for chocolate cake and getting angry a bit too easily is exactly the same as raping children.
Bishop Peter Ball has had his sins very clearly called out, and we know a lot about those whom he hurt; and now we know a lot about those who enabled him to keep doing so. God help us, most of us manage to fly beneath the radar with our own failings.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
quote:Yes. Too often it is "We caught the baddie, now look away. Nothing more to see".
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
But in terms of sentencing, who this abuser was and how he operated is important, and character evidence is part of that. And in terms of preventing future abuse by spotting the signs early, and not allowing those in power to manipulate (or be manipulated), it's even more important.
quote:If he shagged consenting adults, then you might have a point. He fucked children. Not something one does simply because one is horny.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I wonder if theological training courses deal with the tie-up and possible confusion between spirituality and sexuality. This is well known in meditation circles, and I remember the warnings we used to give people on Zen retreats, that you may well get a raging horn on. In fact, we had a ban on sexual activity.
But maybe this seems too oriental or too indelicate for the C of E?
quote:It's easy to condemn and be wise after the event. The opposite extreme, of denouncing anyone and everyone, starting with colleagues, on second-hand testimony, does not appeal either.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
this "Wait and See" approach almost always seems to be biased towards the authority figure.
quote:Libel risks aside (but please note that as Hosts we are monitoring this thread closely) I haven't seen anything to suggest that has been proven or indeed alleged.
If he shagged consenting adults, then you might have a point. He fucked [children.
quote:Who said anything about going to the opposite extreme? I do say err to the side of the victim, however.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:It's easy to condemn and be wise after the event. The opposite extreme, of denouncing anyone and everyone, starting with colleagues, on second-hand testimony, does not appeal either.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
this "Wait and See" approach almost always seems to be biased towards the authority figure.
quote:Though it isn't the same as proven, it has been alleged.
I haven't seen anything to suggest that has been proven or indeed alleged.
quote:Only if if you think that a consensual relationship with teens and possibly children is an OK thing.
Originally posted by mark_in_manchester:
It's different in terms of the object of sexual desire; different in terms of the reciprocity of sexual desire; different in terms of the power relationship wrapped up in that sexual desire; and for those reasons and probably lots of others we find it a repugnant and abusive sexual desire. But it is still a sexual desire, isn't it? If so Qs points about sex and spirituality might be pertinent.
quote:And therein lies the problem. In many cases you don't know if you've got a victim. You have a complainant and an alleged perpetrator.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
I do say err to the side of the victim, however.
quote:See above. There is a world of difference between proven and alleged. Innocent people have died in jail by effectively being presumed guilty on the basis of unsupported allegations
Though it isn't the same as proven, it has been alleged.
quote:True. But I would also like the benefit of the doubt not to be withheld due to any lack of position, something I see far too often.
What has been litigated is bad enough to make my point about not giving the benefit of the doubt merely because of position.
quote:Yes. My point is that you investigate every accusation, not that you immediately conclude the accused is guilty.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:And therein lies the problem. In many cases you don't know if you've got a victim. You have a complainant and an alleged perpetrator.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
I do say err to the side of the victim, however.
quote:And there are many more victims of abuse that were intimidated, shamed, hushed and shoved aside. Even greater
There is a world of difference between proven and alleged. Innocent people have died in jail by effectively being presumed guilty on the basis of unsupported allegations
quote:The point of that was that abuse was being portrayed as a libidinous over-reaction rather than the violation it is.
Not only that, you simply cannot fairly describe the whole gamut of sexual abuse of minors as "fucking children". Fortunately most jurisdictions have the sense to factor that in, as I hope you might.
quote:The benefit of the doubt is not assuming guilt during the process of investigating, not in determining whether one will investigate. Too often, especially for the religious, the latter is the case.
But I would also like the benefit of the doubt not to be withheld due to any lack of position, something I see far too often.
quote:There is also a world of difference between allegations that are never tried because of weak evidence and allegations that are never tried because powerful people engaged in a cover-up, as seems to be the case here. (That is itself not a conspiratorial untried allegation but the conclusion of the independent review mention in the article from the OP.)
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:See above. There is a world of difference between proven and alleged.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Though it isn't the same as proven, it has been alleged.
quote:Confusing the terms "victim" and "complainant", or suggesting "proven" is equivalent to "alleged", does not suggest that point.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Yes. My point is that you investigate every accusation, not that you immediately conclude the accused is guilty.
quote:The latter may be true, but I think the question in this case is who should be doing the investigating and in what circumstances.
The benefit of the doubt is not assuming guilt during the process of investigating, not in determining whether one will investigate. Too often, especially for the religious, the latter is the case.
quote:I've no reason to doubt the report's conclusions (I haven't yet read the report itself); rather, I'm querying the BBC's reporting of them. Specifically, I don't think that the claim made in the BBC article that Carey failed to forward certain letters of complaint he received from third parties is a good example, in and of itself, of such a cover-up.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
There is also a world of difference between allegations that are never tried because of weak evidence and allegations that are never tried because powerful people engaged in a cover-up, as seems to be the case here. (That is itself not a conspiratorial untried allegation but the conclusion of the independent review mention in the article from the OP.)
quote:Institutionalised compartmentalism?
Originally posted by Crœsos:
The idea that if you cover up abuse effectively enough it never really happened seems to be the pernicious root of most of these kinds of situations.
quote:Having now read it, I agree, but I think the picture is much more complex than the BBC article suggests.
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
I've now read the original report. I can't see that it puts Lord Carey in any better light than the press reporting.
quote:I've dug out some of the relevant bits of Plass' writings.
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
quote:I disagree. If we want to understand what kind of a person Peter Ball is and was, then it's important to look at his behaviour and how he influenced those around him.
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
What Adrian Plass says about him is immaterial to the case.
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
quote:Yes, I agree with that, and think it is well said. As I said, I think someone who abuses children is broken, and by that I mean very psychically unwell. So, I particularly resonate with your statement that this is an abusive expression of desire.
Originally posted by mark_in_manchester:
It's different in terms of the object of sexual desire; different in terms of the reciprocity of sexual desire; different in terms of the power relationship wrapped up in that sexual desire; and for those reasons and probably lots of others we find it a repugnant and abusive sexual desire. But it is still a sexual desire, isn't it? If so Qs points about sex and spirituality might be pertinent.
I have personal reasons to echo the points made up-thread about the family as a context for abuse. ISTM that sex drive is a strange, strange thing. Its abusive expression is a tragedy. FWIW, I am increasingly no longer surprised by inspiring goodness and breathtaking evil co-existing in the same person.
x-post, responding to Dark Knight
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
. quote:That doesn't seem to match the European experience where the vast majority of perpetrators are still family members. I haven;t seen the very, very latest figures but I'd be surprised if there has been an incredibly dramatic shift in the last five years.
a. Most offences against boys and male youths are committed by those outside the extended family, and almost all the offenders are male.
quote:One of the most difficult things for society here in Ireland to come to grips with in the last decade and after many inquiries, reports and studies into sexual abuse in Ireland has been the shocking oversight in regards to the role of women as perpetrators. There is a social and cultural barrier to overcome that seems to automatically assume that women do not generally commit such crimes. What has been discovered here is that the reporting of such crimes by women seems to have a greater level of stigma for the survivor to report. The various reports and studies of course include child abuse to mean more than just sexual abuse, but the reports acknowledge that there may well be a very significant under-reporting in this area. One of the more positive aspects of all of this has been the acknowledgement of both sexual and physical abuse among partnered adults and there has even been a campaign run here to raise awareness of this aspect of abuse perpetrated by women in marriage. The cultural reasons for not reporting such crimes here would be very powerful.
b. Most offences against girls and female youths are committed by those inside the extended family, with a trend in the last decade to being the new partner of the mother; I cannot recall off the top of my head when an offender was not male.
quote:This one always presents a particular problem, despite its apparent truthfulness. For those who are survivors of abuse, the stigma of the abused turning into abusers due to their experiences is horrifically crippling; especially in terms of reporting such crime. It's one of those important and possibly crucial bits of information that, while we cannot ignore it, must be dealt with and examined with extreme care.
c. Increasingly, those being sentenced report that they themselves were abused themselves, regardless of the sex of their victim.
quote:I can't do that, nor would I want to as like you, I think it is also BS. However, it is often stated as a fact by many and the incorrect inference is often taken from it. The idea of the abused becoming abuser due to the experience of abuse is quite an assumption to draw in my mind. Some abusers having been abused in their own past may merely be coincidence or it may point to something more significant. Abusers having been abused in their past is a very, very different statement from 'the abused go on to abuse'. Hence why I feel making these statements very often needs to be much more clear and done with extreme care and clarity.
So maybe you can tell me the theory of how being abused causes someone to become an abuser.....
quote:This, it seems to me, is the heart of the problem. In the 80s Ball ran a programme for young men, where they lived with him in a semi-monastic lifestyle, as part of exploring what God was calling them to. A friend of mine spent some time on it, benefitted enormously, and went on to be a priest. When Ball was convicted this same friend was heartbroken - Ball had helped him enormously, had never behaved inappropriately towards him, and my friend wasn't aware of anything wrong going on while he was there. So was Ball both saintly AND an evil manipulator? Is it possible to be both?
