Originally posted by Ricardus:
Just read that Church Times article.
£700 to get the bells down?
![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif)
quote:That's pretty much what I thought. Does the dean resemble that at St Oggs in "All Gas and Gaiters"? He was terrifying and I can well imagining him banning the bellringers as he banned the bishop from what was after all the dean's cathedral in one episode.
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
It starts, literally, at the top. The current ABC is, by temperament and inclination, a manager, and goes around hitting things with a managerial hammer, which is the only one he has. He then appoints people in his image (naturally, because that's how everyone does appointments). So the C of E is about to die of management.
.....not with a bang but a whimper.
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
quote:And apparently the Dean thinks a ringer can be trained in three months. Training to be carried out by ... er ...
The locks on the tower doors have been changed, and the team were refused access on Tuesday even to ring the bells down into a safe position, The Press has been told.
quote:
She said a new team of volunteers would now be recruited, who would work under a paid 'Head of Tower,' but it would be about three months before the recruitment, induction and training process had been completed and they could be deployed.
quote:And where are these new ringers going to be trained if the belfry is out of bounds?
Originally posted by Ricardus:
And apparently the Dean thinks a ringer can be trained in three months. Training to be carried out by ... er ...
quote:
She said a new team of volunteers would now be recruited, who would work under a paid 'Head of Tower,' but it would be about three months before the recruitment, induction and training process had been completed and they could be deployed.
quote:First four words significant.
Asked whether she believed the volunteers had been treated with Christian compassion, she (a minster spokesperson) said: "I do not think it was unChristian."
quote:Yes, some Churches have forgotten what the word 'volunteer' means.
Originally posted by Stercus Tauri:
My notion of church is that it's a self sustaining, self supporting, community. You go there to worship, to learn, to meet people, to do gospel type stuff like helping other people. You don't go there to be managed and controlled as if you were at work. But this stuff is spreading; the community members are becoming customers who are no longer trusted to regulate themselves.
quote:Probably because of the weight. Liverpool Cathedral routinely leaves the bells up as long as there is a regular ringing programme because it takes so long to raise and lower them. York is lighter than Liverpool (obviously), but still massive compared to most churches.
Originally posted by Jane R:
Why were the bells left in an unsafe position, that's what I'd like to know. Our ringers always ring them down before leaving the tower.
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
quote:Normally I would agree with this, but there are two reasons why I think this is different:
Originally posted by BroJames:
The experience left me very ready to ask for the other side of the story in situations like this, and at the moment the Minster is being very reticent. They may be keeping quiet because they've made a monumental mess of things, or they may be keeping quiet because there are good reasons why they can't go public with their side of the story.
quote:Bell ringers
The Minster authorities are doing a very thorough job of cleansing their website of all references to the bells. Articles referencing recent ringing have been removed; ringers have been removed from the volunteers section; the books and CDs appear to have been pulled from the online shop. The Minster Twitter feed apologises for ‘essential maintenance’ a couple of days ago. However, the book, “The Bells and Bellringers of York Minster” is available to purchase still through us, details under the “publications” tab.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Votive]](graemlins/votive.gif)
quote:This, at least, might be restated as "Ringers threw their toys out of the pram when the Cathedral enforced the law (of the land, rather than the Church) with regard to marriage eligibility."
Originally posted by L'organist:
AIUI in times past members of the ringing team were allowed to be married in the Minster but the most recent wedding was refused on the grounds that the ringer 'didn't live in the Minster parish' and wasn't on the electoral roll. When the ringing team raised some, IMO, objections to this and cited the fact that members of the York garrison can, by tradition get married in the Minster, they got no response until this sudden lockout.
quote:This is entirely true, but the liability rules are the same everywhere and yet it's only York Minster that's having this problem.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
'Some' churches have allowed, by the path of least resistance being followed, for the ringers who use their bell tower (often not members of the congregation below) to become their own exclusive club - in that they become accustomed to doing as they want. (Ditto the choir, but that's a different story).
A new incumbent/dean is installed, and they look at the church's liabilities and responsibilities, and conclude, that to keep in line with current legislation, if they are liable, they need to exercise oversight.
Cue all the toys going out of the pram.
quote:Sorry, I don't think we have enough hard evidence to say that, however much it might appear to be the case.
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
They have behaved like playground bullies, throwing their weight around to hide their insecurities.
quote:On this front, it appears at a minimum that the communication has between the ringers and the Dean and Chapter has been handled very badly indeed.
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Sorry, I don't think we have enough hard evidence to say that, however much it might appear to be the case.
quote:Nope, York Minster doesn't have a parish so every wedding needs to be under a Special Licence from the Archbishop (of Canterbury, apparently. I've no idea why).
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
As far as anne's comments on the legality of ringers marrying in the Minster goes, you are entitled to marry in a C of E church if you have regularly attended services for 6 months. Being on the electoral roll is not required, as far as I can tell.
Ringers ring regularly on Sundays before the service. That's as close to attendance as many regular parishioners get...
quote:It's a legal leftover from the Reformation. It was a discretion originally exercised by the Pope, and reserved to the ABC after the split from Rome. The Faculty Office was established after the Ecclesiastical Licences Act 1533, which transferred to the Archbishop of Canterbury the power to grant licences that had previously been dispensed by the Catholic Church.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Nope, York Minster doesn't have a parish so every wedding needs to be under a Special Licence from the Archbishop (of Canterbury, apparently. I've no idea why).
quote:I.e. the situation that obtains in every other tower in the country, without any objections from the insurers ...
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
'Experienced ringers can be recruited by the new, paid Master, who will answer directly to the Dean and Chapter (unlike the situation we have at the moment where we have absolutely no idea who comes and goes,
quote:DBS would be a potentially plausible justification* if it were in fact the justification given by the Minster, but it isn't. All of the Minster's communications on the matter have been clear that it is about health and safety. DBS has little to do with Health and Safety. A lack of criminal record won't help you (for example) change a stay safely.
and if that means that everyone needs a DBS check, which takes roughly ooh, three months to come through, then so be it)' is how I read it.
quote:OK - so then there's no difficulty at all. Ringers can obtain a special licence - being a regular bellringer there is clearly a “present and demonstrable connection”.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Nope, York Minster doesn't have a parish so every wedding needs to be under a Special Licence from the Archbishop (of Canterbury, apparently. I've no idea why).
quote:The Archbishops Special Licence is far from automatically granted and usually requires a strong 'worshipping connection' which some bell-ringers might find difficult to prove, since it might need them to be present with the congregation during services, rather than simply in the ringing chamber before or after it.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:Nope, York Minster doesn't have a parish so every wedding needs to be under a Special Licence from the Archbishop (of Canterbury, apparently. I've no idea why).
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
As far as anne's comments on the legality of ringers marrying in the Minster goes, you are entitled to marry in a C of E church if you have regularly attended services for 6 months. Being on the electoral roll is not required, as far as I can tell.
Ringers ring regularly on Sundays before the service. That's as close to attendance as many regular parishioners get...
quote:I'm not sure it does fit, except in the unlikely event that all the bellringers are involved in some criminal conspiracy (including the 11 year old?) Occam would suggest that managerial incompetence coupled with a great dollop of pride and a controlling spirit are the culprits
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
I'm really not casting aspersions, just looking at all possibilities. Neither am I attempting to justify the actions of the Cathedral; they might well be a bunch of assholes. However, the thought that first struck me when this story hit was that the issue was not of personality clashes or power, but a criminal issue. If you put everything together that has been done, it fits.
quote:All of which reflects badly on the Dean and Chapter, the Ringers, the Diocese, the CofE and the whole of Christianity.
Originally posted by anne:
The whole thing looks to me like a clash between 'WE have always done it this (our) way' and 'WE are going to enforce the law/rules finally, even if they've been ignored till now.' Badly handled, mis-communicated, poorly planned perhaps, but not as simple as the ringers would like to paint it.
anne
quote:On the specific issue of marriage licences, you may be right. On the wider question of why the bellringers had to be suspended for three months, evidently this is some special law that is only known to or applicable in York Minster.
Originally posted by anne:
The whole thing looks to me like a clash between 'WE have always done it this (our) way' and 'WE are going to enforce the law/rules finally, even if they've been ignored till now.' Badly handled, mis-communicated, poorly planned perhaps, but not as simple as the ringers would like to paint it.
quote:This part I think is entirely plausible - if an external consultant told the Dean that there were immediate issues then she really had no choice but to act immediately.
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
In today's "Guardian", one of the ringers claims (and I have no reason to doubt him) that they were called to a meeting on Tuesday at which they were told "that the minster had commissioned an external report on ringing which had identified health and safety risks". This was "a complete surprise" as none of the ringers had been involved in any report, nor were they aware that it was being carried out. He also says that "the minster will not share this report with us or tell us what the supposed risks were".
quote:I'm not sure I'm following the connection.
So what's going on? I keep thinking of this case: forget about the choir, and concentrate on the issue of why the organist was "sacked" without being given a reason.
quote:It's the part I find implausible to be honest. I don't believe the H&S issues are structural (e.g. cracks in the tower), because a.) you couldn't carry out a structural survey without the ringers noticing, b.) as stated in the letter she shouldn't have let them ring on the Sunday if that were the case, c.) training, induction and different lines of accountability aren't going to fix structural issues.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
This part I think is entirely plausible - if an external consultant told the Dean that there were immediate issues then she really had no choice but to act immediately.
quote:"We've got up to 50 people coming into our church for Weightwatchers every month, and at least they have the decency to pay us a booking fee."
Originally posted by Chamois:
Very few of them seem to be capable of thinking, "We've got up to 50 people coming into our church for ringing every month, isn't that great!"
quote:...
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:"We've got up to 50 people coming into our church for Weightwatchers every month, and at least they have the decency to pay us a booking fee."
Originally posted by Chamois:
Very few of them seem to be capable of thinking, "We've got up to 50 people coming into our church for ringing every month, isn't that great!"
quote:It may not be structural, but it could be due to access to the tower. I've not visited the tower at York, bu I have been to a few cathedrals where access to the belfry involves using very high and narrow walkways with inadequate barriers, if any at all.
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:It's the part I find implausible to be honest. I don't believe the H&S issues are structural (e.g. cracks in the tower), because a.) you couldn't carry out a structural survey without the ringers noticing, b.) as stated in the letter she shouldn't have let them ring on the Sunday if that were the case, c.) training, induction and different lines of accountability aren't going to fix structural issues.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
This part I think is entirely plausible - if an external consultant told the Dean that there were immediate issues then she really had no choice but to act immediately.
quote:I'm being slightly Devil's Advocatey, but why would you assume it's a parody?
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:...
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:"We've got up to 50 people coming into our church for Weightwatchers every month, and at least they have the decency to pay us a booking fee."
Originally posted by Chamois:
Very few of them seem to be capable of thinking, "We've got up to 50 people coming into our church for ringing every month, isn't that great!"
...
I assume that was parody.
quote:I'm pretty much clueless when it comes to the specifics of how churches interact with ringers etc. but the above is one of the first things I think about now when I hear that a church's leadership is acting mysteriously. They could be assholes, of course, but ...
Originally posted by BroJames:
I wonder what the back story to this is.
I remember some years ago someone being dismissed from an institution for what some felt was a minor infringement of the rules, and that was given as the explanation. Because of my (peripheral) involvement, I was aware that this was the latest in a very long line of exactly the same infringement, and that over several months the institution had worked with the individual to try and support him pastorally, and to try to help him address the infringing behaviour.
All of this, if known, would have reduced or eliminated the criticism faced by the institution, but would have been a breach of pastoral confidentiality and harmful to the individual concerned. He played the victim, and I think he genuinely believed he was hard done by. But I think he was fortunate that the full story didn't come out.
The experience left me very ready to ask for the other side of the story in situations like this, and at the moment the Minster is being very reticent. They may be keeping quiet because they've made a monumental mess of things, or they may be keeping quiet because there are good reasons why they can't go public with their side of the story.
quote:I don't follow your point (a) as I'm pretty sure you could conduct a structural survey without the bellringers knowing.
Originally posted by Ricardus:
It's the part I find implausible to be honest. I don't believe the H&S issues are structural (e.g. cracks in the tower), because a.) you couldn't carry out a structural survey without the ringers noticing, b.) as stated in the letter she shouldn't have let them ring on the Sunday if that were the case, c.) training, induction and different lines of accountability aren't going to fix structural issues.
quote:I don't know and I don't think that you do either. We can both make up crap about what we think might have happened, but I'm not sure it helps to get closer to the truth.