Was Ball just a contradiction (as we all are) of the light and the dark? Was Ball just a plain evil manipulator?
quote:This, it seems to me, is the heart of the problem. In the 80s Ball ran a programme for young men, where they lived with him in a semi-monastic lifestyle, as part of exploring what God was calling them to. A friend of mine spent some time on it, benefitted enormously, and went on to be a priest. When Ball was convicted this same friend was heartbroken - Ball had helped him enormously, had never behaved inappropriately towards him, and my friend wasn't aware of anything wrong going on while he was there. So was Ball both saintly AND an evil manipulator? Is it possible to be both?
Was Ball just a contradiction (as we all are) of the light and the dark? Was Ball just a plain evil manipulator?
quote:It certainly is in the case of workplace bullies - the people who aren't being victimised by them often find it very difficult to believe that there is a problem.
So was Ball both saintly AND an evil manipulator? Is it possible to be both?
quote:Obviously not making any direct comparison here but on the matter of evil and goodness working in tandem in one person there is no doubt they can.
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
. So was Ball both saintly AND an evil manipulator? Is it possible to be both?
quote:Good find.
Originally posted by Adarynefoedd:
Thought also this article at the bottom of the page, a whitewash in the Daily Telegraph 14.3.93 shows a lot of manipulation and re-editing. https://theneedleblog.wordpress.com/2015/10/07/peter-ball-how-the-british-establishment-protects-its-own/
quote:I think its perfectly possible for people to be both evil, and do good. OTOH I would hesitate to call such behavior 'saintly' which to me signifies something about very deep motivation.
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
So was Ball both saintly AND an evil manipulator? Is it possible to be both?
quote:The argument is that if a person grows up as a victim of abuse, they find it difficult in adult life to accept that abuse is not normal. Much the same as a child growing up in a house where there's a lot of domestic violence, or other criminal activity. If you want a detailed examination of the theory, read
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Being an abuse survivor is connected to being an abuser how? It certainly doesn't make someone an abuser. Perhaps it is this: abuse is common, when caught abusers tell of their abuse history to soften the consequences and response, and this is only about the very common experience of being abused. So maybe you can tell me the theory of how being abused causes someone to become an abuser - I think it's BS. because most victims don't sexually abuse others. I think something rather special is going on inside the minds, feelings and spirits of the small group of abuse victims who go forth and abuse others, absolutely not connected with being a victim earlier in life.
quote:Hardly, and hardly an objective source. It appears to be written by the head of the abuse team at a well known and large firm of solicitors who present themselves as practising in this field. They make a point in their publicity that they are 'no win, no fee', with a list of high profile cases on their web site as an encouragement. If one knows that, then whatever the language of manufactured outrage, it's difficult not to hear the message 'come to us and we'll get you lots of lovely compo'.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:Good find.
Originally posted by Adarynefoedd:
Thought also this article at the bottom of the page, a whitewash in the Daily Telegraph 14.3.93 shows a lot of manipulation and re-editing. https://theneedleblog.wordpress.com/2015/10/07/peter-ball-how-the-british-establishment-protects-its-own/
And, welcome!
quote:Sure, we have this all here as well. Also "Gladue Reports" about aboriginal factors. I hold the view of the first principle is protection of the public. These deprivation factors may be used to sentence at lower ends of ranges.
Originally posted by Gee D:
Perhaps you don't understand the daily application of them. In criminal cases here, there is very commonly a pre-sentence report prepared by the Probation and Parole Service to assist the court, setting out relevant background material. That may contain an assertion by the prisoner of abuse as a child. It is a matter for the sentencing judge to decide whether to accept that assertion or not, acceptance not being by any means automatic. Acceptance is far more likely if the prisoner gives direct evidence of it to the court where his account can be tested by cross-examination.
quote:That's why I provided the link to the High Court decision - it was purely a decision about sentence, not about conviction. It's worth reading.
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Sure, we have this all here as well. Also "Gladue Reports" about aboriginal factors. I hold the view of the first principle is protection of the public. These deprivation factors may be used to sentence at lower ends of ranges.
quote:Your sense of social justice is a good as Ball's and his class.
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:Hardly, and hardly an objective source. It appears to be written by the head of the abuse team at a well known and large firm of solicitors who present themselves as practising in this field. They make a point in their publicity that they are 'no win, no fee', with a list of high profile cases on their web site as an encouragement. If one knows that, then whatever the language of manufactured outrage, it's difficult not to hear the message 'come to us and we'll get you lots of lovely compo'.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:Good find.
Originally posted by Adarynefoedd:
Thought also this article at the bottom of the page, a whitewash in the Daily Telegraph 14.3.93 shows a lot of manipulation and re-editing. https://theneedleblog.wordpress.com/2015/10/07/peter-ball-how-the-british-establishment-protects-its-own/
And, welcome!
quote:No one is saying all, or even most, abused will abuse others. What is being said is that abusers are likely to have been abused themselves. It makes sense that some people will abuse no matter their own experience and that experience will affect the behaviour of others.
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Such theories are unworthy. Heard such ideas first in the early 1980s. The epidemiology from the Badgely Royal Commission showed 1 in 4 girls and 1 in 7 boys had sexual behaviour toward them (1984, Canada).. Which means an awful lot of perpertrators have either had it done to them or saw it. No causation.
quote:Cynically, it might be said to be a classic cover up. It can't - at this distance - be proven either way.
Originally posted by Adarynefoedd:
Enoch thanks agree with you about the main article it was only the old article from the Daily Telegraph I found interesting. Note the fiancee and marriage denied etc.
quote:Abusers are also likely to have looked at pornography, had consensual sex etc. Why make the point that abusers are likely to have been abused themselves if not irrelevant? I think it serves offenders who want and need to create a "poor me" and redirection of empathy as abuser is relabelled as an abuser-victim.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
No one is saying all, or even most, abused will abuse others. What is being said is that abusers are likely to have been abused themselves. It makes sense that some people will abuse no matter their own experience and that experience will affect the behaviour of others.
The same is thought with sociopathic behaviour.
quote:Martyn, you'll have to explain that riposte. What on earth connection are you claiming there is between social justice and aggressive marketing by litigation solicitors?
Originally posted by Martin60:
quote:Your sense of social justice is a good as Ball's and his class.
Originally posted by Enoch:
Hardly, and hardly an objective source. It appears to be written by the head of the abuse team at a well known and large firm of solicitors who present themselves as practising in this field. They make a point in their publicity that they are 'no win, no fee', with a list of high profile cases on their web site as an encouragement. If one knows that, then whatever the language of manufactured outrage, it's difficult not to hear the message 'come to us and we'll get you lots of lovely compo'.
quote:I think it very relevant. Understanding the why could help reduce future occurrences.
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Why make the point that abusers are likely to have been abused themselves if not irrelevant?
quote:Sympathy? Aren't Christians suppose to have that for everyone?
I think it serves offenders who want and need to create a "poor me" and redirection of empathy as abuser is relabelled as an abuser-victim.
quote:Why are you reading more into what I've said than is there? Unless the rate of inherited abuse patterns is insignificant, then addressing it is worthwhile. And, hey, if we are wrong, fewer abused children anyway. Win!
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
It is about base rates. Are you suggesting that more abusers are victims than others?
quote:You started down this path, show your data.
Show your data. I haven't seen any that can be trusted. Everyone facing charges says they're a victim. It is excuse driven theoretical nonsense.
quote:Though you said empathy instead of sympathy, you brought up the shift in feeling for the abuser rather than the victim. I am saying understanding the mechanism doesn't inherently bring mitigating feelings toward the abuser.
Straw man re sympathy for abusers. No one suggested execution except you.
quote:There is no inherited pattern of abuse; a theory without data. (I presume you don't mean genetic, rather social learning)
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Unless the rate of inherited abuse patterns is insignificant, then addressing it is worthwhile. And, hey, if we are wrong, fewer abused children anyway. Win!
quote:It can't be made for you Enoch.
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:Martyn, you'll have to explain that riposte. What on earth connection are you claiming there is between social justice and aggressive marketing by litigation solicitors?
Originally posted by Martin60:
quote:Your sense of social justice is a good as Ball's and his class.
Originally posted by Enoch:
Hardly, and hardly an objective source. It appears to be written by the head of the abuse team at a well known and large firm of solicitors who present themselves as practising in this field. They make a point in their publicity that they are 'no win, no fee', with a list of high profile cases on their web site as an encouragement. If one knows that, then whatever the language of manufactured outrage, it's difficult not to hear the message 'come to us and we'll get you lots of lovely compo'.
quote:This is the base rate problem I referred to above. If the Bagley Royal Commission statistic of 1 in 7 males and 1 in 4 females have experienced sexual assault, and then we look at the statistic of offenders who claim abuse in their history, if we look at men, we end up with 14% of males in the general population who've experienced abuse. pretty close to your 12%.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
This summary seems more well-founded, and cites a figure of 12% of abusers who go on to abuse. However, it's not clear what the figure is for non-abused people. It may also ignore other factors, (confounds).
quote:John Peel is still venerated enough to have a stage named after him at Glastonbury, but wiki gives us this:
Originally posted by L'organist:
I was born in the 1950s so have what might be described as working knowledge of the attitudes of the 20th century. At no time was it ever considered acceptable for young people - whether male or female - to be preyed upon by adults for their sexual gratification.
quote:I want to agree with you but I'm beginning to wonder. Are there really individuals whose lives have been so transformed by the grace of God that his love consistently shines through, as thought they were stained glass? Or is that the sort of thing we tell kids in Sunday School, which sounds nice but has little relation to reality?