But I don't see how it can relate to working practices (e.g. people not signing in, double-handed ringing, inadequate supervision of learners etc) if the external consultants haven't had any contact with the ringers to find out what their working practices are! And anyway they've also explicitly said (in the linked letter) that they've no problems with the current ringing master's leadership.
quote:I'm not convinced it is being used as cover. It might be, it might not be.
I agree with you that H&S is important. That's why it's despicable when H&S gets used to cover up other underlying issues.
quote:Possible, but impossible to know. I'm not sure we should imply that anyone has done (or could have done) anything illegal here when we've got absolutely nothing to base it on.
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
I can imagine that a possibly-criminal issue might have arisen among one of the volunteer groups that caused the leadership to feel they had no choice but to take these drastic measures immediately--and yet confidentiality would make it basically impossible to explain why. My first guess would be some form of sexual assault. Which is a health-and-safety issue in the broad sense (not like inadequate lighting, I mean) but would also impact things like leadership of groups, vetting members, who gets keys, and etc. and etc. And if it happened in a single volunteer group, would likely result in a tightening of control across all groups. With no explanation given.
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:I'm being slightly Devil's Advocatey, but why would you assume it's a parody?
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:...
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:"We've got up to 50 people coming into our church for Weightwatchers every month, and at least they have the decency to pay us a booking fee."
Originally posted by Chamois:
Very few of them seem to be capable of thinking, "We've got up to 50 people coming into our church for ringing every month, isn't that great!"
...
I assume that was parody.
Bellringing - a private club using church premises free of charge - and getting an income through the church for ringing at weddings? Sounds like a good deal to me.
quote:This is exactly the type of pig-ignorant and gratuitously offensive comment by someone who has absolutely no idea of what they are talking about.
Originally posted by Lincoln Imp:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:I'm being slightly Devil's Advocatey, but why would you assume it's a parody?
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:...
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:"We've got up to 50 people coming into our church for Weightwatchers every month, and at least they have the decency to pay us a booking fee."
Originally posted by Chamois:
Very few of them seem to be capable of thinking, "We've got up to 50 people coming into our church for ringing every month, isn't that great!"
...
I assume that was parody.
Bellringing - a private club using church premises free of charge - and getting an income through the church for ringing at weddings? Sounds like a good deal to me.
quote:Not implying anything, except that it would be wise as well as charitable to refrain from harsh judgement.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:Possible, but impossible to know. I'm not sure we should imply that anyone has done (or could have done) anything illegal here when we've got absolutely nothing to base it on.
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
I can imagine that a possibly-criminal issue might have arisen among one of the volunteer groups that caused the leadership to feel they had no choice but to take these drastic measures immediately--and yet confidentiality would make it basically impossible to explain why. My first guess would be some form of sexual assault. Which is a health-and-safety issue in the broad sense (not like inadequate lighting, I mean) but would also impact things like leadership of groups, vetting members, who gets keys, and etc. and etc. And if it happened in a single volunteer group, would likely result in a tightening of control across all groups. With no explanation given.
quote:I have been to several weddings that have taken place, by Special Licence, in college chapels. Precisely none of the parties would have had a hope of proving a "strong worshipping connection" with the chapel, as none of them were regular worshippers anywhere.
Originally posted by anne:
The Archbishops Special Licence is far from automatically granted and usually requires a strong 'worshipping connection' which some bell-ringers might find difficult to prove, since it might need them to be present with the congregation during services, rather than simply in the ringing chamber before or after it.
quote:Would you care to point out where I'm factually incorrect? I'm always interested to learn more about things like bellringing after being married to a bellringer for 25 years.
Originally posted by Lincoln Imp:
quote:This is exactly the type of pig-ignorant and gratuitously offensive comment by someone who has absolutely no idea of what they are talking about.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Bellringing - a private club using church premises free of charge - and getting an income through the church for ringing at weddings? Sounds like a good deal to me.
quote:If someone is up in the belfrey taking measurements, it is absolutely essential that the tower captain is made aware of it. This is to avoid even the possibility of the situation in which the ringers' first indication of the presence of someone in the bell-chamber above them is the blood dripping through the rope-holes when they start to swing the bells. This really is a health and safety issue.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I don't follow your point (a) as I'm pretty sure you could conduct a structural survey without the bellringers knowing.
quote:I would have thought that categorising ringing teams as "members of a private club", whilst being arguably factually correct, is, indeed, gratuitously offensive, implying, as it does, that the ringers have no commitment to the wider life of the church. If I were a ringer, which I am not, I would be pretty offended that my offering would be so regarded. Are altar servers, Lay Readers, flower arrangers, banner groups, housegroups and other volunteers who enrich the life of the church, also best categorised as "members of a private club"?
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:Would you care to point out where I'm factually incorrect? I'm always interested to learn more about things like bellringing after being married to a bellringer for 25 years.
Originally posted by Lincoln Imp:
quote:This is exactly the type of pig-ignorant and gratuitously offensive comment by someone who has absolutely no idea of what they are talking about.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Bellringing - a private club using church premises free of charge - and getting an income through the church for ringing at weddings? Sounds like a good deal to me.
quote:They haven't been sacked. Bellringing has stopped and anyone who wants to continue will have to jump through hoops to show the authorities that they're suitable.
Originally posted by Pulsator Organorum Ineptus:
If the problem were a structural one, the remedy would be to fix the structure, not sack the ringers.
quote:That depends on the nature of the health and safety problem. The Dean has instigated a remedy: nobody does any bellringing until such time as everyone proves that they are suitably trained to do that activity.
If the problem were one of Health and Safety, the remedy would be to do a risk assessment and put in place appropriate mitigate for any risks found.
quote:They're not sacked. Why are you using this emotive language? They're not employees, they haven't been summarily dismissed and they are free to apply to continue volunteering in this way providing they meet the criteria set down by York Minster for their volunteers.
Neither of those would involve sacking the ringers: it might require ringing to be suspended temporarily and then resumed by the same people.
quote:Right. Of course, the expert has spoken!
The problem is evidently neither of these. I suggest it's than one group of people thinks the others group is a set of cunts, and possibly vice versa.
quote:Nobody said that there was a reason why volunteers cannot comply with H&S.
I'm a (volunteer) director of a heritage railway that's run almost entirely by volunteers. We have health and safety coming out of our ears and the Railway Inspectorate and ORR on our backs, but we still manage to operate with largely volunteer labour. There is absolutely no reason why volunteers cannot comply with H&S.
quote:Volunteers can't be sacked. So for a start I'm not sure you're as familiar with your own volunteering policy as you think you are.
Our HR policy would not permit us to arbitrarily sack groups of volunteers. We can only sack people on grounds of misconduct, and that would have to be proved for each person individually and they would each have a right of appeal.
quote:Well this isn't that situation. If you are bellringers, you're not going to want to join the embroiderers. So that's got absolutely nothing to do with it.
We could, of course, cease to do certain activities - guided tours, for example. The volunteers involved would still be welcome to volunteer for other duties and, of course, the question of replacing them with another group of people would not arise.
quote:Volunteers are not staff. Most organisations have distinct volunteering policies that are different to their HR policies for this very reason.
Surprisingly, the first step forward in modernising the way the Minster works seems to be to treat the existing staff as if it's still 1730. And I don't mean half past five.
quote:If it is indeed true that the bellringers create their own clique without any - or much - other interaction with anything else that happens in the church, then calling it a "private club" seems entirely appropriate.
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
I would have thought that categorising ringing teams as "members of a private club", whilst being arguably factually correct, is, indeed, gratuitously offensive, implying, as it does, that the ringers have no commitment to the wider life of the church. If I were a ringer, which I am not, I would be pretty offended that my offering would be so regarded. Are altar servers, Lay Readers, flower arrangers, banner groups, housegroups and other volunteers who enrich the life of the church, also best categorised as "members of a private club"?
quote:In my (admittedly not universal) experience, this has been the case.
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
implying, as it does, that the ringers have no commitment to the wider life of the church.
quote:The evidence at the least suggests it has been mismanaged as it is the press. I would have expected a series of recorded meetings to deal with the issues causing the problems before this particular pass was reached.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
It's certainly not beyond the Dean and Chapter to make a complete arse of things. But neither is it beyond them to be competent and correct.
quote:And are not the bell ringers engaged in the worship and life of the church? Part of the Captain's complaint is that the ringers' desire to be more engaged in the life of the church was frustrated by the D & C's unwillingness to engage with him or his group.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:If it is indeed true that the bellringers create their own clique without any - or much - other interaction with anything else that happens in the church, then calling it a "private club" seems entirely appropriate.
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
I would have thought that categorising ringing teams as "members of a private club", whilst being arguably factually correct, is, indeed, gratuitously offensive, implying, as it does, that the ringers have no commitment to the wider life of the church. If I were a ringer, which I am not, I would be pretty offended that my offering would be so regarded. Are altar servers, Lay Readers, flower arrangers, banner groups, housegroups and other volunteers who enrich the life of the church, also best categorised as "members of a private club"?
And I don't know about those other groups in every church, but in every one I've ever been aware of, they're engaged in the worship and life of the church.
quote:Fair enough. Then we're looking at this paragraph:
Originally posted by BroJames:
There are separate rules for getting married in a school or college chapel which are different from other places of worship. They are more like the Qualifying Connections based on residence for weddings in a parish church.
quote:It seems to me that being a regular ringer is a "genuine and longstanding demonstrable link", and if such a ringer were to be described by the Dean as a longstanding member of the Minster community, then a licence would almost certainly be granted.
Applicants for a Special Licence should have a genuine and longstanding demonstrable link to the church building (and its congregation/worshipping community) where they wish to be married, which is sufficiently strong to justify the issue of a Licence. As part of this, applicants for a Special Licence will usually need to show a worshipping connection, over a period of time, with the church where they hope to marry.
quote:if the ringers have become a group who ring but do not attend worship.
genuine and longstanding demonstrable link to the church building (and its congregation/worshipping community)
quote:If they are ringing the bells every week to draw the community in to worship, that is a connection with the worshipping community, even if what they do is ring the bells, then go for a pint.
Originally posted by BroJames:
if the ringers have become a group who ring but do not attend worship.
quote:apparently there were no pre meetings or warnings about issues just a meeting withdrawing them from the role of volunteers.
Originally posted by Nightlamp:
I would have expected a series of recorded meetings to deal with the issues causing the problems before this particular pass was reached.
quote:But however these rules are being interpreted, they are not being implemented by the Dean and Chapter, but by Lambeth. If there has been a change, it is unlikely to be one that the Cathedral authorities have any influence over. Certainly locally we have seen a significant tightening up over the eligibility to marry in closed (Conservation Trust) churches under Archbishop's Special Licence - and of course the flack when the decision is 'No' comes back onto the local church, rather than the national decision-makers.
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:If they are ringing the bells every week to draw the community in to worship, that is a connection with the worshipping community, even if what they do is ring the bells, then go for a pint.
Originally posted by BroJames:
if the ringers have become a group who ring but do not attend worship.
As opposed, for example, to someone who has a connection to the building because he's chained his bicycle to it every day for the last few years.
quote:FFS, they're not employees! Volunteering is not the same as being employed.
Originally posted by Penny S:
And I am now puzzled by one comment BTL in the York Press, in the piece about how she was regarded at Leicester, which says she studied for an MBA. Surely that course of study should include teaching people that they should familiarise themselves with the work their employees carry out before wringing changes out of them? Total refusal to do so would seem to be stupid.
quote:The problem is that in the vast majority of cases volunteers are a cost to an organisation and very often have a very warped idea of their position within the whole scheme of things.
Originally posted by Penny S:
No, they aren't employees, but the point about familiarising with the work carried out should still apply, shouldn't it? And volunteering means you can be treated like a Victorian farm labourer does it?
A request by one to go in and ring down the 3 tonne tenor, made to one of the canons, has been refused because 'he doesn't have the authority.' This is a serious H&S issue, that the bellringers know about and no-one else seems to care about.
quote:Not necessarily. An application for special license requires the support of the clergy in charge of the church - in this case, presumably the Dean. It's entirely possible (and is implied by the wording of the article) that the Dean refused to support an application for a special licence, rather than that a sensible-looking application was rejected by Lambeth.
Originally posted by anne:
But however these rules are being interpreted, they are not being implemented by the Dean and Chapter, but by Lambeth.
quote:Funny how you're suddenly an expert on this even though on the previous page you knew nothing about it.
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Not necessarily. An application for special license requires the support of the clergy in charge of the church - in this case, presumably the Dean. It's entirely possible (and is implied by the wording of the article) that the Dean refused to support an application for a special licence, rather than that a sensible-looking application was rejected by Lambeth.
quote:I just don't understand this: bellringing in the Minster is a privilege and getting married in the Nave is an extremely rare privilege. Why the blazes should the Dean support the major inconvenience of someone who only turns up to do bellringing getting married in the Minster?
This isn't explicit in the article, so you could be right and it's a change in behaviour from Lambeth, but it could equally be coming from the Dean.
quote:You are demonstrably someone who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing.
The problem is that in the vast majority of cases volunteers are a cost to an organisation and very often have a very warped idea of their position within the whole scheme of things.
For example, I have seen on two occasions now volunteers getting upset because a charity decided to close the shop they were volunteering in. In both cases the charity was losing money - the shop wasn't even paying its way.
The volunteers got very upset, said that the charity should respect their years of volunteering, made all sorts of angry comments and so on.
All of which made zip difference because the decisions to close the shop was an economic one and the charity wasn't just there to provide volunteers with something to do with their time.
quote:Your argument fails on its own terms. The Dean is not proposing to stop the ringing on cost grounds. She is proposing to replace the current band of ringers (100% volunteers) with a new band of volunteers plus a PAID manager. So her new arrangement is going to cost the cathedral more money than the current arrangement.
Now, clearly York Minster doesn't have to have bells pealing. And it has no obligation to ensure that bellringers have access to the bells that they want to ring. It is not an obligation, it is a privilege that the Chapter allow volunteers to enter the cathedral and engage in an activity they enjoy.
quote:You've obviously the kind of idiot who thinks costly projects should continue just because it keeps volunteers entertained.
Originally posted by Chamois:
You are demonstrably someone who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing.
quote:And you know that it is going to cost more, how exactly? How do you know that this new arrangement would not be able to bring in more money (I've no idea how) to the Minster?
Your argument fails on its own terms. The Dean is not proposing to stop the ringing on cost grounds. She is proposing to replace the current band of ringers (100% volunteers) with a new band of volunteers plus a PAID manager. So her new arrangement is going to cost the cathedral more money than the current arrangement.
quote:I volunteer with a large charity. I would be blazing if my role were suddenly terminated with no discussion as to any problems.
Originally posted by Nightlamp:
quote:apparently there were no pre meetings or warnings about issues just a meeting withdrawing them from the role of volunteers.
Originally posted by Nightlamp:
I would have expected a series of recorded meetings to deal with the issues causing the problems before this particular pass was reached.
So even if the Dean and Chapter were right in principle they were wrong because there was a failure to communicate what the problems were.
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
quote:They seem to manage OK without bells in Norwich.
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
The point that seems to be lost is that bells are an essential part of the presence of a cathedral within its community.
quote:
Originally posted by Spike:
quote:They seem to manage OK without bells in Norwich.
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
The point that seems to be lost is that bells are an essential part of the presence of a cathedral within its community.
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
quote:This. It's the utter disrespect towards the volunteers that gets to me about this situation. Respect and earlier transparency would have gone a long way to help the transition if it needed to be made. People do count, but those who run the Minster have blown that off.
I would be blazing if my role were suddenly terminated with no discussion as to any problems.
quote:In the parish churches I have been involved with bells as far as I could ascertain bells brought money into the church because of charges for weddings and this taking into account the expense of bell rope replacement etc. The bell ringers seem to do a lot of regular maintenance themselves which saved the PCC money.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
And you know that it is going to cost more, how exactly? How do you know that this new arrangement would not be able to bring in more money (I've no idea how) to the Minster?
quote:What's clear to me is that whoever is right or wrong, the Dean and Chapter have been comprehensively outplayed at media and story management. It may be that they have been inept at this, it may be that they are prevented by legal, pastoral or other concerns from publicly sharing their side of the story. For example the press reports referenced in this thread all report that the Cathedral made these decisions without the decency to go along and talk to the ringers. In contrast the only person actually to say he had "no intention of going" to a scheduled meeting (after trashing the Cathedral on social media) was the Carillon playing co-ordinator - who then seemed amazed to find himself out of a job.
Originally posted by Nightlamp:
It is possible the Dean & chapter have made the correct decision but what is clear they have carried it out very badly indeed.
quote:It's worth pointing out that in many cases the ringers are going on to the next church to ring for service there - I think my record is four in a morning. I'm not sure even the priests manage that sort of number. Are we being selfish, or aiding as many churches as possible to call the faithful to worship? You tell me.
Originally posted by anne:
Many ringers are also regular congregants - but in my experience, most are not. In one church where the ringers stood within the sanctuary, the start of worship was marked by the ringers, with 2 exceptions, walking the length of the building and out of the door.
quote:And do I know those things to be false? No, and nor do you.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Do you know that Lambeth considers a bellringers wedding to be "sensible"? No. Do you know if Lambeth told the people at York Minster that they'd not get a license if they applied for one again? No.
quote:The first linked article quotes Alice Etherington, the ringer who started the petition, "The minster has suspended all bellringing with absolutely no prior warning." It says that the ringers were summoned to a special meeting, and told there that they were no longer needed, and that they could apply to be volunteer ringers again next year.
Originally posted by anne:
For example the press reports referenced in this thread all report that the Cathedral made these decisions without the decency to go along and talk to the ringers. In contrast the only person actually to say he had "no intention of going" to a scheduled meeting (after trashing the Cathedral on social media) was the Carillon playing co-ordinator - who then seemed amazed to find himself out of a job.
quote:
One recent example of this was the introduction of a new sign-in sheet with which we all complied every time we entered and left the tower. If the reasons behind this policy were explained, they were certainly not fully understood, but regardless the whole band was happy to comply.
quote:I'm afraid that most of that link is hidden behind a pay wall and thus inaccessible to many of us.
Originally posted by Nightlamp:
Apparently it is all about health & safety.
quote:But it would be common courtesy to explain this new policy to the bellringers.
Originally posted by Ricardus:
In the interests of balance, the reasons why you might want a signing-in policy seem fairly self-explanatory to me.
quote:I confess that Lamb Chopped, BroJames and others were right and I was wrong.
Dr John Sentamu said that earlier this summer, it was necessary for the Chapter to take action regarding a member of the bellringing community on safeguarding grounds.
quote:I have been thinking that probably few of the ringers knew about the problem with safeguarding so they're probably all shocked and wondering who it was. Such a horrible situation.
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
And will the ringers now comment on how and why one of their members has caused safeguarding concerns? I doubt it - confidentiality must surely apply to both sides. I suspect it may come as much of a surprise to them as to the rest of us...
Ian J.
quote:Let's look at this scenario: Safeguarding concerns have been raised against Priest A in the town of B in the Diocese of C. Therefore, let's axe all priests in town B and lock them out of their churches with immediate effect without telling them why.
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
Indeed it is, and one wonders if the blanket dismissal of all the ringers simply had to be done in order to hide the identity of the one.
...
quote:No-one is joking. Apparently no-one is apologising for leaping to uncharitable conclusions either.
Originally posted by Lincoln Imp:
quote:Let's look at this scenario: Safeguarding concerns have been raised against Priest A in the town of B in the Diocese of C. Therefore, let's axe all priests in town B and lock them out of their churches with immediate effect without telling them why.
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
Indeed it is, and one wonders if the blanket dismissal of all the ringers simply had to be done in order to hide the identity of the one.
...
One should not joke about safeguarding. More's the pity that the people in authority have made it into a joke by their pitiful mis-handling of this business. "Earlier this summer..." concerns were raised. Well, it would seem that proper safeguarding did not become relevant until it was autumn.
quote:Such as why they didn't say this in the first place? With this explanation, the Chapter's actions make sense. IMO, this should have been in the letter to the volunteers (because it is the actual issue). The letter should have said more or less exactly what today's statement said. The Dean and Chapter are responsible for seeing that safeguarding policies are followed. Several ringers have repeatedly expressed their intention to ignore those policies. The Chapter cannot permit this situation to continue, so ringing stops now.
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
But now everyone will be asking mote questions ...
quote:If the Chapter is as bad at explaining all their decisions as they have been at explaining this one, I'd probably "consistently challenge" them. Probably by saying "that makes no sense. Do you have a reason that does? What do you actually want to achieve?"
Other members of the group “consistently challenged” the minster’s governing body, the Chapter of York, on this and other matters, Sentamu said in a statement.
quote:That's how it sounds, I suppose we're very unlikely to know what the details are.
Originally posted by Ricardus:
No, the issue as reported by the Archbishop is that after the concerns were raised, *other* ringers decided to ignore the Chapter's decision on the matter.
quote:No, I think the thread was perfectly valid and your initial reaction was understandable - I think mine was as well.
So at least *some* of the ringers knew perfectly well why they were sacked, but nonetheless decided to sound off to the press (or let others do so) - presumably in the hope that the Minster wouldn't dare admit to safeguarding issues.
(Yes, I was stupid to start this thread.)
quote:I suspect there was a combination of things, including that their communications advice was a bit crap, that they didn't expect the bellringers to go to the press and that the Chapter thought it was rather more important to deal/co-operate with the secular agencies on this issue than to tell everyone exactly what happened.
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Such as why they didn't say this in the first place? With this explanation, the Chapter's actions make sense. IMO, this should have been in the letter to the volunteers (because it is the actual issue). The letter should have said more or less exactly what today's statement said. The Dean and Chapter are responsible for seeing that safeguarding policies are followed. Several ringers have repeatedly expressed their intention to ignore those policies. The Chapter cannot permit this situation to continue, so ringing stops now.
That's clear and unambiguous. Instead, what they produced was a pile of management word-salad that made no sense.
quote:Whilst this might be an issue here, it doesn't sound like it from the ABofY's statement linked above.
If the Chapter is as bad at explaining all their decisions as they have been at explaining this one, I'd probably "consistently challenge" them. Probably by saying "that makes no sense. Do you have a reason that does? What do you actually want to achieve?"
This issue rather reminds me of some of the interesting discussions that I've had with safety people over the years. Most of the safety people I've worked with have been good, but there have been a couple of zealots who have been blinded by their convictions. Typically, these people have decided that a choice made to fit one particular environment is applicable to a very different environment about which they don't know as much as they think, and then dig their heels in when you tell them that their proposal makes everyone's lives much harder for no actual safety gain.
quote:Oh please do start having a totally irrelevant discussion about H&S gorn mad, you're obviously such an expert on the subject.
You have to fight these people continuously and without letting up, or you accumulate an enormous shell of useless safety theatre and end up mired in nonsense.
quote:Oh shut up already.
But from the outside, you can't tell the difference between people who are resisting the kind of safety theatre that is actively harmful, and people who are resisting actual sensible safety changes because "we've always done it that way." You have to dive all the way into the details to understand who is right.
quote:There are probably some poor dedicated bell ringers who knew nothing about all this mess and just dedicatedly did their stuff and are now horrified and devastated and it's such a shame.
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Ah crap.
This sucks.
quote:A "safeguarding issue" doesn't necessarily mean any crime has been committed. It could be something as daft as them not always ensuring they have two or more adults in the car when ferrying the kids to and from band practice.
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
Indeed it is, and one wonders if the blanket dismissal of all the ringers simply had to be done in order to hide the identity of the one.
quote:I don't think the local authority would be involved if the Child Safeguarding policy of York Minster stated that two adults had to be in a car but the bellringers refused to co-operate.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
A "safeguarding issue" doesn't necessarily mean any crime has been committed. It could be something as daft as them not always ensuring they have two or more adults in the car when ferrying the kids to and from band practice.
quote:No; and we have been told that this was "a complex multi-agency activity involving City of York Council, York Diocese Safeguarding Adviser and the Church of England’s National Safeguarding Officer". Big stuff, or at least allegations thereof.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I don't think the local authority would be involved if the Child Safeguarding policy of York Minster stated that two adults had to be in a car but the bellringers refused to co-operate.
quote:Perhaps, but I'd have expected to see the North Yorkshire Constabulary mentioned if the issue was a criminal one. Involving the city council could be for any number of policy-related reasons.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:I don't think the local authority would be involved if the Child Safeguarding policy of York Minster stated that two adults had to be in a car but the bellringers refused to co-operate.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
A "safeguarding issue" doesn't necessarily mean any crime has been committed. It could be something as daft as them not always ensuring they have two or more adults in the car when ferrying the kids to and from band practice.
quote:It doesn't matter whether or not they expected the ringers to go to the press. The Chapter owes the ringers honesty and clarity regardless of whether or not there's an audience. Today's statement doesn't "tell everyone exactly what happened" but does explain (at least partially) what the problem is, which the original letter completely failed to do.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I suspect there was a combination of things, including that their communications advice was a bit crap, that they didn't expect the bellringers to go to the press and that the Chapter thought it was rather more important to deal/co-operate with the secular agencies on this issue than to tell everyone exactly what happened.
quote:You're right - from today's statement it doesn't sound like the safety bull getting loose in the china shop. But we didn't have today's statement until today.