I think its perfectly possible for people to be both evil, and do good. OTOH I would hesitate to call such behavior 'saintly' which to me signifies something about very deep motivation.
quote:That's really not what I was saying at all.
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
I want to agree with you but I'm beginning to wonder. Are there really individuals whose lives have been so transformed by the grace of God that his love consistently shines through, as thought they were stained glass?
quote:I think that the answer to this is "yes", but I think that people who have committed sexual abuse do not come under this heading even if people once thought that they did. I've met people who I would describe in those terms I've also met people who have been convicted on charges of sexual abuse. I illustrate the interaction between the two with a Venn diagram.
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
chris stiles:quote:I want to agree with you but I'm beginning to wonder. Are there really individuals whose lives have been so transformed by the grace of God that his love consistently shines through, as thought they were stained glass? Or is that the sort of thing we tell kids in Sunday School, which sounds nice but has little relation to reality?
I think its perfectly possible for people to be both evil, and do good. OTOH I would hesitate to call such behavior 'saintly' which to me signifies something about very deep motivation.
quote:It is possible for schoolgirls to seduce adult men. This doesn't stop it being sexual assault on the part of the adult man, if he succumbs to a schoolgirl's advances.
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Or if you read Colin Dexter's Morse novel Last Seen Wearing (1976), there is a lot of reference to schoolgirls 'seducing' men.
quote:I don't think a DBS (Disclosure and Baring Service) check would pick up Fred & Rosemary West before they were caught. Which kind of illustrates why reporting and not covering up is so important.
Originally posted by Nicolemr:
When I was in college I had a very close friend who I would have trusted with my life. There was no doubt in my mind of his essential goodness and decency. We lost contact after college, and the next thing I heard of him he was being accused, tried, and convicted on charges of sexually abusing children.
People are complicated, and complex.
quote:Perhaps this acceptance is a problem. Children have an expectation for sex. There were kids at school who shagged each other in my day ( I didn't make it to sixth form btw). There was still an expectation for marriage lingering on even if it was a of an illusion.
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
It's not either-or. We accept that schoolchildren seduce each other, and if it is consensual we tend to deem it wiser for the law not to get involved.
quote:No. A responsible relationship. The teaching needs to be devoid of a moral code that they may choose to not follow. Jesus wants you to wait is void if they decide they do not believe. Or they come to the logical conclusion that Jesus is not quite as uptight as their parents or school.
Originally posted by The Midge:
Perhaps adults have another job: to educate the young about having sex in the context of a long term loving relationship.
quote:You might want to examine your assumptions and consider a frame of reference check. The perspective of the adult man is that it is seduction. It is the sort of thing which is called a "rape myth". I do not accept the phraseology "succumb to a schoolgirl's advances". If he does not know that this is a line that shall never be crossed, he shall not work with school children. It is unacceptable to interpret friendly behaviour or developing sexuality in teens as meaning they want to seduce or have sex. Friendliness and affection even if displayed as sexual, just isn't. Not.
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
It is possible for schoolgirls to seduce adult men. This doesn't stop it being sexual assault on the part of the adult man, if he succumbs to a schoolgirl's advances.
quote:This.
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
quote:You might want to examine your assumptions and consider a frame of reference check. The perspective of the adult man is that it is seduction. It is the sort of thing which is called a "rape myth". I do not accept the phraseology "succumb to a schoolgirl's advances". If he does not know that this is a line that shall never be crossed, he shall not work with school children. It is unacceptable to interpret friendly behaviour or developing sexuality in teens as meaning they want to seduce or have sex. Friendliness and affection even if displayed as sexual, just isn't. Not.
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
It is possible for schoolgirls to seduce adult men. This doesn't stop it being sexual assault on the part of the adult man, if he succumbs to a schoolgirl's advances.
quote:You might want to read what I actually wrote.
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
You might want to examine your assumptions and consider a frame of reference check.
quote:OK, let's take this really slowly, and perhaps you'll get it.
The perspective of the adult man is that it is seduction. It is the sort of thing which is called a "rape myth". I do not accept the phraseology "succumb to a schoolgirl's advances".
quote:Yes, of course. That's why I said "it is the job of the adult to say no".
If he does not know that this is a line that shall never be crossed, he shall not work with school children.
quote:But sometimes, and this is the thing that you seem to find difficult to grasp, the teens actually do want to have sex.
It is unacceptable to interpret friendly behaviour or developing sexuality in teens as meaning they want to seduce or have sex. Friendliness and affection even if displayed as sexual, just isn't. Not.
quote:. 'Responsibility' is probably as hard to get over as 'love' for a teenager. I never mentioned 'Jesus' or 'God'. Objective reasoning + hormones = ?.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:No. A responsible relationship. The teaching needs to be devoid of a moral code that they may choose to not follow. Jesus wants you to wait is void if they decide they do not believe. Or they come to the logical conclusion that Jesus is not quite as uptight as their parents or school.
Originally posted by The Midge:
Perhaps adults have another job: to educate the young about having sex in the context of a long term loving relationship.
Teach objective reasoning and that will carry through better than adherence to an arbitrary code.
ETA: Adding your own moral code in addition is fine. But if it is the basis, it will more likely fail.
) is in Jesus genealogy and Esther who was little more than a child when she was pretty much enslaved in a harem but was used by God to save the nation. So God does use those imperfect people and they are they still recorded as spiritual heroes.
quote:I guess I wouldn't ask him to run a marriage guidance course.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
True, but you remind me of a pastor I once knew who wrote an entire book explaining his decision to abandon his wife, run off with his secretary, and have a child with her - by holding up David and Bathsheba as justification.
Don't confuse grace after the fact with precedent.
quote:There's an inherent jump in your first paragraph from advances to seduction. It is quite possible for a young prepubescent girl to make sexual advances to a man. Sadly there have been cases here when children, boys and girls, as young as 9 have been so sexualised by years of horrific abuse that they do not understand what they are doing and treat it as normal behaviour. So you have the advances. It is not an attempt at seduction; if the man responds to the advances, then it is he who is seducing the child.
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
It is possible for schoolgirls to seduce adult men. This doesn't stop it being sexual assault on the part of the adult man, if he succumbs to a schoolgirl's advances.
It's not either-or. We accept that schoolchildren seduce each other, and if it is consensual we tend to deem it wiser for the law not to get involved.
A schoolchild who is capable of deciding to seduce another schoolchild is equally capable of deciding to seduce an adult.
The adult's job is to say no.
quote:The whole discussion has been about sexually active teens. There's no need to bring prepubescent girls into the discussion at all.
Originally posted by Gee D:
There's an inherent jump in your first paragraph from advances to seduction. It is quite possible for a young prepubescent girl to make sexual advances to a man.
quote:It is entirely normal and usual for the law not to attempt to prosecute 14 and 15 year olds who are having sex.
I don't agree with your second paragraph either. The law does disapprove of sexual behaviour between under-age children. There may be some cases when both children are very close to the age of consent that those enforcing the law decide that effort is better spent elsewhere.
quote:Yes, under-age children cannot give legal consent, but it is a nonsense to claim that "it is not consensual in any sense".
There's a big difference. And BTW, it is not consensual in any sense for under-age children as they are incapable of giving consent.
quote:Yes. At the independent boys' school I went to there were plenty of teachers whose doubtful sexual proclivities were widely rumoured. In retrospect, this served as a sort of warning system to the more alert pupils, but also trivialised highly doubtful behaviour.
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
It is not that anyone ever said sexual exploitation / rape is OK - it is that they made exceptions, excuses and less stigmatising descriptions that had the effect of of semi-legitimising the behaviour. And there existed/s a strain of 'humour' that completely trivialised the molestation and rape of males. For a start many didn't believe an unwilling male could be raped, and secondly - how many jokes have you heard about being buggered in public schools, not bending over for the soap, fiddling with choirboys ?
quote:I've come late to this and this post isn't really about this case as such, so consider it a tangent if you like.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
...
So my impression is that reasonable people could have considered that concerns about child abuse were a matter of moral panic.
quote:
True, but you remind me of a pastor I once knew who wrote an entire book explaining his decision to abandon his wife, run off with his secretary, and have a child with her - by holding up David and Bathsheba as justification.
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
So he was OK with the idea of God zapping his grandchildren for his sins?quote:Your use of the terms "seduce" and "seduction" are problematic. It places the behavioural initiation and activity within the teenager, and avoids the interactive behaviour of the adult. That an adult may interpret the social behaviour and even sexualized behaviour or a teen as "seduction" frames this wrongly. Nor does horniness mean that the teen wants sex; sexuality is many things, sometimes a seeking of support, affection, approval, and may not in fact be formed as a goal-directed seeking of genital-focussed sex as played out with an adult who may respond in ways that reinforce the interaction as seduction.
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Horny teens are entirely capable of attempting to seduce other people, and if you're capable of attempting to seduce another horny teen, you're also capable of trying to seduce an adult.
quote:Except if it happened to your daughter or son.
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
The point I was trying to make is that these views were mainstream in the 1970s and still exist to a limited in the present.
So absolute statements saying - there was never a time when this was acceptable are just not true.