Whilst this might be an issue here, it doesn't sound like it from the ABofY's statement linked above.
quote:No, this is rather the point. If you don't look at the details, it's hard to tell the difference between sensible precautions and silliness, because they use the same words and justifications. The only way to tell them apart is to be clear and unambiguous.
quote:Oh shut up already.
But from the outside, you can't tell the difference between people who are resisting the kind of safety theatre that is actively harmful, and people who are resisting actual sensible safety changes because "we've always done it that way." You have to dive all the way into the details to understand who is right.
quote:Well there might be a element of truth to that - but again, I still think it sounds that it is a rather more systematic and widespread issue if those outside bodies are involved.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Perhaps, but I'd have expected to see the North Yorkshire Constabulary mentioned if the issue was a criminal one. Involving the city council could be for any number of policy-related reasons.
quote:Maybe. It is a rather strange combination of agencies involved, I'm struggling to think of a scenario where the local authority would be consulted about an issue at a church which wasn't criminal.
That said, I imagine (without any evidence other than the articles posted here, so take with a pinch of the condiment of your choice) the real issue is that one of the ringers had a skeleton in his/her closet, the Minster wanted to get rid of him/her because of it, but the other ringers didn't want him/her to be got rid of.
quote:This looks like a very hurried or lazy piece of journalism. Reporting about the Archbishop of York's statement has simply been added to what had already been published, and the rest left unchanged as if nothing about that reporting has been affected by the statement that has been made. And the comments from last week have simply been left in place.
Originally posted by Penny S:
I couldn't access the story from that link, so here it is again.
Lord Mayor weighs in
And this morning the bells have been made safe.
quote:The reasons for shutting down the whole shebang look reasonably clear to me now. The one individual could have been dealt with individually, but the Society of Change Ringers included some folks who expressed the view that their policy opinions were above the Minster's and the diocese's and possibly the law's. BZZZT! Game over. The Minster swatted them like a fly. And since it came down to legal policy, the Minster had all the good reasons they needed to take the action. And this had the added benefit to the Minster leaders of waving the fly swatter vaguely in the direction of any other upstart fiefdoms that might get fresh.
Some members of the York Minster Society of Change Ringers have consistently challenged the Chapter’s authority on this and other important matters.
Repeated disregard of the Chapter’s attempts to fully implement the Church’s national policies for safeguarding, health and safety and security meant that decisive action was required.
quote:Well it is York Minster we're talking about - far from just any old church! Is there some form of shared policy-making between the Minster and the Council (which could include the local tourist or heritage agencies) perhaps?
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Maybe. It is a rather strange combination of agencies involved, I'm struggling to think of a scenario where the local authority would be consulted about an issue at a church which wasn't criminal.
If he was wholly innocent, he paid a high price for refusing to cooperate with safeguarding policy. If not, we caught it just in time. quote:They really need to stop digging - they've just admitted that contrary to what was said before, they knew exactly why the band was disbanded.
Originally posted by Ricardus:
The ringers have posted a response.
quote:which implies just how much they thought that they could argue against/disgregard what dean and chapter were saying all along
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:They really need to stop digging - they've just admitted that contrary to what was said before, they knew exactly why the band was disbanded.
Originally posted by Ricardus:
The ringers have posted a response.
"Due process" in that context is utter garbage, the Dean has a responsibility to take action, not to convene a pseudo-court where the bellringers try to tell her why her own policy shouldn't be applied.
quote:
All of Chapter’s policies have been implemented in full, at all times. YMSCR take health and safety, security and safeguarding with the utmost seriousness. The Dean and Chapter have not been able to point to any evidence that suggests the contrary.
quote:Where? At no point did they say they already knew the reason, they just know it now.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:They really need to stop digging - they've just admitted that contrary to what was said before, they knew exactly why the band was disbanded.
Originally posted by Ricardus:
The ringers have posted a response.
quote:In what context is that? As previously noted, there's no suggestion of criminal wrongdoing so where's the need for immediate unilateral action?
"Due process" in that context is utter garbage, the Dean has a responsibility to take action, not to convene a pseudo-court where the bellringers try to tell her why her own policy shouldn't be applied.
quote:from the statement:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Where? At no point did they say they already knew the reason, they just know it now.
quote:
Individuals within YMSCR have privately expressed concerns to the Dean and Chapter over whether due process was followed during their action regarding a member of the bell ringing community. As a direct result of doing so, the entire team had their volunteer agreements terminated.
quote:In the context that the bellringers could loudly complain to the Dean about "due process" relating to an incident that the Dean and Chapter is responsible for and expect a hearing on "due process"
In what context is that? As previously noted, there's no suggestion of criminal wrongdoing so where's the need for immediate unilateral action?
quote:ISTM entirely possible that not all the ringers knew of the situation, though some clearly did.
Every effort should be made to maintain confidentiality and guard against publicity while an allegation is being investigated or considered.
quote:Safeguarding rewrites all the normal rules - the legal requirement is to all that is necessary and appropriate to immediately minimise risk, preferably eliminating it. To do the latter often requires what seems to be draconian action to close something down, enabling things to be kept "as is" pending further investigation. . Niceness doesn't come into it - the only issue is the safety of a vulnerable individual (it doesn't have to be a child).
Originally posted by Nightlamp:
Seems like there was rubbish communication going on. I think that the Bell ringers should have been suspended until such time as what ever investigation is completed and the safeguarding issue is resolved.
The suspension seems to be justified, but the ending of the community that was around the Bells tower does not. The Chapter seem to have over-reacted but in these circumstances it is better than under-reaction.
quote:There's a lot of investigation going on at the moment (schools, denominations) into historical issues.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:Well there might be a element of truth to that - but again, I still think it sounds that it is a rather more systematic and widespread issue if those outside bodies are involved.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Perhaps, but I'd have expected to see the North Yorkshire Constabulary mentioned if the issue was a criminal one. Involving the city council could be for any number of policy-related reasons.
quote:Maybe. It is a rather strange combination of agencies involved, I'm struggling to think of a scenario where the local authority would be consulted about an issue at a church which wasn't criminal.
That said, I imagine (without any evidence other than the articles posted here, so take with a pinch of the condiment of your choice) the real issue is that one of the ringers had a skeleton in his/her closet, the Minster wanted to get rid of him/her because of it, but the other ringers didn't want him/her to be got rid of.
quote:They would if a child disclosed this at school.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:I don't think the local authority would be involved if the Child Safeguarding policy of York Minster stated that two adults had to be in a car but the bellringers refused to co-operate.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
A "safeguarding issue" doesn't necessarily mean any crime has been committed. It could be something as daft as them not always ensuring they have two or more adults in the car when ferrying the kids to and from band practice.
quote:I'm afraid I still think that last week's letter was a complete bodge.
Originally posted by BroJames:
This, from a local source is the is the fullest report I've seen of the Arcbishop of York's press conference yesterday. It does suggest there was a fair bit more going on behind the scenes than was made public, and that the economy of information was not simply an effort to protect the Minster or the Dean and Chapter.
quote:No one has come out of this with any credit. A joint statement might clear the air. Double helpings of humble pie would be needed.
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
ISTM that at least some of the ringers, along with the press, and the Lord Mayor (exactly what use is a Lord Mayor, anyway?) should all be thoroughly ashamed of themselves.
Can we expect a public apology to the Archbishop, Dean, and Chapter? Somehow, I doubt it.
Ian J.
quote:The fact that the case involves the safeguarding of a vulnerable adult does explain the involvement of the various parties. The Care Act 2014 obliges the local council to take the lead role in managing any case involving vulnerable adults - as the minster has been fronting the public side of things, I assume this indicates that City of York Council is content with the way things have been handled from the perspective of safeguarding.
Originally posted by BroJames:
This, from a local source is the is the fullest report I've seen of the Arcbishop of York's press conference yesterday. It does suggest there was a fair bit more going on behind the scenes than was made public, and that the economy of information was not simply an effort to protect the Minster or the Dean and Chapter.
Obviously the fact that a ringer is under investigation in relation to a vulnerable adult safeguarding issue will be uncomfortable for all the ringers, and it will make it more difficult to find some kind of normal even if the investigation concludes that there is nothing amiss.
quote:The public relations nightmare happens in cases with the local authorities too.
Originally posted by latecomer:
This sort of announcement/standoff/clarification cycle seems to happen fairly regularly in the CofE (and other large organisations). Wouldn't you hope that somewhere behind the scenes a communications/PR person was saying "let's work out NOW our strategy for the next time something like this needs to be announced".
Oh ... sorry ... there goes another flying pig
quote:There would have been none of this fuss if the bell ringers at least some of whom knew about the problem and why the decision had been taken hadn’t kicked up stink about it.
Originally posted by Zacchaeus:
quote:The public relations nightmare happens in cases with the local authorities too.
Originally posted by latecomer:
This sort of announcement/standoff/clarification cycle seems to happen fairly regularly in the CofE (and other large organisations). Wouldn't you hope that somewhere behind the scenes a communications/PR person was saying "let's work out NOW our strategy for the next time something like this needs to be announced".
Oh ... sorry ... there goes another flying pig
The basic reason is the authorities are bound by privacy rules etc. that other people and groups aren't. It means that individuals and groups such as bell ringers can say what they like in public and the authorities can't answer back. In this case the minster had to get the permission of the potential victim before being allowed to say anything about what it was really about.
There would have been none of this fuss if the bell ringers hadn’t kicked up stink about it
quote:And it is an article that, perhaps, puts a rather different slant on the story as far as the ringers' "not knowing" theory goes.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Another article in today's Guardian.
quote:
Other members of the bellringing team rallied round their former captain. Some say there followed an attempt to frustrate the church’s safeguarding efforts, particularly by members of Potter’s extended family, who form the core of the team of bellringers.
As ranks closed, the minster authorities were forced to act to regain control of the bell tower. It was in the hands of a “fiefdom”, said one church insider.
quote:Well, that just makes me even more sure that the bellringers are in the right. When I mentioned skeletons in closets earlier in this thread I was thinking of proven wrongdoing, not baseless accusations.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Another article in today's Guardian.
quote:Consider Lamb Chopped's story upthread about the guy who was making inappropriate friendship suggestions towards teens.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Innocent until proven guilty is still a foundational tenet of law in this country. And innocent people should not be punished or otherwise treated as if they are guilty. Especially by the Church.
quote:It may be a question of trust. Generally speaking, it's the tower captain, or whoever the captain puts in charge, who decides whether an individual is allowed to ring a bell or not. The PCC has no involvement because generally the PCC cannot assess anyone's bell handling ability. But if the PCC can no longer trust the captain, then it's not clear they can allow the captain to make that decision.
Originally posted by Boogie:
Absolutely, put all the safeguarding measures in place. Sack the one or two who refuse to comply if you think it's appropriate to do so.
Sack the whole team and silence the bells? Why?
quote:That has never been what "innocent until proven guilty" means. If there is serious grounds to suspect someone of a crime they quite often have to accept restrictions on their liberty until the matter is resolved. A teacher, or other professional may be suspended in post, a suspected criminal may be remanded in custody. It's not much fun for them if they do turn out to be innocent but it might not be much fun for someone else if they are not and are left unsupervised to get on with it whilst they still can.
Innocent until proven guilty is still a foundational tenet of law in this country. And innocent people should not be punished or otherwise treated as if they are guilty. Especially by the Church.
quote:The article states that "other safeguarding measures were put in place by other authorities." We do not know and so cannot say what those measures were or by whom they were put in place, or with what cause. Proven innocent or guilty (in regard to safeguarding) is, alas, not an issue under the tenets of the law in this country any more. We can, though, be sure that "other safeguarding measures" are not just "put in place by other authorities" solely on the grounds of "baseless accusations" - they are often put in place on the grounds of "well-founded but unproven accusations".
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Well, that just makes me even more sure that the bellringers are in the right. When I mentioned skeletons in closets earlier in this thread I was thinking of proven wrongdoing, not baseless accusations.
Innocent until proven guilty is still a foundational tenet of law in this country. And innocent people should not be punished or otherwise treated as if they are guilty. Especially by the Church.
quote:According to the article, both issues were resolved without any charge being made.
Originally posted by Callan:
That has never been what "innocent until proven guilty" means. If there is serious grounds to suspect someone of a crime they quite often have to accept restrictions on their liberty until the matter is resolved.
quote:Sorry in any safeguarding situation the first thing to be done is to remove the person who has had an allegation made against them, no matter what.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:Well, that just makes me even more sure that the bellringers are in the right. When I mentioned skeletons in closets earlier in this thread I was thinking of proven wrongdoing, not baseless accusations.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Another article in today's Guardian.
Innocent until proven guilty is still a foundational tenet of law in this country. And innocent people should not be punished or otherwise treated as if they are guilty. Especially by the Church.
quote:Can we? I wish I shared your optimistic view of the situation.
Originally posted by Teekeey Misha:
We can, though, be sure that "other safeguarding measures" are not just "put in place by other authorities" solely on the grounds of "baseless accusations"
quote:How can you believe that and not live in abject fear of one day having a false accusation made against you, given that even if the police throw it out as soon as they look at it (or even if you successfully defend yourself against it in court) there will be all sorts of people who just know that "not guilty" doesn't really mean "not guilty". As a result you're no longer allowed to do any job or volunteering role that even tangentially involves children (so that's everything at church out for a start), and you get to live like a pariah for the rest of your days, safe in the knowledge that your name will forever be on every nasty little list going. But hey, it's all for the greater good, right?
they are often put in place on the grounds of "well-founded but unproven accusations".
In terms of safeguarding, experience has taught the church (and/or any other body that might be involved) that "no charges were brought" does not mean "not guilty" (especially if accusations have been made more than once, as the article suggests), whatever idealistic thoughts of "innocent until proven guilty" we may harbour.
quote:I refer you to my post immediately above yours.
Originally posted by Zacchaeus:
until after any investigation is over.
quote:You are exactly right. But the whole process saps at trust and implies guilt even when there is none.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
On this is seems the church can't win: either they await evidence and sufficient proof for the case to go to trial - which, as we know, is hard to get - or they're accused of jumping the gun and not following "due process".
---
Once again, volunteering is not employment and the church does not need sufficient evidence to convict in a criminal court. Enough evidence for something to be a worry is enough for them to take action, as they've been reminded time and time again.
quote:Yup. Sucks, doesn't it? Welcome to the world in which lots of people live.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
How can you believe that and not live in abject fear of one day having a false accusation made against you, given that even if the police throw it out as soon as they look at it (or even if you successfully defend yourself against it in court) there will be all sorts of people who just know that "not guilty" doesn't really mean "not guilty".
quote:Because the alternative is letting abusers get a pass - and continue with what they're doing - because there isn't enough evidence for a conviction.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
How can you believe that and not live in abject fear of one day having a false accusation made against you, given that even if the police throw it out as soon as they look at it (or even if you successfully defend yourself against it in court) there will be all sorts of people who just know that "not guilty" doesn't really mean "not guilty". As a result you're no longer allowed to do any job or volunteering role that even tangentially involves children (so that's everything at church out for a start), and you get to live like a pariah for the rest of your days, safe in the knowledge that your name will forever be on every nasty little list going. But hey, it's all for the greater good, right?
quote:I didn't say police investigation.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:I refer you to my post immediately above yours.
Originally posted by Zacchaeus:
until after any investigation is over.
quote:Yes, I'm not sure why that's been done. Even publishing that there had been an allegation against a named individual seems to me to be skirting rather close to the legal knuckle.
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
I am really unhappy they decided to publish X's name. I've been on the receiving end of false accusations, and the stink still lingers more than 10 years later.
quote:"They" being the Guardian rather than the Minster. FWIW.
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
I am really unhappy they decided to publish X's name.
quote:According to the Guardian, both parties named the individual.
Originally posted by Paul.:
"They" being the Guardian rather than the Minster. FWIW.
quote:I agree. Judging by the account in The Guardian story, there was already information in previous stories in the public domain which pointed to X. All the journalists from The Times, which published X's name, needed to do was a little basic investigation, probably initially with the belp of Mr. Google PI, and after that by making some enquiries by phone or in person. I haven't looked, but wonder if X is still in the paid employment he was in when previous allegations were made. There would be safeguarding questions there as well.
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
I am really unhappy they decided to publish X's name. I've been on the receiving end of false accusations, and the stink still lingers more than 10 years later.
quote:Rightly or wrongly, they can probably name him because there is no current criminal investigation. So they are not doing anything illegal, though maybe immoral
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:Yes, I'm not sure why that's been done. Even publishing that there had been an allegation against a named individual seems to me to be skirting rather close to the legal knuckle.
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
I am really unhappy they decided to publish X's name. I've been on the receiving end of false accusations, and the stink still lingers more than 10 years later.
quote:Actually The Guardian's rather carefully worded, "But accounts from both sides suggest that the dispute centres on…" suggests to me that no one involved was willing directly to name X. According to York's The Press, the person was first named in print by The Times (which is behind a paywall so I can't see where their information might but have come from).
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:According to the Guardian, both parties named the individual.
Originally posted by Paul.:
"They" being the Guardian rather than the Minster. FWIW.
quote:Well defamation isn't a criminal issue.
Originally posted by Zacchaeus:
Rightly or wrongly, they can probably name him because there is no current criminal investigation. So they are not doing anything illegal, though maybe immoral
But very sadly if the bell ringers hadn't forced the issue with the publicity, by which they were trying to force the Minster’s hand, then it would have stayed quiet and the press would not have dug the name out
quote:And you're all OK with that? With knowing that your reputation, hobbies and livelihood can all be taken away by one kid with a grudge against you?
Originally posted by Teekeey Misha:
quote:Yup. Sucks, doesn't it? Welcome to the world in which lots of people live.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
How can you believe that and not live in abject fear of one day having a false accusation made against you, given that even if the police throw it out as soon as they look at it (or even if you successfully defend yourself against it in court) there will be all sorts of people who just know that "not guilty" doesn't really mean "not guilty".
quote:Even to the extent of never being allowed to go back to church? Or maybe having to move to a different area?
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
It sucks horribly to be the one accused. But the one thing you CAN'T do, if you are innocent and wish to remain in the right, is to circumvent the safeguards and restrictions put in place, however unreasonable they may seem.
quote:It's not "letting abusers get a pass" if no abuse happened. That's kinda the point.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Because the alternative is letting abusers get a pass - and continue with what they're doing - because there isn't enough evidence for a conviction.
quote:Virtually anything has the potential to be abusive. My 2-year old nephew loves to sit on my lap and have a cuddle - should I prevent him from doing so because such an action could be misconstrued, and such misconstrual could lead to me being banned from ever seeing him again?
In the case of "innocent" activities which only had the potential to be abusive and which were misconstrued, then it is hard cheese.
quote:Yes. Because otherwise you're moving quickly down the road of banning virtually all interactions between adults and kids. There must be a middle ground, some level of reasonableness to be found.
In the case of actual false allegations, that is a slightly different thing.
It seems to me that in the context of a church group, the difference way well be if someone was getting rather too "friendly" with youngsters and wasn't taking the hint to back off. And comparing that to a false claim that someone who had actually instigated an abusive relationship.
The former might just have been clumsy behaviour mixed in with bone-headed refusal to listen to the advice of others. It might have never led to the abuse everyone is afraid of happening on their watch.
Who knows. But do we really want to let things get to the serious category before taking action?
quote:Sorry, you think there is only abuse of children when there is a conviction, is that right? So Saville didn't actually abuse anyone..?
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
It's not "letting abusers get a pass" if no abuse happened. That's kinda the point.
quote:No, because that on it's own is normal behaviour.
Virtually anything has the potential to be abusive. My 2-year old nephew loves to sit on my lap and have a cuddle - should I prevent him from doing so because such an action could be misconstrued, and such misconstrual could lead to me being banned from ever seeing him again?
quote:The line in most circumstances is that you probably shouldn't be touching a child very much that isn't yours. The more touching and the more invasion of space that there is, the more problematic it is.
Yes. Because otherwise you're moving quickly down the road of banning virtually all interactions between adults and kids. There must be a middle ground, some level of reasonableness to be found.
quote:I think that such things as false accusations exist, and if an investigation finds no evidence of wrongdoing then the accused should not be treated as if they were guilty anyway.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:Sorry, you think there is only abuse of children when there is a conviction, is that right? So Saville didn't actually abuse anyone..?
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
It's not "letting abusers get a pass" if no abuse happened. That's kinda the point.
quote:Sometimes when I go to my brothers house they have kids from the neighbourhood round as well as my nephews. One of the girls (she's about 3) is almost as keen on having a cuddle as the nephew I mentioned earlier. Where does that fall in relation to your line?
The line in most circumstances is that you probably shouldn't be touching a child very much that isn't yours. The more touching and the more invasion of space that there is, the more problematic it is.
quote:I wouldn't touch someone else's child unless their parent was there and made it clear it was acceptable.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Sometimes when I go to my brothers house they have kids from the neighbourhood round as well as my nephews. One of the girls (she's about 3) is almost as keen on having a cuddle as the nephew I mentioned earlier. Where does that fall in relation to your line?
quote:One of our friends is a Sunday School teacher, and she babysits some of the same children during the week. One of them once asked her why she would cuddle them at home but not at church. I don't know how she answered, and I don't know how I would explain it either. Maybe, "I am more dangerous surrounded by other people at church than I am alone with you at home"?
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:I think that such things as false accusations exist, and if an investigation finds no evidence of wrongdoing then the accused should not be treated as if they were guilty anyway.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:Sorry, you think there is only abuse of children when there is a conviction, is that right? So Saville didn't actually abuse anyone..?
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
It's not "letting abusers get a pass" if no abuse happened. That's kinda the point.
quote:Sometimes when I go to my brothers house they have kids from the neighbourhood round as well as my nephews. One of the girls (she's about 3) is almost as keen on having a cuddle as the nephew I mentioned earlier. Where does that fall in relation to your line?
The line in most circumstances is that you probably shouldn't be touching a child very much that isn't yours. The more touching and the more invasion of space that there is, the more problematic it is.
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:Well defamation isn't a criminal issue.
Originally posted by Zacchaeus:
Rightly or wrongly, they can probably name him because there is no current criminal investigation. So they are not doing anything illegal, though maybe immoral
But very sadly if the bell ringers hadn't forced the issue with the publicity, by which they were trying to force the Minster’s hand, then it would have stayed quiet and the press would not have dug the name out
That's why it's hedged around with words like 'suggests'
In a hypothetical situation whereby someone was rather annoyed that a newspaper had published their name in connection with an incident, it would be down to the publisher to prove it was true - or that there was public interest in printing it in a defamation case.
I'm not a lawyer, I've no idea what would happen in a situation like this. For me it just feels better not to use his name.
quote:The "move away" thing is not a safeguarding restriction anywhere I've ever heard of. It CAN result from unbridled gossip, which gives you a case for slander.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:Even to the extent of never being allowed to go back to church? Or maybe having to move to a different area?
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
It sucks horribly to be the one accused. But the one thing you CAN'T do, if you are innocent and wish to remain in the right, is to circumvent the safeguards and restrictions put in place, however unreasonable they may seem.
quote:I'll try and get it right this time
Originally posted by Zacchaeus:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:Well defamation isn't a criminal issue.
Originally posted by Zacchaeus:
Rightly or wrongly, they can probably name him because there is no current criminal investigation. So they are not doing anything illegal, though maybe immoral
But very sadly if the bell ringers hadn't forced the issue with the publicity, by which they were trying to force the Minster’s hand, then it would have stayed quiet and the press would not have dug the name out
That's why it's hedged around with words like 'suggests'
In a hypothetical situation whereby someone was rather annoyed that a newspaper had published their name in connection with an incident, it would be down to the publisher to prove it was true - or that there was public interest in printing it in a defamation case.
I'm not a lawyer, I've no idea what would happen in a situation like this. For me it just feels better not to use his name.
![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif){kind=icon}
quote:In my area there is a well-established protocol for enabling people who are subject to safeguarding restrictions to continue to worship. Although if it has been a high profile issue they may find it hard to continue in the same congregation.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:Even to the extent of never being allowed to go back to church? Or maybe having to move to a different area?