It is not that anyone ever said sexual exploitation / rape is OK - it is that they made exceptions, excuses and less stigmatising descriptions that had the effect of of semi-legitimising the behaviour. And there existed/s a strain of 'humour' that completely trivialised the molestation and rape of males. For a start many didn't believe an unwilling male could be raped, and secondly - how many jokes have you heard about being buggered in public schools, not bending over for the soap, fiddling with choirboys ?
quote:To be perfectly honest, if you want to discourage sexual activity in your diocese, keep on discussing it in the terms you've used here. A couple of sentences of that and people will have forgotten what they wanted to do and just glazed over.
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
quote:Your use of the terms "seduce" and "seduction" are problematic. It places the behavioural initiation and activity within the teenager, and avoids the interactive behaviour of the adult. That an adult may interpret the social behaviour and even sexualized behaviour or a teen as "seduction" frames this wrongly. Nor does horniness mean that the teen wants sex; sexuality is many things, sometimes a seeking of support, affection, approval, and may not in fact be formed as a goal-directed seeking of genital-focussed sex as played out with an adult who may respond in ways that reinforce the interaction as seduction.
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Horny teens are entirely capable of attempting to seduce other people, and if you're capable of attempting to seduce another horny teen, you're also capable of trying to seduce an adult.
We're currently reviewing it all in my diocese. Language and analysis as you're posted isn't current, nor considered appropriate. At all.
quote:My apologies Chris. I was conflating what you wrote with a train of thought I'm struggling with - how can "bad" people do "good" things (or vica versa).
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:That's really not what I was saying at all.
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
I want to agree with you but I'm beginning to wonder. Are there really individuals whose lives have been so transformed by the grace of God that his love consistently shines through, as thought they were stained glass?
quote:Because most people are a mix. Most of us are selfish, but not heartless.
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
how can "bad" people do "good" things (or vica versa).
quote:From the Book of Azkaban
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
"the world is not divided into nice people and Death Eaters, Harry"
quote:Except that if you read even the article linked to in the Times rather than just the headline visible in the text of the link, that is clearly not what Andrew Carey said.
Originally posted by L'organist:
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/criticism-of-my-father-is-an-unforgivable-sin-says-son-of-lord-carey-of-clifton-forme r-archbishop-of-canterbury-f85l6789f
quote:AFAIK everything in The Times is behind a paywall. The Telegraph at least lets non-subscribers view a few articles each week.
Originally posted by L'organist:
(Incidentally, I'm not aware that the piece in The Times is behind a paywall, but I have no way of telling since I have a subscription...)
quote:Christian Today has this quote from AC's article:
Originally posted by Gracie:
Yes, I agree. The headline says almost the opposite to what AC actually says, which only becomes apparent if you read the article almost to the end - and even then carefully, because the sentence in question is unfortunately poorly worded, and may well have been so in the original piece by AC.
quote:The part I've emphasized is very unclear to me. (I get that he thinks people have been unfair to his father.) It doesn't really make any sense to say that "to be criticised" is like a sin, so presumably he meant either that those criticizing his father are committing a sin like the sin against the Holy Spirit (as the URL text suggested) or that his father is being accused of committing such an unforgivable sin.
'I'm struck by the absence of any public expression of sadness and sympathy for my father from the current crop of archbishops and bishops,' he writes.
'They certainly wouldn't express any support for him in public because he now suffers from a disease that all bishops fear is contagious - that he has been criticised over handling safeguarding.
'To be criticised like this is like the sin against the Holy Spirit - unforgiveable in the Church of England.
'It's no matter that the term 'safeguarding' hadn't even been coined when Bishop Peter Ball's crimes were first reported...Twenty-five years later you are held accountable for cultural attitudes and standards that are totally different today.'
quote:The full article by Andrew Carey is in the Church Times (paywall). The Times article just picks out a few quotes, including:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Oh dear.
Just when it might be thought that the Peter Ball affair had moved to the back of the pack, Andrew Carey - with a little (possibly malicious) help from a clueless headline writer in The Times has now resurrected the whole thing, and perhaps alienated the few people who might have been inclined to offer Lord Carey some support or comfort. https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/criticism-of-my-father-is-an-unforgivable-sin-says-son-of-lord-carey-of-clifton-forme r-archbishop-of-canterbury-f85l6789f
It is natural that a child would wish to offer a loved father help and support, but to suggest in so doing that the sexual abuse of minors was ever condoned or defensible is plain wrong and, if in itself supported by people now, can only add to the widely held viewpoint that the mores governing parts of the CofE then and now are grotesque.
When walking in the vicinity of a hornets nest the best course of action is to tread softly and avoid disturbance, not jam a bl**dy great stick into its middle.
quote:I think you’ve misrepresented what Carey said slightly. He's arguing that if you've found guilty of a safe-guarding related failure, no one has your back. Even if the failures happened before the current rules were written.
However, writing in The Church of England newspaper, his son protested over the way that his father had been treated. “I’m struck by the absence of any public expression of sadness and sympathy for my father from the current crop of archbishops and bishops,” he wrote. “They certainly wouldn’t express any support for him in public because he now suffers from a disease that all bishops fear is contagious — that he has been criticised over handling safeguarding. To be criticised like this is like the sin against the Holy Spirit, unforgivable in the Church of England.
“It’s no matter that the term ‘safeguarding’ hadn’t even been coined when Bishop Peter Ball’s crimes were first reported. Twenty-five years later you are held accountable for cultural attitudes and standards that are totally different today.”
quote:It is required to separate out personal feelings or preferences from critical matters requiring judgement. Should we not expect this level of administrative maturity? Those who suggest it was a different historical times would not separate out minimal self-awareness and administrative competence from this, would they?
...Mr A wrote to Lord Carey expressing concerns firstly about Neil Todd’s welfare and then that the Church had apparently already taken the view that Ball was innocent. Bishop Yates replied, assuring Mr A that all involved were being prayed for but without responding to the second area of concern. Mr A wrote again, asking that the Church consider its response to ‘what appeared to be a biased opinion from the Archbishop”....
quote:In fact, the quote you cite is not in fact my words. It is a doctored quote originated probably by a night-shift journalist on The Times to fit the story he was writing. A slight change of word from the first 'like' to 'for' makes a little more sense of the actual sentence.
Originally posted by Dave W.:
Well-educated maybe, but still not a very good writer. "To be criticised like this is like the sin against the Holy Spirit" - sigh.
quote:The Telegraph does have "for this", but that doesn't really make it any better. "To be criticised" isn't like a sin, whether you're criticized "like this" or "for this." I suspect you probably wanted something more like:
Originally posted by Spawn:
quote:In fact, the quote you cite is not in fact my words. It is a doctored quote originated probably by a night-shift journalist on The Times to fit the story he was writing. A slight change of word from the first 'like' to 'for' makes a little more sense of the actual sentence.
Originally posted by Dave W.:
Well-educated maybe, but still not a very good writer. "To be criticised like this is like the sin against the Holy Spirit" - sigh.
quote:
To be criticised for this is like being accused of the sin against the Holy Spirit, unforgivable in the Church of England.
quote:Check the story? The story was "Former Archbishop's son writes column complaining that people are insufficiently sympathetic to his dad." I agree they should have quoted your writing correctly, but aside from that, how much effort do you really expect them to put into follow-up on something like this?
I find myself in despair that journalists from The Times, Telegraph and Christian Today didn't just follow old fashioned conventions and pick up the phone to check the story. But that's another matter.
quote:TBH, the most appropriate response in these situations seems to be, “There but for the grace of God …”.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Not quite. He wrote that he believed he was basically innocent. There's a difference.
Carey deserves to take his share of responsibility as the man in the driving seat of the CoE at the time. And yes there was surely institutional pressure to cover up rather than investigate properly.
However, I think many people here are far too naive about the ability of sex offenders to convincingly disguise their misdeeds, and far too confident of their own abilities to discern wrongdoing and to do the right thing about it when in a position of responsibility.
quote:Oh for fucks sake. At the time Carey wrote that, Ball had been investigated and had already admitted his guilt.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Not quite. He wrote that he believed he was basically innocent. There's a difference.
Carey deserves to take his share of responsibility as the man in the driving seat of the CoE at the time. And yes there was surely institutional pressure to cover up rather than investigate properly.
However, I think many people here are far too naive about the ability of sex offenders to convincingly disguise their misdeeds, and far too confident of their own abilities to discern wrongdoing and to do the right thing about it when in a position of responsibility.
quote:You seem to have confused Eutychus with Carey.
Originally posted by Dave W.:
quote:Oh for fucks sake. At the time Carey wrote that, Ball had been investigated and had already admitted his guilt.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Not quite. He wrote that he believed he was basically innocent. There's a difference.
Carey deserves to take his share of responsibility as the man in the driving seat of the CoE at the time. And yes there was surely institutional pressure to cover up rather than investigate properly.
However, I think many people here are far too naive about the ability of sex offenders to convincingly disguise their misdeeds, and far too confident of their own abilities to discern wrongdoing and to do the right thing about it when in a position of responsibility.
What more would it take to convince you? Video of the assaults? An in-person demonstration?
quote:Have you actually read the report?
Originally posted by Dave W.:
Oh for fucks sake. At the time Carey wrote that, Ball had been investigated and had already admitted his guilt.
quote:.. and at the moment anyway, it appears that it was just one individual offending. I would agree with some of the other critiques if it were shown to be more systematic.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Carey is a favourite target around here. Once again, yes he does bear his share of responsibility but in my reading of the report he is not the only one, and your anger at Ball's deeds going unreported and unpunished appears to be blinding you to the difficulty of Carey's position at the time, coupled with the inherent bias that comes with knowing the person.
quote:Bandying around notions of the unforgivbable sin is probably unforgiveable. It is certiny dangerous and unbiblical.