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
It sucks horribly to be the one accused. But the one thing you CAN'T do, if you are innocent and wish to remain in the right, is to circumvent the safeguards and restrictions put in place, however unreasonable they may seem.
quote:
“Even after an investigation has taken place, and even if there is no prosecution achieved as an outcome of those investigations, if the authority, which in our case is the Chapter of York, cannot feel confident about an individual and their activity, and the way that they conduct themselves . . . if the organisation still feels there is a real or perceived risk, it can take a decision to exclude a person from a particular area of activity. That is what the Chapter did in relation to a member of the bell-ringing team.
”There has to be a process in which the church authorities have to look at the papers after any legal process has finished, and make a judgement as to whether or not they feel that the person, doing this particular activity, should be allowed to continue. In some circumstances, conditions are allowed, such as ensuring they are not on their own with people of a certain age-group. Chapter discussed the whole case with other agencies, and decided to exclude this person from the bell tower, but not the rest of church.”
quote:it is hard to see how this can have been consistent with his exclusion from the tower at the minster, and the Church Times's report of a diocesan-wide notice (issued in April 2015 and since extended) advising incumbents to exclude him from other bell towers in the diocese.
name is said to have been included recently in a list of York Minster ringers to form the Minster band for the 2017 National 12-bell Striking Competition.
quote:Clearly I'm not particularly "OK" with it, hence I wrote "Sucks, doesn't it?". Whether I (or you or anyone else) like it or not, it is reality and, much as it may suck, a necessary reality.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
And you're all OK with that? With knowing that your reputation, hobbies and livelihood can all be taken away by one kid with a grudge against you?
quote:£70 to get them down, another £630 to get them down safely in one piece.
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Just read that Church Times article.
£700 to get the bells down?
quote:£700 quid to get the bells rung down in an timely fashion by a company that was not part of the problem, was prepared to work within all relevant policies, were definitely not going to try to make publicity for a cause out of the request and could not be criticised as incapable or unsuitable by any group who wanted to further muddy the waters? I bet that felt like a bargain!
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Just read that Church Times article.
£700 to get the bells down?
quote:Noting the final sentence of that CT article, I'm not sure the waters are quite as unsullied as might be thought.
Originally posted by anne:
could not be criticised as incapable or unsuitable by any group who wanted to further muddy the waters? I bet that felt like a bargain!
quote:The ramifications of that certainly make the mind boggle..
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:Noting the final sentence of that CT article, I'm not sure the waters are quite as unsullied as might be thought.
Originally posted by anne:
could not be criticised as incapable or unsuitable by any group who wanted to further muddy the waters? I bet that felt like a bargain!
I'm not sure about you people, but my brain is properly poached several times over by this story.
quote:Or to put it another way, even if someone is completely exonerated they can still be punished by banning them from doing what they love.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Possibly worth quoting a section of the statement from the Minster:
quote:
“Even after an investigation has taken place, and even if there is no prosecution achieved as an outcome of those investigations, if the authority, which in our case is the Chapter of York, cannot feel confident about an individual and their activity, and the way that they conduct themselves . . . if the organisation still feels there is a real or perceived risk, it can take a decision to exclude a person from a particular area of activity. That is what the Chapter did in relation to a member of the bell-ringing team.
”There has to be a process in which the church authorities have to look at the papers after any legal process has finished, and make a judgement as to whether or not they feel that the person, doing this particular activity, should be allowed to continue. In some circumstances, conditions are allowed, such as ensuring they are not on their own with people of a certain age-group. Chapter discussed the whole case with other agencies, and decided to exclude this person from the bell tower, but not the rest of church.”
quote:But your paraphrase is inaccurate as regards the present case. In 1999/2000 a prosecution did not occur which means either the available evidence was insufficient to make it reasonably likely that the offence could be proved beyond reasonable doubt, or it was otherwise felt to be not in the public interest to mount a prosecution (e.g. vulnerability of witnesses, age of those required to give evidence etc.). That is not complete exoneration.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Or to put it another way, even if someone is completely exonerated they can still be punished by banning them from doing what they love.
I mean, look at that wording: "if the organisation still feels there is a ... perceived risk". They might as well say "if we don't like him" or "if he don't look right to us".
This just confirms what I've been saying all along - it doesn't matter whether you're guilty or innocent, an accusation will be treated as a conviction anyway. I can't believe nobody else sees that as a bad thing.
quote:Again that is not complete exoneration. The Sexual Risk Order may have been not granted either because it was not proved beyond reasonable doubt that behaviour had occurred which would merit an order, or because it was not proved on the balance of probabilities that an order was required to give protection (i.e. other safeguarding measures short of a court order would be sufficient). These other measures might include, for example,
[a sexual risk] order was initially granted by York Magistrates’ Court on an interim basis, pending final determination, but ultimately the court refused to grant a sexual risk order, but other safeguarding measures were put in place by other authorities.
quote:Again, if that was the advice the diocese was giving to parish clergy, how could the dean and chapter reasonably take a different line about the minster?
a safeguarding notification [from the diocese to all incumbents that X] should not be permitted access to bell towers of churches in the diocese to ring or for any other purpose.
quote:Quite aside from the obvious problem with such a position (namely, that it just raises the bar from one false accusation to two), the second investigation was described thusly:
Originally posted by Zacchaeus:
Two similar accusations years apart, by separate people, raise a lot of red flags
quote:That doesn't sound like a fresh accusation to me, it sounds more like someone finding his name in an old database held by some other agency and starting the whole investigation again. With, I note, the same result. Except now we've gone so far over to the side of paranoia that even without any actual evidence of wrongdoing the authorities still think it's right and proper to punish him anyway.
None the less, this week North Yorkshire Police said in a statement that in June 2015 “it had applied for a Sexual Risk Order (SRO) following concerns raised during multi-agency safeguarding processes about a 66-year-old York man and his contact with children.
quote:YMMV, but I find it hard to credit that this would have been done in relation to a one-off event sixteen years previously. ISTM that it is much more likely that there was fresh cause for concern.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
That doesn't sound like a fresh accusation to me, it sounds more like someone finding his name in an old database held by some other agency and starting the whole investigation again. With, I note, the same result.
quote:And this from The Guardian
Originally posted by BroJames:
The Church Times has now produced the fullest report I've seen on this affair.
quote:There's another reason why a prosecution may not occur after an investigation - if the investigation finds no evidence of wrongdoing.
Originally posted by BroJames:
In 1999/2000 a prosecution did not occur which means either the available evidence was insufficient to make it reasonably likely that the offence could be proved beyond reasonable doubt, or it was otherwise felt to be not in the public interest to mount a prosecution (e.g. vulnerability of witnesses, age of those required to give evidence etc.). That is not complete exoneration.
quote:Or because nothing actually happened. You keep ignoring that possibility.
The Sexual Risk Order may have been not granted either because it was not proved beyond reasonable doubt that behaviour had occurred which would merit an order, or because it was not proved on the balance of probabilities that an order was required to give protection (i.e. other safeguarding measures short of a court order would be sufficient).
quote:According to your profile you're an Anglican minister. Ask yourself how you would feel if you were wrongly accused of molestation and as a result the Church authorities decided to ban you from ministering, even though the investigation never resulted in a prosecution.
These other measures might include, for example,quote:Again, if that was the advice the diocese was giving to parish clergy, how could the dean and chapter reasonably take a different line about the minster?
a safeguarding notification [from the diocese to all incumbents that X] should not be permitted access to bell towers of churches in the diocese to ring or for any other purpose.
quote:The archbishop of York in his statement said there were two allegations one in the past and one recent
Originally posted by BroJames:
quote:YMMV, but I find it hard to credit that this would have been done in relation to a one-off event sixteen years previously. ISTM that it is much more likely that there was fresh cause for concern.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
That doesn't sound like a fresh accusation to me, it sounds more like someone finding his name in an old database held by some other agency and starting the whole investigation again. With, I note, the same result.
quote:You can't be being serious. Can you?
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
Surely one of the benefits of a 'witch hunt' is that it weeds out witches from the rest of the population?
quote:Which actions/sins would those be? How do you know the accusation had any merit? Do you even care?
In any case, Potter has only himself to blame. If the result of his actions means that he is now unable to pursue his beloved bell ringing, that's tough shit, but we all have to bear the consequences of our sins.
quote:Nobody has lightly tried to trash anyone's reputation, and the way in which ringing at the cathedral was suspended suggests (to me at least) that there was an effort on the part of the cathedral to keep the safeguarding concerns confidential within a very small group of people, possibly not including all the bell ringers. Their action was cloaked under the general heading of management issues and health and safety.
complex multi-agency activity involving City of York Council, the York Diocese Safeguarding Adviser, and the Church of England’s National Safeguarding Officer
quote:But that is exactly what does (or, at least, can) happen for some people, such as teachers. And they may not even be told what the allegation is against them or who has made it, merely that it has happened.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
According to your profile you're an Anglican minister. Ask yourself how you would feel if you were wrongly accused of molestation and as a result the Church authorities decided to ban you from ministering, even though the investigation never resulted in a prosecution.
quote:The investigation had ended, and he was apparently still banned.
Originally posted by Zacchaeus:
I have absolutely no sympathy with Mr Potter - if he had complied with the rules and waited for the investigation to end, it would have meant that if the ruling is, that the accusation is unfounded, then he could have quietly gone back to the bells with the world none the wiser.
quote:In fact the gentleman in this case was suspended from teaching in school during the last accusation and then reinstated after the investigation.
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
quote:But that is exactly what does (or, at least, can) happen for some people, such as teachers. And they may not even be told what the allegation is against them or who has made it, merely that it has happened.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
According to your profile you're an Anglican minister. Ask yourself how you would feel if you were wrongly accused of molestation and as a result the Church authorities decided to ban you from ministering, even though the investigation never resulted in a prosecution.
And let's not use the word "ban" but "suspend". A teacher might well be removed from the school while the investigation wends its weary way. And the Minster made it very clear that many of the bell-ringers would be welcome to return.
quote:Yes. Just as someone who has been accused of fraud (but never even charged, much less found guilty) should still be perfectly free to become church treasurer should they so desire.
Originally posted by Zacchaeus:
He also needs to consider as an Anglican minister, that should he use as a volunteer somebody who had two previous accusation for indecent behaviour made against them.
quote:The police investigation might be over - the publicity hasn’t been clear about whether the other multi agency investigation is complete, or whether the ban, is the result of that investigation
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:The investigation had ended, and he was apparently still banned.
Originally posted by Zacchaeus:
I have absolutely no sympathy with Mr Potter - if he had complied with the rules and waited for the investigation to end, it would have meant that if the ruling is, that the accusation is unfounded, then he could have quietly gone back to the bells with the world none the wiser.
quote:If there was no evidence of wrongdoing then acting as if there was is unreasonable. And if there had been any evidence then there would have been a prosecution.
Originally posted by BroJames:
I agree that it is possible that the person was concerned was wholly innocent. You don't seem able to accept that the authorities may in fact have acted quite reasonably.
quote:The diocese is going to be basing its advice on what the Dean and Chapter have told it. Likewise for the national safeguarding advisor.
If it were only the Dean and Chapter, I might be more inclined to allow that you are right. The diocese, however, is a separate agency, and unlikely to be influenced by any alleged managerial grab for power within the cathedral.
quote:So do you think it's fair that your life could be ruined by such a situation, or not?
I have imagined what it might be like to be an innocent accused.
quote:Which is even more evidence that the Minster is wrong in this case. If he's still OK to teach, surely he's still OK to ring a few bells.
Originally posted by Zacchaeus:
In fact the gentleman in this case was suspended from teaching in school during the last accusation and then reinstated after the investigation.
quote:Just so we're absolutely clear on this: if a camp leader has been taking photos of small boys in the bath but there is insufficient evidence to take it further forward to prosecution, you'd be absolutely fine with sending your child to that camp with the same leader?
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Yes. Just as someone who has been accused of fraud (but never even charged, much less found guilty) should still be perfectly free to become church treasurer should they so desire.
quote:He is not teaching now, he was teaching at the time of the 1999 accusation.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:Which is even more evidence that the Minster is wrong in this case. If he's still OK to teach, surely he's still OK to ring a few bells.
Originally posted by Zacchaeus:
In fact the gentleman in this case was suspended from teaching in school during the last accusation and then reinstated after the investigation.
quote:If there was no evidence of wrongdoing then acting as if there was is unreasonable. And if there had been any evidence then there would have been a prosecution.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by BroJames:
[qb] I agree that it is possible that the person was concerned was wholly innocent. You don't seem able to accept that the authorities may in fact have acted quite reasonably.
quote:And I can't quite believe you see that there are only two possible outcomes: a criminal conviction or completely innocent.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
This just confirms what I've been saying all along - it doesn't matter whether you're guilty or innocent, an accusation will be treated as a conviction anyway. I can't believe nobody else sees that as a bad thing.
quote:On the other had i want to be certain the week and vulnerable are protected, silly me..