Originally posted by Dave W.:
Well-educated maybe, but still not a very good writer. "To be criticised like this is like the sin against the Holy Spirit" - sigh.
You're right that he doesn't think his father has committed any serious sin; he's merely been tripped up by changes in "cultural attitudes and standards".
quote:It was a figure of speech. Not dangerous, not unbiblical - an exaggeration to make a point which fell flat because people repeated it out of the context it was written.
Originally posted by leo:
Bandying around notions of the unforgivbable sin is probably unforgiveable. It is certiny dangerous and unbiblical.
quote:Nice use of the passive voice there. How, exactly, did Ball "get away" with this? Well, let's consult the report on p. 54:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Have you actually read the report?
One of the criticisms it makes is that Ball got away with admitting guilt (in the original instance) for far lesser charges than he should have.
quote:A reasonable person might conclude that Ball "got away with admitting guilt . . . for far lesser charges than he should have" because powerful people decided to conceal the most damning evidence available at the time.
However we have been unable to find any good reason for the decision – and we believe it must have been more of a decision than an omission – not to make police aware of the letters which raised concerns about Ball. The failure to pass six of the letters to police, reported to us by Mr F - while providing them with the one which was of least concern – must give rise to a perception of deliberate concealment.
quote:Plus there's the question of incentives and accountability. No matter how negligent (or collusive) someone might be, as long as they're some kind of powerful authority figure there's always going to be someone willing to make the case that accountability is just for the little people.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I'm with Tubbs on this. Pride cometh before a fall. I would be wary of believing so assuredly that one could be in the same situation and exercise better before-the-fact discernment.
quote:That's not the passive voice. It's active.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Nice use of the passive voice there. How, exactly, did Ball "get away" with this?
quote:I'm not about to reread it this minute, but IIRC it'not clear from the report to what exact extent Carey was involved in the decision not to pass on all the letters. We can argue about the extent to which he should have been personally involved, but the reality is we don't know to what extent he relied on others' briefings.
Well, let's consult the report on p. 54:
quote:I don't know who that someone might be. As I keep saying, Carey bears a share of responsiblity but from my reading of the report, he is being unfairly singled out here, and he is - albeit belatedly - being held to account.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
No matter how negligent (or collusive) someone might be, as long as they're some kind of powerful authority figure there's always going to be someone willing to make the case that accountability is just for the little people.
quote:Arguing with yourself? I know my posts are good, but this is the first time someone has tried to both claim them as their own and argue against them.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:I don't know who that someone might be. As I keep saying, Carey bears a share of responsiblity but from my reading of the report, he is being unfairly singled out here, and he is - albeit belatedly - being held to account.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
No matter how negligent (or collusive) someone might be, as long as they're some kind of powerful authority figure there's always going to be someone willing to make the case that accountability is just for the little people.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
quote:Didn't Fisher abuse boys in his care anyway, Roald Dahl amongst them ?
Originally posted by Albertus:
Carey often used to come across as a rather defensive person and handled things badly because of it(I may have contributed to that in a small way with something I did early in his Archiepiscopate, but that's another story). But how would his predecessors have reacted? I can imagine Runcie, for whom I have a lot of affection and respect, being very distressed and ending up making a muff of it through dithering; don't know about Coggan; Ramsey I suspect of having been bit of a fence-sitter; I imagine Fisher would have had no hesitation in delivering whatever the episcopal equivalent of the Webley and whisky is, but probably not involving the police because people tended not to in those days.
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Arguing with yourself? I know my posts are good, but this is the first time someone has tried to both claim them as their own and argue against them.
![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif){kind=icon}
best form of flattery or some such, mumble mumble...quote:No, he should be and (belatedly) has been. But it's too simple to bay for just one person's blood.
My problem is that whenever someone says something like "Carey bears a share of responsibility but . . . " whatever follows that "but" will be an argument about why Carey (or any other head of an organization caught doing something unethical) shouldn't be held responsible.
quote:I'm not digging into the thick of the report just now, and the alphabet soup of Mr A, B, C... through to at least F is confusing, but I seem to remember a Bishop Kemp being in the thick of things and looking as though he might have had some control over what Carey did and didn't see. And I do think people can be prisoners of their institutions' defects to some extent, even the leaders.
If you feel it's unfair to single Carey out for his role in this scandal, feel free to relieve him of his solitude by naming other names.
quote:None of which constitutes and excuse. I'd also add the natural desire of an institution to protect itself as a factor, especially one that claims morality as part of its function.
Originally posted by Tubbs:
It was Carey who, in the face of all the evidence to the contrary, wanted to believe his friend was basically innocent. Because if they’re not, they’ve a) been friends someone who preyed sexually on children and b) completed failed in their duty of care to the vulnerable. And if that’s the case, what kind of person does that make them?
quote:ISTM, homosexuality is a factor in why abuses were covered up in some cases. Given how much it has been considered a sin.
Originally posted by BroJames:
Actually, my own reading of the Norwich stuff was not that they were worried about abuse, but about homosexuality.
quote:No, I have not. Eutychus seems to think that a completed police investigation, an admission of guilt, and an official caution for an offence of gross indecency are insufficient indications of wrongdoing. All of these were known to Carey when he started contemplating returning Ball to the ministry and when he wrote that he "believed him to be basically innocent". I'd like to know what more Eutychus thinks would be necessary for a person with only an average level of confidence in their own ability to discern wrongdoing.
Originally posted by Tubbs:
quote:You seem to have confused Eutychus with Carey.
Originally posted by Dave W.:
quote:Oh for fucks sake. At the time Carey wrote that, Ball had been investigated and had already admitted his guilt.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Not quite. He wrote that he believed he was basically innocent. There's a difference.
Carey deserves to take his share of responsibility as the man in the driving seat of the CoE at the time. And yes there was surely institutional pressure to cover up rather than investigate properly.
However, I think many people here are far too naive about the ability of sex offenders to convincingly disguise their misdeeds, and far too confident of their own abilities to discern wrongdoing and to do the right thing about it when in a position of responsibility.
What more would it take to convince you? Video of the assaults? An in-person demonstration?
quote:Yes, though evidently you haven't.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:Have you actually read the report?
Originally posted by Dave W.:
Oh for fucks sake. At the time Carey wrote that, Ball had been investigated and had already admitted his guilt.
quote:"Before-the-fact discernment"? Before what fact? We're talking about Carey's behavior after the investigation and Ball's admission of guilt. I don't think it required extraordinary discernment to determine that Ball was guilty after he had already admitted that he was guilty.
I'm with Tubbs on this. Pride cometh before a fall. I would be wary of believing so assuredly that one could be in the same situation and exercise better before-the-fact discernment.
quote:This is what Carey is criticized for - not that he failed to detect some hidden crime invisible to those unequipped with supernatural powers of discernment. (Well, this plus the fact that his son just wrote a column complaining that he was tripped up by changing "cultural attitudes and standards", and now his former colleagues aren't nice enough to him.)
Lord Carey played the lead role in enabling Ball’s return to ministry – that was not a decision taken by anyone else. He wrote to police saying he was considering this before the end of the month in which Ball resigned. He had a degree of personal compassion for Ball that is not matched by an understanding of the nature and consequences of Ball’s abusive conduct. He wrote to Bishop Michael Ball in September 1993 that “I had to face the searching question – if the same allegations and admissions had been made against and by a parish priest, would one not have expected the diocesan bishop concerned to have put him on the List? I did not do so, for in the end I believed him to be basically innocent, and …… my personal regard for him is very high”. This reference to Ball being “basically innocent” is alarming – Ball was basically guilty and had admitted that. Lord Carey was also aware that the Church had received further allegations of potentially criminal actions by Ball.
quote:The fact is that historically, Ball was not convicted, only cautioned. There's a difference between the arrangement arrived at and having a trial in a court of law.
Originally posted by Dave W.:
Eutychus seems to think that a completed police investigation, an admission of guilt, and an official caution for an offence of gross indecency are insufficient indications of wrongdoing.
quote:Carey has been criticised and sanctioned, albeit belatedly sanctioned. He has also issued an apology.
This is what Carey is criticized for - not that he failed to detect some hidden crime invisible to those unequipped with supernatural powers of discernment. (Well, this plus the fact that his son just wrote a column complaining that he was tripped up by changing "cultural attitudes and standards", and now his former colleagues aren't nice enough to him.)
quote:Well, at least you're no longer going on about "before-the-fact discernment" and how people (other than you) are too naive and too confident. That's progress of a sort, I suppose.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:The fact is that historically, Ball was not convicted, only cautioned. There's a difference between the arrangement arrived at and having a trial in a court of law.
Originally posted by Dave W.:
Eutychus seems to think that a completed police investigation, an admission of guilt, and an official caution for an offence of gross indecency are insufficient indications of wrongdoing.
I think we all agree (although you are doing your best to present my position as entirely opposite) that Ball appears to have been guilty of a lot more than he owned to and/or was found guilty of, and that Carey's actions contributed to that. All I'm saying is that to my mind it is far easier to conclude the serious nature of the actual offences with hindsight than in the midst of the situation, and that I do not believe, having read the report, that Carey bore sole responsibility for the CoE's failings in this respect.
quote:You're right - Carey shouldn't be held accountable for his son's weak, minimizing complaint. That's all on Spawn. But the publication of that column is part of the reason for the continued focus on Carey.
quote:Carey has been criticised and sanctioned, albeit belatedly sanctioned. He has also issued an apology.