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I'm just trying to judge other people the same way I would like to be judged.
How ridiculous of me. Who would ever think that was a good way to approach things?
![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
quote:The only way to be certain is to never let anybody go near them at all. Beyond that, you're just deciding what is an acceptable level of risk in light of the need to treat everybody as fairly as possible.
Originally posted by Zacchaeus:
On the other had i want to be certain the week and vulnerable are protected, silly me..
quote:The bible tells us often to take special care of widows, aliens and orphans ie, the most vulnerable members of society.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:The only way to be certain is to never let anybody go near them at all. Beyond that, you're just deciding what is an acceptable level of risk in light of the need to treat everybody as fairly as possible.
Originally posted by Zacchaeus:
On the other had i want to be certain the week and vulnerable are protected, silly me..
quote:I agree there's Reasons for it. The
Originally posted by anne:
£700 quid to get the bells rung down in an timely fashion by a company that was not part of the problem, was prepared to work within all relevant policies, were definitely not going to try to make publicity for a cause out of the request and could not be criticised as incapable or unsuitable by any group who wanted to further muddy the waters? I bet that felt like a bargain!
was provoked by the contrast against the £25 fee, which is considered high, which I would get for ringing for a wedding, which takes two hours out of a Saturday afternoon and may indeed include getting the bells down afterwards ...
quote:The first statement is not true. There may have been evidence, just not sufficient evidence to convince a jury beyond reasonable doubt that an offence had been committed. That may have been (for example) because it was simply a case of one person's word against another, or because the witness was a victim who felt (or was felt to be) unable to go through the court process. Or there may have been reasons why a prosecution was deemed not to be in the public interest. Again this sometimes happens where there is a risk of further harm to the victim.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
And if there had been any evidence then there would have been a prosecution.<snip>
The diocese is going to be basing its advice on what the Dean and Chapter have told it. Likewise for the national safeguarding advisor.
quote:The second statement of yours which I have quoted might be true, but I doubt it. It is much more likely that the Dean and Chapter and the Diocese listened to what the Council and the Police had to say, and that the safeguarding advisers were also in touch with them directly.
Cathy Wordie, chairwoman of governors at Upper Poppleton school, said: "The staff and governors are delighted for Mr Potter that no charges are to be brought."
<snip>
The City of York Council said today: "We will be meeting with the Family Protection Unit of North Yorkshire police for a full briefing tomorrow.
quote:Or consider the case when your gut feelings are telling you that the person is innocent of any wrongdoing. Suppose you have a person who has been the subject of more than one, independent, accusation of impropriety, and you think he means no harm.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Just think of all the people who aren't convicted of domestic abuse when it's as plain as a pikestaff they're domestic abusers. Would you be happy when your child brought them home and introduced them to you as their new partner? "Oh, but they're innocent!" you'd opine.
quote:That assumes the ringer quoted in the Church Times tells (or indeed, knows) the whole truth.
Originally posted by Chamois:
The thing that concerns me most about this affair is the statement by the Archbishop that some of the bell-ringers "consistently challenged the Chapter’s authority". In the Church Times article the ringer who organised the petition is quoted as saying: "“The reason for our sackings is that we questioned the way they have treated someone after the closure of the incident. They excluded someone, and we wrote letters saying: ‘How come you have excluded someone if you have no issues against them?’”
So, apparently, writing a letter asking for clarification of a process (which must have had a big impact on the bell ringing team - you can't expect them simply not to notice that one of their long-term members has been excluded) is "challenging the Chapter's authority". No no no no no. That sucks. Big time.
quote:Her account is at least consistent with what the Archbishop said in the interview shown on YouTube. She says they wrote letters asking why X had been excluded. The Archbishop said that some of the ringers consistently challenged the Dean and Chapter's "right to make that decision"
That assumes the ringer quoted in the Church Times tells (or indeed, knows) the whole truth.
quote:And of course it depends on exactly what the letters said.
Originally posted by TomM:
quote:That assumes the ringer quoted in the Church Times tells (or indeed, knows) the whole truth.
Originally posted by Chamois:
The thing that concerns me most about this affair is the statement by the Archbishop that some of the bell-ringers "consistently challenged the Chapter’s authority". In the Church Times article the ringer who organised the petition is quoted as saying: "“The reason for our sackings is that we questioned the way they have treated someone after the closure of the incident. They excluded someone, and we wrote letters saying: ‘How come you have excluded someone if you have no issues against them?’”
So, apparently, writing a letter asking for clarification of a process (which must have had a big impact on the bell ringing team - you can't expect them simply not to notice that one of their long-term members has been excluded) is "challenging the Chapter's authority". No no no no no. That sucks. Big time.
quote:You know, that sentiment ("How come you have excluded someone if you have no issues against them?") can be expressed in very different ways--you can have an ordinary polite enquiry, or you can go way over the top and get all accusatory and we're-probably-not-gonna-cooperate (like Trump with the results of the election right now). And the reaction of the authorities addressed could be very different depending on how they took the tone of the letter.
Originally posted by Chamois:
The thing that concerns me most about this affair is the statement by the Archbishop that some of the bell-ringers "consistently challenged the Chapter’s authority". In the Church Times article the ringer who organised the petition is quoted as saying: "“The reason for our sackings is that we questioned the way they have treated someone after the closure of the incident. They excluded someone, and we wrote letters saying: ‘How come you have excluded someone if you have no issues against them?’”
So, apparently, writing a letter asking for clarification of a process (which must have had a big impact on the bell ringing team - you can't expect them simply not to notice that one of their long-term members has been excluded) is "challenging the Chapter's authority". No no no no no. That sucks. Big time.
quote:You understand wrong. There is no reason whatsoever to be alone in the bell tower (belfry/ ringing chamber, or bell chamber) with a pupil or any other person in the course of normal ringing & instruction, nor is there close physical contact other than what you would have queuing up for communion. You don't have individual private tuition in a tower with no-one else around. If someone suggests it, yes, pull the plug or give them a chaperone. Change-ringing is by definition a group activity.
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
As I understand it, teaching bellringing frequently involves standing in close physical contact with your pupil whilst alone in the bell tower. There's plenty of opportunity for misbehaviour or misunderstanding there.
quote:I'd thought i'd read he'd been reinstated but I can't find it anywhere now - so maybe I dreamed it.
Originally posted by BroJames:
quote:The first statement is not true. There may have been evidence, just not sufficient evidence to convince a jury beyond reasonable doubt that an offence had been committed. That may have been (for example) because it was simply a case of one person's word against another, or because the witness was a victim who felt (or was felt to be) unable to go through the court process. Or there may have been reasons why a prosecution was deemed not to be in the public interest. Again this sometimes happens where there is a risk of further harm to the victim.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
And if there had been any evidence then there would have been a prosecution.<snip>
The diocese is going to be basing its advice on what the Dean and Chapter have told it. Likewise for the national safeguarding advisor.
I would be interested to know whether X was reinstated to teaching in 2000 after the decision not to prosecute. I may have missed it, but I don't recall seeing that he was, and the school's statement at the time struck me as quite reservedquote:The second statement of yours which I have quoted might be true, but I doubt it. It is much more likely that the Dean and Chapter and the Diocese listened to what the Council and the Police had to say, and that the safeguarding advisers were also in touch with them directly.
Cathy Wordie, chairwoman of governors at Upper Poppleton school, said: "The staff and governors are delighted for Mr Potter that no charges are to be brought."
<snip>
The City of York Council said today: "We will be meeting with the Family Protection Unit of North Yorkshire police for a full briefing tomorrow.
quote:Surely the reality is that they didn't just write "a letter asking for clarification"; they actively undermined the D&C's safeguarding efforts by, for example, including as their Tower Captain in a forthcoming competition the very person whom they knew the D&C had banned from the ringing team.
Originally posted by Chamois:
So, apparently, writing a letter asking for clarification of a process ... is "challenging the Chapter's authority". No no no no no. That sucks. Big time.
quote:The ringers publicised it. Arguably the Cathedral was taking leadership seriously by addressing concerns.
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
I still detect an outbreak of managerialism which has no place in a Christian community.
Leadership, compassion and forgiveness are required. Not passive-aggressive managerialism which, to my ear at least, lies behind both the statements from the Dean and Chapter and the response from the bellringers.
This is not to say that abuse should happen, or that reasonable measures should not be taken to prevent it. But there are degrees, and not everything has to be overly floodlit in this perverse kind of a way.
quote:It sounds as if the ringer in that situation was lucky not to have been charged with criminal behaviour. Some of what he did sounds very close to grooming. But the law concerning online grooming in the UK was changed only very recently, which may have been too recent to catch this.
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Here is an entirely different bellringer case. This looks really quite similar to Lamb Chopped's example - an adult who was not accused of anything criminal, but who was quite clearly behaving inappropriately with young people.
He was, quite rightly, removed.
quote:The other thing to bear in mind is that safeguarding isn’t just about children, it also covers vulnerable adults. That was one of the reasons why I was surprised one of the articles stated that the bell ringers weren’t subject to checks.
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:The ringers publicised it. Arguably the Cathedral was taking leadership seriously by addressing concerns.
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
I still detect an outbreak of managerialism which has no place in a Christian community.
Leadership, compassion and forgiveness are required. Not passive-aggressive managerialism which, to my ear at least, lies behind both the statements from the Dean and Chapter and the response from the bellringers.
This is not to say that abuse should happen, or that reasonable measures should not be taken to prevent it. But there are degrees, and not everything has to be overly floodlit in this perverse kind of a way.
With Safeguarding, the law recognises no degrees: if a concern is raised and/or you become aware of one you are required to take it further. Whether that results in prosecution or acquittal it is traumatic for all involved - and yes, false accusations do happen. The professionals are used to dealing with such situations - let them do it.
Suspension (on full pay if you're not a volunteer) is pretty standard. It means that the people involved don't see/contact each other and allows for investigations to proceed unhindered.
Best not to get oneself into any position or circumstances where there is even the remote possibility of false accusation being made - ie never, ever be alone with a vulnerable person unless absolutely necessary or an emergency.
In this case, the concerns are high given the 3 accusations levelled against one person. Either he's very unlucky and/or being targeted or there are serious concerns about his behaviour. The stakes are so high as we have all seen such that no ne but no one takes these steps lightly. The involvement of other agencies suggests broader decision across a range of skilled practitioners. Nothing I've read or hard suggests that the D & C were wrong to involve such groups - hence the seriousness of the issue.
For those who think it's heavy handed - well it is. The alternative is to continue the age old practice of overlooking abnormal behaviour and screwing young lives up in the process. That's how it was until relatively recently and that approach didn't work .... too many people were excused too much ... "after all, it's just dear old Jimmy isn't it?"
quote:At some point I found the rules for a different diocese, which said that the tower captain, assistant, and anyone who tutored ringers required a DBS check, but regular ringers did not. It was OK for an unchecked ringer to step in as a leader / tutor / whatever on precisely one occasion without being checked.
Originally posted by Tubbs:
That was one of the reasons why I was surprised one of the articles stated that the bell ringers weren’t subject to checks.
quote:Oh, God, yes.
But even if they did, never underestimate people’s ability to explain stuff away. People we know don’t do bad things.
quote:Except that an experienced ringer will stand close behind a learner in the early stages of learning to ring, in order to show them how to hold the rope and in case they fail to catch the sally. Unless your church is particularly cramped, no queue for communion would be as close together. A ringer intent on getting closer than necessary might not be noticed if other ringers are concentrating on their own bells. And it is feasible that a small group of new ringers might be given separate lessons before they join the full band, although decent procedures would stop this being done by just one ringer.
Originally posted by Lincoln Imp:
You understand wrong. There is no reason whatsoever to be alone in the bell tower (belfry/ ringing chamber, or bell chamber) with a pupil or any other person in the course of normal ringing & instruction, nor is there close physical contact other than what you would have queuing up for communion. You don't have individual private tuition in a tower with no-one else around. If someone suggests it, yes, pull the plug or give them a chaperone. Change-ringing is by definition a group activity.
quote:If that happens, it'll be a Health & Safety issue as well as a Safeguarding one!
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
Still, give them enough rope, and they'll hang themselves...
![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
quote:Yes, I’ve seen this first hand as well.
Originally posted by Callan:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
quote:Oh, God, yes.
But even if they did, never underestimate people’s ability to explain stuff away. People we know don’t do bad things.