This is what Carey is criticized for - not that he failed to detect some hidden crime invisible to those unequipped with supernatural powers of discernment. (Well, this plus the fact that his son just wrote a column complaining that he was tripped up by changing "cultural attitudes and standards", and now his former colleagues aren't nice enough to him.)
I'm bothered, firstly, and again, by the focus on one person. In your above statement, Carey "is criticised" (Croesos please note, that is the passive voice) for things his son has done.
quote:Too naive, too confident, blind, nasty and vindictive! Oh, and not exuding justice. You're so generous with your evaluations of my attitude; I'm afraid I don't really think that I've kept up my end of this aspect of our exchange.
Visiting the perceived misdeeds of one on the other is not justice by any stretch, and yes, I think that to do so demonstrates a degree of blindness.
Secondly, I'm bothered by your phrase "now his former colleagues aren't nice enough to him". It doesn't exude justice; it sounds nasty and vindictive.
quote:Do you really mean that? I can hardly think of any circumstance when one can legitimately criticise someone or condemn them for sticking up for a close family member in adversity, particularly not for one's parent or child. Certainly, if such a circumstance exists, this is not one of them.
Originally posted by Dave W.:
You're right - Carey shouldn't be held accountable for his son's weak, minimizing complaint. That's all on Spawn. But the publication of that column is part of the reason for the continued focus on Carey.
quote:Yes, I do mean that. I think it's perfectly reasonable to criticize a newspaper column that complains about insufficient "public expression of sadness or sympathy ... from the current crop of archbishops and bishops" and suggests Lord Carey is being too harshly treated for merely running afoul of changing "cultural attitudes and standards."
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:Do you really mean that? I can hardly think of any circumstance when one can legitimately criticise someone or condemn them for sticking up for a close family member in adversity, particularly not for one's parent or child. Certainly, if such a circumstance exists, this is not one of them.
Originally posted by Dave W.:
You're right - Carey shouldn't be held accountable for his son's weak, minimizing complaint. That's all on Spawn. But the publication of that column is part of the reason for the continued focus on Carey.
quote:No one has expressed such an expectation, though, have they? And is the Careys' plight really the salient feature of this sordid affair that gives you cause for concern about society's moral compass?
Whatever one thinks of his father's record in this case, good for Spawn for leaping to his support. Something has gone wrong with a society's moral compass if it is expecting people publicly to shun their kindred who go off the rails or make mistakes.
quote:Can't one? I imagine the victims might see things differently.
One can, for example, criticise others in this depressing saga for listening too much to Bishop Michael Ball's attempts to stick up for his brother, for giving those attempts too much credence. One can hardly criticise him for trying.
quote:That's not what was asked though. What was asked was whether or not it was reasonable for a family member to lend support to one of their own. Criticising a "newspaper column" is not the same as criticising the individual concerned, which you have done relentlessly here. Spawn has been in here and said he was misrepresented in the interview. If you don't believe that can happen, you've never been interviewed by a journalist.
Originally posted by Dave W.:
Yes, I do mean that. I think it's perfectly reasonable to criticize a newspaper column that complains about insufficient "public expression of sadness or sympathy ... from the current crop of archbishops and bishops" and suggests Lord Carey is being too harshly treated for merely running afoul of changing "cultural attitudes and standards."
quote:You have steadfastly and persistently ignored people's acknowledgement of the primary source of concern (the abuse and the institution's poor response). You have also consistently referred to George Carey's involvement and Andrew Carey's response with the liberal use of derogatory language. Failing any evidence to the contrary, your position appears to be that the Careys deserve everything that can be thrown at them, with no mitigation whatsoever.
quote:No one has expressed such an expectation, though, have they? And is the Careys' plight really the salient feature of this sordid affair that gives you cause for concern about society's moral compass?
Something has gone wrong with a society's moral compass if it is expecting people publicly to shun their kindred who go off the rails or make mistakes.
quote:Good questions.
Originally posted by Huia:
Can someone explain the idea behind giving a Police Caution please?
Does it mean that the police at that time were taking the abuse less seriously?
Is the defendant admitting some guilt in accepting a caution?
Thanks
Huia
quote:What interview? Spawn complained that journalists didn't pick up the phone and check their stories about the column he wrote.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:That's not what was asked though. What was asked was whether or not it was reasonable for a family member to lend support to one of their own. Criticising a "newspaper column" is not the same as criticising the individual concerned, which you have done relentlessly here. Spawn has been in here and said he was misrepresented in the interview. If you don't believe that can happen, you've never been interviewed by a journalist.
Originally posted by Dave W.:
Yes, I do mean that. I think it's perfectly reasonable to criticize a newspaper column that complains about insufficient "public expression of sadness or sympathy ... from the current crop of archbishops and bishops" and suggests Lord Carey is being too harshly treated for merely running afoul of changing "cultural attitudes and standards."
quote:
Besides, I have no idea of your family circumstances, but you would apparently see it as quite normal that should you do anything wrong, in no circumstances should your immediate friends and family offer you any sympathy or support whatsoever, and should any of them be so much as alleged to have done anything wrong you would treat them in just the same way. I'm no fan of cover-ups, but I find that prospect chilling.
No, you don't know anything about the W family.quote:You're right, that's sloppiness on my part. It wasn't an interview. But journalistic misrepresentation is an issue.
Originally posted by RuthW:
What interview? Spawn complained that journalists didn't pick up the phone and check their stories about the column he wrote.
quote:"Publish and be damned", indeed. I don't think everyone messed up the way the Times did, though.
What I don't get is 1. why Spawn thinks they should have called him up and asked him what he said in a published newspaper column; 2. how three different journalists writing for three different publications messed up in the same way writing articles about his column.
quote:No, I don't, which is why I said that, and I stand by what I said in that respect.
No, you don't know anything about the W family.
quote:Fine. But for his part, Dave W has not made anything approaching such a generous assumption. At all.
Lending private support is one thing. I'm sure Spawn is now quite rightly doing just that for his father, rather than spend time sparring with people here.
quote:With this I agree; I certainly can't see myself doing the same thing, as a family member, in print.
Publishing a column in support of someone is quite another thing, and publishing a column complaining about others' lack of public support is still another.
quote:Spawn said:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:"Publish and be damned", indeed. I don't think everyone messed up the way the Times did, though.
What I don't get is 1. why Spawn thinks they should have called him up and asked him what he said in a published newspaper column; 2. how three different journalists writing for three different publications messed up in the same way writing articles about his column.
quote:I don't think "publish and be damned" about this. I just think it's all kind of weird. Why would he expect them to call him up to "check the story" when the story is simply what his column said? They can just read it and see what he said. And The Times' mistake is clear, but what were the mistakes the other two publications made?
I find myself in despair that journalists from The Times, Telegraph and Christian Today didn't just follow old fashioned conventions and pick up the phone to check the story. But that's another matter.
quote:You stand by what you said about not knowing anything about the family? Or about the disparaging things you said about it?
quote:No, I don't, which is why I said that, and I stand by what I said in that respect.
No, you don't know anything about the W family.
quote:You don't know what Dave is assuming; he hasn't expressed assumptions about the Carey family. You only know what he's arguing, and why should he argue about what Spawn is doing privately when that's not part of his point?
quote:Fine. But for his part, Dave W has not made anything approaching such a generous assumption. At all.
Lending private support is one thing. I'm sure Spawn is now quite rightly doing just that for his father, rather than spend time sparring with people here.
quote:Protecting Lord Carey? From what? How has he suffered here? He has had to step down from an honorary position, and he has suffered damage to his reputation. That's all, and that's what happens when people learn years later that you did something really wrong. Andrew Carey says his father is being held "accountable" for "cultural attitudes and standards" that have changed -- but in fact he is not being held accountable in some unfair way. If people truly were retroactively applying the current standards to his previous behavior, Lord Carey would be suffering a lot more than the loss of an honorary position and damage to his reputation.
quote:With this I agree; I certainly can't see myself doing the same thing, as a family member, in print.
Publishing a column in support of someone is quite another thing, and publishing a column complaining about others' lack of public support is still another.
But the wisdom or otherwise of such a move is in turn a separate issue to the more serious question of whether the whole exercise is just the institution protecting its own - an allegation that publication of the report itself tends to discredit.
quote:I didn't say anything disparaging about it. I stand by my statement that I find chilling the prospect of anyone thinking that it would be
Originally posted by RuthW:
You stand by what you said about not knowing anything about the family? Or about the disparaging things you said about it?
quote:That's how Dave W's position comes across to me and other people seem to feel the same way, because they've challenged him along similar lines. You don't come across that way, because you've acknowledged that there is at least a place for support in private.
quite normal that should you do anything wrong, in no circumstances should your immediate friends and family offer you any sympathy or support whatsoever, and should any of them be so much as alleged to have done anything wrong you would treat them in just the same way.
quote:It's similar to the distinction between attacking the issue and the person. Dave W could have made the same distinction you did between private and public support earlier, when he answered Enoch's question, phrased in terms of "sticking up for a close family member" (not in terms of "writing an article") here, but chose not to.
You don't know what Dave is assuming; he hasn't expressed assumptions about the Carey family. You only know what he's arguing, and why should he argue about what Spawn is doing privately when that's not part of his point?
quote:I didn't assume anything about his family. I was formulating the impression his statements made on me. That is all.
And if generosity is so important to you, why did you make such ungenerous assumptions about Dave's family?
quote:I wasn't referring to protecting him, but to the broader charge (prior to the resurrection of this thread) that the Ball affair was a case of the CoE protecting its institution.
Protecting Lord Carey? From what?
quote:No I think this is incorrect. An admission of guilt was required (and has always been AFAICT. What the CPS said in 2015 about it was
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:Good questions.
Originally posted by Huia:
Can someone explain the idea behind giving a Police Caution please?
Does it mean that the police at that time were taking the abuse less seriously?
Is the defendant admitting some guilt in accepting a caution?
Thanks
Huia
The relevant part of the report is on page 54 onwards ('5.3 the decision to caution').
I'm not an expert, and not spending hours on this, but as I understand it (and am open to being corrected):
- at the time accepting a caution did not involve formally acknowledging guilt<snip>
quote:I think some kind of admission was made, but not one that the CPS, on reviewing the process, felt was adequate. This would be consistent with some kind of story being pitched by Peter Ball to the Archbishop that he was not really guilty.
Furthermore, in order for a caution to be given, a suspect must first make full and frank admissions to the alleged offence... such admissions were not made in the appropriate way.
quote:Yes, you're right; I stand corrected on this point. It doesn't seem to be clear what kind of admission was made.
Originally posted by BroJames:
What the CPS said in 2015 about it wasquote:I think some kind of admission was made, but not one that the CPS, on reviewing the process, felt was adequate.
Furthermore, in order for a caution to be given, a suspect must first make full and frank admissions to the alleged offence... such admissions were not made in the appropriate way.
quote:Yes indeed; all the more so in that the report does immediately go on to say
This would be consistent with some kind of story being pitched by Peter Ball to the Archbishop that he was not really guilty.
quote:which to my mind, and again with reference to a case (unrelated to sexual abuse) I investigated in far more detail, suggests some very expert wriggling on his part; wriggling which would be very hard for those around him to see through (including, apparently, the police at that time).
Ball had not unequivocally or formally
admitted guilt
quote:You are as entitled to your view as mine, but if you are saying what you seem to be saying, our fundamental takes on this are too far apart for us to be able to have any meaningful engagement.
Originally posted by Dave W.:
quote:Yes, I do mean that. I think it's perfectly reasonable to criticize a newspaper column that complains about insufficient "public expression of sadness or sympathy ... from the current crop of archbishops and bishops" and suggests Lord Carey is being too harshly treated for merely running afoul of changing "cultural attitudes and standards."
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:Do you really mean that? I can hardly think of any circumstance when one can legitimately criticise someone or condemn them for sticking up for a close family member in adversity, particularly not for one's parent or child. Certainly, if such a circumstance exists, this is not one of them.
Originally posted by Dave W.:
You're right - Carey shouldn't be held accountable for his son's weak, minimizing complaint. That's all on Spawn. But the publication of that column is part of the reason for the continued focus on Carey.
quote:Of course there is a sense in which society's moral compass is a tangent to this discussion. But if the view that it was wrong for Spawn to go public in defence of his father were to become the prevailing assumption in society, then I would say that something had gone awry with society's moral compass, yes.
quote:No one has expressed such an expectation, though, have they? And is the Careys' plight really the salient feature of this sordid affair that gives you cause for concern about society's moral compass?
Whatever one thinks of his father's record in this case, good for Spawn for leaping to his support. Something has gone wrong with a society's moral compass if it is expecting people publicly to shun their kindred who go off the rails or make mistakes.
quote:I am not a victim of Bishop. Nor are you. We should therefore both be expected, and expect ourselves, to be objective. One thing this means is recognising that the feelings of the victims in this case of someone else, not Lord Carey and not Spawn, do not automatically trump everything else. Otherwise we put ourselves in the same position as the community groups of Kensington and Chelsea who are objecting to the retired judge selected to conduct the Grenfell Tower enquiry because he doesn't start from a position sufficiently biased in their favour.
quote:Can't one? I imagine the victims might see things differently.
One can, for example, criticise others in this depressing saga for listening too much to Bishop Michael Ball's attempts to stick up for his brother, for giving those attempts too much credence. One can hardly criticise him for trying.
quote:Nonsense. What was asked was "Do you really mean that?" I refer you to my statement above. You and Enoch seem to think my criticism of that column means I must condemn all expressions of familial sympathy and support. That is not a reasonable interpretation of my remarks.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:That's not what was asked though.What was asked was whether or not it was reasonable for a family member to lend support to one of their own. Criticising a "newspaper column" is not the same as criticising the individual concerned, which you have done relentlessly here.
Originally posted by Dave W.:
Yes, I do mean that. I think it's perfectly reasonable to criticize a newspaper column that complains about insufficient "public expression of sadness or sympathy ... from the current crop of archbishops and bishops" and suggests Lord Carey is being too harshly treated for merely running afoul of changing "cultural attitudes and standards."
quote:Are you really following what's going here at all? There was no interview - he complained about a misprint in a quote of his column (a misprint which makes no difference to my criticism, BTW.)
Spawn has been in here and said he was misrepresented in the interview. If you don't believe that can happen, you've never been interviewed by a journalist.
quote:Quite a statement from someone who warns others about overconfidence in their own powers of discernment! Again, a ludicrous assertion completely unjustified by the contents of my criticism of a newspaper column.
Besides, I have no idea of your family circumstances, but you would apparently see it as quite normal that should you do anything wrong, in no circumstances should your immediate friends and family offer you any sympathy or support whatsoever, and should any of them be so much as alleged to have done anything wrong you would treat them in just the same way. I'm no fan of cover-ups, but I find that prospect chilling.
quote:Do you really need my affirmation for acknowledging that?
quote:You have steadfastly and persistently ignored people's acknowledgement of the primary source of concern (the abuse and the institution's poor response).
quote:No one has expressed such an expectation, though, have they? And is the Careys' plight really the salient feature of this sordid affair that gives you cause for concern about society's moral compass?
Something has gone wrong with a society's moral compass if it is expecting people publicly to shun their kindred who go off the rails or make mistakes.
quote:Don't forget, I'm also too naive, too confident, blind, nasty and vindictive.
You have also consistently referred to George Carey's involvement and Andrew Carey's response with the liberal use of derogatory language.
quote:I have criticized a newspaper column and quoted parts of an independent review. That is not a reasonable basis for this ridiculously overblown assertion.
Failing any evidence to the contrary, your position appears to be that the Careys deserve everything that can be thrown at them, with no mitigation whatsoever.
quote:As with the invective, I find I'm overmatched - it turns out I haven't been maintaining a list of things you have failed to do to my satisfaction, Eutychus. Should I start one now, or do you think it's too late?
(You have only barely acknowledged that you wrongly conflated father and son's missteps, and you haven't acknowledged at all the fact that more people than the former Archbishop have a share of responsibility in this).
quote:So it's all right if a son gives his father moral support of some sort, metaphorically holds his hand, in private, at home, where nobody can see either of them, then that's all right. But as soon as he speaks out for his father in the public forum, that becomes reprehensible.
Originally posted by RuthW:
... Lending private support is one thing. I'm sure Spawn is now quite rightly doing just that for his father, rather than spend time sparring with people here. Publishing a column in support of someone is quite another thing, and publishing a column complaining about others' lack of public support is still another. ...
quote:No. It isn't about being biased in their favour it is about the fact that - as the judge himself acknowledges - the proposed inquiry will not investigate the wider causes of the tragedy and thus nobody will be held to account for their failings.
Originally posted by Enoch:
Otherwise we put ourselves in the same position as the community groups of Kensington and Chelsea who are objecting to the retired judge selected to conduct the Grenfell Tower enquiry because he doesn't start from a position sufficiently biased in their favour.
quote:I wouldn't call it reprehensible, but the simple fact is that most of us do not have a platform on which we can say these things.
Originally posted by Enoch:
So it's all right if a son gives his father moral support of some sort, metaphorically holds his hand, in private, at home, where nobody can see either of them, then that's all right. But as soon as he speaks out for his father in the public forum, that becomes reprehensible.
quote:I don't think anyone said he isn't entitled to write comment pieces in national newspapers. I think most here are saying it was an unwise thing to do.
I'm sorry. That doesn't wash. The criticism of Lord Carey is in the public forum. It is now a public matter. The son is entitled to go public in defence of his father. Even if you don't agree with what he's saying, at least give him the credit for having the moral courage to have spoken out for his father in public, and drawn upon himself the criticism you and others are now throwing at him.
quote:Strictly, a person cannot be cautioned for an offence unless they have admitted guilt.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I'm not an expert, and not spending hours on this, but as I understand it (and am open to being corrected):
- at the time accepting a caution did not involve formally acknowledging guilt
quote:Nonsense. I've certainly never said you were "too" anything. I've used some of those adjectives to describe how various different remarks of yours come across to me. You are not your remarks.
Originally posted by Dave W.:
Don't forget, I'm also too naive, too confident, blind, nasty and vindictive.
quote:My understanding of the matter - IANAL - that a caution is, as you say, theoretically supposed to hinge on an admission of guilt. I think that one of the reasons that a caution is treated more lightly than an actual conviction is partly because of the comparative lack of seriousness of the offence and partly because an opaque procedure taking place in a police station does not have the same stature as a trial in an open courtroom with a verdict delivered by either a magistrate or twelve good persons and true.
Originally posted by Eliab:
quote:Strictly, a person cannot be cautioned for an offence unless they have admitted guilt.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I'm not an expert, and not spending hours on this, but as I understand it (and am open to being corrected):
- at the time accepting a caution did not involve formally acknowledging guilt
It doesn't always happen that way in the real world. I was involved in a traffic accident in the mid 90s, and I received a notification that I'd been cautioned for careless driving in a letter from the police. I know for a fact that I hadn't said anything to admit guilt, since I hadn't even spoken to a police officer except to confirm my name and address before going to hospital to get my head checked. I would have been well within my rights to insist that they prosecute me instead. Of course, I did no such thing, because a caution meant that they aren't going to do anything about the allegation.
I would be slow to conclude from the fact that someone accepted a caution that they were genuinely confessing to guilt. An innocent person who does not consider that a caution will adversely affect their career might well think it wise to accept the offer to "admit you did it and we'll let you off", which is effectively what a caution is.
quote:That comes across to me as a nifty way to get away with playing the man instead of the ball in Purgatory. Or to try, at any rate.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:Nonsense. I've certainly never said you were "too" anything. I've used some of those adjectives to describe how various different remarks of yours come across to me. You are not your remarks.
Originally posted by Dave W.:
Don't forget, I'm also too naive, too confident, blind, nasty and vindictive.
I think that relating how others' remarks come across is part of effective two-way communication. As is acknowledging points made by the other person when they are accepted as valid. I think that's how bridges are built and further mutual understanding arrived at.
That's clearly not what's happening here, so I'm done with this aspect of the discussion.
quote:I'd be interested to hear a lawyer's take on cautions but my impression is that they're used when the various authorities lack the resources or evidence or political will (or all three) to pursue something to a criminal trial. Maybe because they think it'd come down to "he said, he said".
Originally posted by Callan:
Given what we now know, of course, a caution was utterly laughable. It's the kind of thing that one gets for possession of small amounts of drugs, or rucks where no-one gets seriously hurt or incautious driving where no serious damage is done. A caution, effectively, says "you've been bad, you admit you've been bad, we'll save the cost of the court case and don't do it again". Not for the sort of thing that Peter Ball got up to.
quote:Pretty much. One of the central points in the article – that you can’t expect something that happened back then to be dealt with in the way it would be now or hold people to current standards – was made in the report. There wasn’t any need for anyone to make it again, but I understand why Carey Jnr would wish too.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:I wouldn't call it reprehensible, but the simple fact is that most of us do not have a platform on which we can say these things.
Originally posted by Enoch:
So it's all right if a son gives his father moral support of some sort, metaphorically holds his hand, in private, at home, where nobody can see either of them, then that's all right. But as soon as he speaks out for his father in the public forum, that becomes reprehensible.
quote:I don't think anyone said he isn't entitled to write comment pieces in national newspapers. I think most here are saying it was an unwise thing to do.
I'm sorry. That doesn't wash. The criticism of Lord Carey is in the public forum. It is now a public matter. The son is entitled to go public in defence of his father. Even if you don't agree with what he's saying, at least give him the credit for having the moral courage to have spoken out for his father in public, and drawn upon himself the criticism you and others are now throwing at him.
quote:Really? You certainly said somebody here was too naive and too confident, and it was in a post responding to me, so ...
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:Nonsense. I've certainly never said you were "too" anything.
Originally posted by Dave W.:
Don't forget, I'm also too naive, too confident, blind, nasty and vindictive.
quote:Blind, nasty, and vindictive all in one post.
I've used some
quote:Is that what you call it? Now I see my error! I was "using derogatory language", whereas you were simply "relating how others' remarks come across". Of course!
of those adjectives to describe how various different remarks of yours come across to me. You are not your remarks.
I think that relating how others' remarks come across is part of effective two-way communication.
quote:Well, it's been really fun hanging out with you on the 7 1/2 floor. I suppose now I'll have to look elsewhere for such wildly unjustified flights of fancy as this:
I think that's how bridges are built and further mutual understanding arrived at.
That's clearly not what's happening here, so I'm done with this aspect of the discussion.
quote:Ah well. All good things...
... you would apparently see it as quite normal that should you do anything wrong, in no circumstances should your immediate friends and family offer you any sympathy or support whatsoever, and should any of them be so much as alleged to have done anything wrong you would treat them in just the same way.
quote:But a caution creates a criminal record and, thus, the person is debarred from certain jobs, sometimes for life.
Originally posted by Callan:
quote:My understanding of the matter - IANAL - that a caution is, as you say, theoretically supposed to hinge on an admission of guilt. I think that one of the reasons that a caution is treated more lightly than an actual conviction is partly because of the comparative lack of seriousness of the offence and partly because an opaque procedure taking place in a police station does not have the same stature as a trial in an open courtroom with a verdict delivered by either a magistrate or twelve good persons and true.
Originally posted by Eliab:
quote:Strictly, a person cannot be cautioned for an offence unless they have admitted guilt.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I'm not an expert, and not spending hours on this, but as I understand it (and am open to being corrected):
- at the time accepting a caution did not involve formally acknowledging guilt
It doesn't always happen that way in the real world. I was involved in a traffic accident in the mid 90s, and I received a notification that I'd been cautioned for careless driving in a letter from the police. I know for a fact that I hadn't said anything to admit guilt, since I hadn't even spoken to a police officer except to confirm my name and address before going to hospital to get my head checked. I would have been well within my rights to insist that they prosecute me instead. Of course, I did no such thing, because a caution meant that they aren't going to do anything about the allegation.
I would be slow to conclude from the fact that someone accepted a caution that they were genuinely confessing to guilt. An innocent person who does not consider that a caution will adversely affect their career might well think it wise to accept the offer to "admit you did it and we'll let you off", which is effectively what a caution is.
Given what we now know, of course, a caution was utterly laughable. It's the kind of thing that one gets for possession of small amounts of drugs, or rucks where no-one gets seriously hurt or incautious driving where no serious damage is done. A caution, effectively, says "you've been bad, you admit you've been bad, we'll save the cost of the court case and don't do it again". Not for the sort of thing that Peter Ball got up to.
quote:Like so many things in this case, this is not as clear as might be imagined.
Originally posted by leo:
But a caution creates a criminal record and, thus, the person is debarred from certain jobs, sometimes for life.
quote:(point 3.8.10)
In August 2004 a routine criminal records check was carried out by the Church and indicated that Ball had no criminal record, when the check was expected to show that he had been cautioned
quote:(point 3.10.6).
there was a clear Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) check in 2004 and his file also contains a CRB check dated 28/9/10 which states “None recorded” for convictions, cautions, reprimands and warnings. Gloucestershire Police have advised that cautions were not entered onto the Police National Computer until 1996 (Ball was cautioned in 1993). Consequently the caution did not automatically appear when CRB certificates were issued
quote:Accepting a caution is always a matter of guilt – if you deny guilt, it’s tested in the courts.
Originally posted by Huia:
Can someone explain the idea behind giving a Police Caution please?
Does it mean that the police at that time were taking the abuse less seriously?
Is the defendant admitting some guilt in accepting a caution?
Thanks
Huia
quote:Not convinced. I doubt that few people would consider it good practice to keep that kind of material on someone’s personnel file back then. The current regime of child protection as we know it didn’t start until the late 1990’s. But even if they had, all it would have told them there had been some complaints. Someone would still have to judge whether those complaints were sufficiently concerning to justify some sort of action / investigation.
Originally posted by L'organist:
One of the biggest criticisms levelled at the standard 'CRB' check was that it missed out on many things, yet penalised those who might have a minor youthful offence on their record - say for shoplifting or similar.
That is why things like reports to employers of bad behaviour are vitally important: even if Peter Ball had not been found guilty of a sexual offence in court, the letters of complaint or concern sent to bishops, etc, from the 1970s onwards should have been entered onto his central personnel record. While it may not have reflected proof of aberrant behaviour, it would have given an indication that concerns had been expressed and that PB should have been treated with greater circumspection when it came to either being given autonomy over part of a diocese or being appointed to his own see.
quote:(a) But this could reflect badly on a blameless person if an individual, or a group of people, mounted a totally baseless campaign against them out of sheer spite or malevolence. These things do happen.
Originally posted by L'organist:
That is why things like reports to employers of bad behaviour are vitally important: even if Peter Ball had not been found guilty of a sexual offence in court, the letters of complaint or concern sent to bishops, etc, from the 1970s onwards should have been entered onto his central personnel record.
quote:I had a paragraph in my original post that I deleted about this. Someone at a previous church was the victim of a stalker. The stalker distributed flyers alleging they’d been sexual assaulted and the person at my church who’d done it worked with children. The allegations were investigated; found to be totally untrue but the whole process took years and was totally horrible for the person being stalked.
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
quote:(a) But this could reflect badly on a blameless person if an individual, or a group of people, mounted a totally baseless campaign against them out of sheer spite or malevolence. These things do happen.
Originally posted by L'organist:
That is why things like reports to employers of bad behaviour are vitally important: even if Peter Ball had not been found guilty of a sexual offence in court, the letters of complaint or concern sent to bishops, etc, from the 1970s onwards should have been entered onto his central personnel record.
(b) To what extent does or should an individual have the right to see - and comment on - what is held on their file?