A clergy colleague of mine was accused, charged and convicted of a number of offences of this sort. At first it was kept confidential and he was "off sick" when the investigation was carrying on. When he was charged a petition was set up which consisted partly of people saying "I can't believe this of the man who conducted my daughter's wedding would have done such things" and partly "I hope the people who made these accusations purely for monetary gain and publicity (their identity is quite properly not in the public domain), are exposed to the fullest rigours of the law". I knew some of the signatories quite well and they were, basically, sane, decent and intelligent people, who clearly did not want to consider the possibility that someone that they had otherwise good grounds to like and respect may have had a darker side. Since the conviction some of them have realised that they were mistaken. Others will go to their grave convinced that a serious miscarriage of justice have taken place. Because, obviously, the people who reported the abuse were clearly doing it for the Lols, and the police, the judge and the jury were all in the business of fitting up an innocent clergyman because, um, reasons. I suspect a similar dynamic is at place here.
quote:Did you even read the Chapter's statement? The bit where they baldly state that those who newly volunteer are being intimidated and threatened?
Originally posted by Chamois:
I'm not surprised the Minster is having trouble replacing the ringers.
quote:Well, like Mandy Rice-Davies said, they would say that, wouldn't they.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:Did you even read the Chapter's statement? The bit where they baldly state that those who newly volunteer are being intimidated and threatened?
Originally posted by Chamois:
I'm not surprised the Minster is having trouble replacing the ringers.
quote:Exactly. We've had a Royal Commission into child sexual abuse in institutions running here now for over 3 years. Case after case of abuse of children have come forward. A major thread is not that witnesses themselves abused children, but rather that no action was taken properly to investigate allegations. That so far has seen the resignation of ++Perth and +Grafton (both Anglican).
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
Talk about being stuck between a rock and a hard place!
Just think what a brouhaha there would have been if the D & C had done nothing about the safeguarding issues, and had then been found wanting.
By the way, I hope those who say that they have been intimidated have duly informed the police.
IJ
quote:No, that's not what a decision not to prosecute means or implies. While a decision not to prosecute can mean no case to answer, it quite often means insufficient evidence for there to be a reasonable probability of obtaining a conviction (i.e. proving beyond reasonable doubt). This can be because the evidence is lacking or because the source of the evidence may not be able to stand up in court - e.g. the witness is a child or vulnerable person, or because of a judgement about the harm that may be done to them by requiring them to give evidence.
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
in this case the DPP, found that there was no case to answer.
quote:I could guess. The first part is easy - the judge declined to impose the sexual risk order that the police were seeking. The second part? The man in question had previously taught in a primary school. He had been accused of offences against young girls. Perhaps he undertook not to seek a position (either paid or voluntary) where he would be responsible for children? Not to teach bellringing to kiddies? It's probably some sort of "I won't put myself in a position where another accusation could arise" promise.
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
Does anyone have an idea of what "The judge decided that no sanction would be imposed and the person concerned made certain undertakings" means?
quote:Ten years ago, even five, I would have wholeheartedly agreed with you, but the evidence coming out in the Royal Commission shows the need for a different approach with allegations like these. The first step is to leave any prosecution entirely for the police/DPP. The DPP will have standard guidelines on when to prosecute and when not. Those almost certainly in the UK, as they do here, are not simply a matter of looking at the evidence. They will involve the matters others have referred to.
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
So due judicial process is just so much bunk? If you are accused, you should be treated as if you are guilty? Call me old fashioned, but I'm rather attached to the idea of innocent unless proven guilty.
Of course, there are actions that could have been taken which might have resolved the situation in a win-win fashion, but that would have meant discussion between the ringers and the D&C, a course which they declined to take.
quote:Do you know for certian that he does not teaching of ringing?
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Whilst I can see that there might be a case for certain restrictions on activities in certain cases, for example, the stipulation that a person must have another adult present when interacting with children or young people, it is difficult to see how this might be relevant in the case of ringing, which is, as far as I know, an activity which is, by its very nature, highly communal. It's not as if the guy wanted to teach young people's groups.
I'm sorry, but there is, in my view, no justification for abandoning presumption of innocence. It would be just too dangerous to do so.
What if you were the person falsely or mistakenly accused. After all, we all know there's no smoke without fire.
quote:You're welcome. Thank you for proving you have no understanding of what it is like to be falsely accused.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Thank you for proving you have no understanding how grooming works. I and everyone else here can simply ignore anything you say on the subject from now on.
quote:Please refer to Doc Tor's earlier comment.
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
I'm open to being corrected but I wouldn't have thought that it was possible to teach ringing one-on-one. The whole point is that ringing is a team activity.
quote:See the trouble in the football world at the moment, because of past abuse issues and Crewe director Dario Gradi, has been suspended because of the way he handled a complaint way back in the 1970’s .
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Whilst I can see that there might be a case for certain restrictions on activities in certain cases, for example, the stipulation that a person must have another adult present when interacting with children or young people, it is difficult to see how this might be relevant in the case of ringing, which is, as far as I know, an activity which is, by its very nature, highly communal. It's not as if the guy wanted to teach young people's groups.
I'm sorry, but there is, in my view, no justification for abandoning presumption of innocence. It would be just too dangerous to do so.
What if you were the person falsely or mistakenly accused. After all, we all know there's no smoke without fire.
quote:Actually there are two elements to successful ringing. One is the handling of the bell, and the whole technique and safe practice of ringing a bell. This does tend to be taught individually and not as part of a regular tower practice session, or, at least, not while the other ringers are ringing.
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
I'm open to being corrected but I wouldn't have thought that it was possible to teach ringing one-on-one. The whole point is that ringing is a team activity.
quote:I have also seen on the web somewhere. That the Leeds Bellringers said that they turned down the invition to ring, because they were too busy over Christmas with Leeds ringing, to have time to ring at York. Nothing to so with solidarity.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
The furore seems to have been reignated by an eponymous and anonymous Anglican blogger/tweeter claiming that the dispute was over an insignificant issue, the Dean responding and a bunch of bellringers from Leeds refusing to go to York in solidarity with their "sacked" brethren.
Maybe it is about time that certain muckspreading gossipmongers shut up.
quote:The point in the football case was that the complaints were not investigated at the time. Therein lay the negligence. Had the club asked for a police investigation at the time, there would have been no negligence (and the perpetrator would, no doubt, have been charged and convicted). As Gee D said upthread, the correct procedure was to hand over the matter to the civil authorities, and take no further part in the investigation, save answering any questions as required.
Originally posted by Zacchaeus:
quote:See the trouble in the football world at the moment, because of past abuse issues and Crewe director Dario Gradi, has been suspended because of the way he handled a complaint way back in the 1970’s .
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Whilst I can see that there might be a case for certain restrictions on activities in certain cases, for example, the stipulation that a person must have another adult present when interacting with children or young people, it is difficult to see how this might be relevant in the case of ringing, which is, as far as I know, an activity which is, by its very nature, highly communal. It's not as if the guy wanted to teach young people's groups.
I'm sorry, but there is, in my view, no justification for abandoning presumption of innocence. It would be just too dangerous to do so.
What if you were the person falsely or mistakenly accused. After all, we all know there's no smoke without fire.
Abuse cases currently have long shadows the D&C at York will be making absolutely certain that they are not laying themselves open to future problems.
As others have said just because there was no police prosecution, does not mean there are no concerns and other agencies appear to be still involved. Iif the D&C let the ringer in question carry on regardless they will be accused of being negligent.
quote:The dean and chapter only wanted to exclude the one individual – it got to this point because the rest of the bell ringers refused to do that and kept including this individual in their plans.
Originally posted by Chamois:
Well I'm not convinced.
The BBC website report says "No charges were brought against the individual and an application for a Sexual Risk Order was refused by magistrates in December 2015". In other words, there isn't much evidence that this person did commit the alleged indecent assault.
I think if this person were someone who was a member of the same church music group as myself, in these circumstances I would make a strong protest if the church said that person were to be excluded. This person hasn't been convicted of (or even charged with) an offence. There are concerns. OK. But to exclude them from a music group? I mean, it's not as though they were running a children's group. The Yorkshire Association of Change-ringers has a child protection policy in place on their website and I'd be astonished if the Minster ringers hadn't signed up to it. Exclusion seems totally disproportionate and also unjust to the individual who has got this matter hanging over him although there isn't any substantive evidence.
The ringers say they are upset because the Dean and Chapter refused to enter into any discussion, and then sacked the entire band. I wouldn't go on social media myself but then I don't use social media. Perhaps if you are a Facebook fan it's what you do.
I'm not surprised the Minster is having trouble replacing the ringers. They obviously had no conception of the time, talent and dedication you need to become a top-class 12-bell ringer. It's as though they had sacked the City of Birmingham Symphony Orchestra and then expected to recruit a replacement orchestra of the same standard from unemployed musicians. With the added problem that there is a national shortage of bell-ringers of any standard and therefore there isn't an "unemployed" pool to draw on.
I think it's a great pity the Dean and Chapter acted in this way.
quote:I am not any kind of expert in this area, but I'm fairly sure that the problem was not simple about the lack of police investigation.
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
The point in the football case was that the complaints were not investigated at the time. Therein lay the negligence. Had the club asked for a police investigation at the time, there would have been no negligence (and the perpetrator would, no doubt, have been charged and convicted). As Gee D said upthread, the correct procedure was to hand over the matter to the civil authorities, and take no further part in the investigation, save answering any questions as required.
quote:In the 70’s the world did not understand abuse and dealt with it very differently. Just one small example, they thought abusers would stop once confronted and had shown contrition. But as we are seeing now there are many people regretting making the wrong call at the time.
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
quote:The point in the football case was that the complaints were not investigated at the time. Therein lay the negligence. Had the club asked for a police investigation at the time, there would have been no negligence (and the perpetrator would, no doubt, have been charged and convicted). As Gee D said upthread, the correct procedure was to hand over the matter to the civil authorities, and take no further part in the investigation, save answering any questions as required.
Originally posted by Zacchaeus:
quote:See the trouble in the football world at the moment, because of past abuse issues and Crewe director Dario Gradi, has been suspended because of the way he handled a complaint way back in the 1970’s .
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Whilst I can see that there might be a case for certain restrictions on activities in certain cases, for example, the stipulation that a person must have another adult present when interacting with children or young people, it is difficult to see how this might be relevant in the case of ringing, which is, as far as I know, an activity which is, by its very nature, highly communal. It's not as if the guy wanted to teach young people's groups.
I'm sorry, but there is, in my view, no justification for abandoning presumption of innocence. It would be just too dangerous to do so.
What if you were the person falsely or mistakenly accused. After all, we all know there's no smoke without fire.
Abuse cases currently have long shadows the D&C at York will be making absolutely certain that they are not laying themselves open to future problems.
As others have said just because there was no police prosecution, does not mean there are no concerns and other agencies appear to be still involved. Iif the D&C let the ringer in question carry on regardless they will be accused of being negligent.
quote:I was a teaching assistant for eight years. Imagine my middle finger saluting you in solitary splendour.
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
quote:You're welcome. Thank you for proving you have no understanding of what it is like to be falsely accused.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Thank you for proving you have no understanding how grooming works. I and everyone else here can simply ignore anything you say on the subject from now on.
quote:That’s exactly what it is like – in your example the driver may not have been convicted of drink driving but he is still known by people to be a risk because of his drinking
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Attitudes certainly have changed and - rightly - we don't want to give people the chance to abuse children if we think they exhibit risky behaviours.
It seems to me that it is basically the same as being a school bus driver who is often drunk. It might well be true that he hasn't been drunk at the wheel - or even that he has but has miraculously been able to avoid police attention or accident.
But if you are the school principal and you are aware that his behaviour is problematic even after confrontation, you do something about it (perhaps including insisting he stops driving) before someone gets killed.
quote:I think the point is whether or not the person in question has access to children, where they may be vulnerable to unscrupulous treatment.
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
I'm open to being corrected but I wouldn't have thought that it was possible to teach ringing one-on-one. The whole point is that ringing is a team activity.
quote:Since that is the case, I'm very surprised that you haven't come across anyone, directly or indirectly, who has been the victim of a mistaken or malicious accusation running along safeguarding lines. If you have come across such a person, I'm astonished that you feel it is in any way OK for that person to be put in a position where, even if he or she had been totally vindicated, they would be treated as if they were guilty. As a teaching assistant, you must have known that there was a possibility that you yourself might have accusations laid at you, no matter how scrupulously you behaved. How can it be in any way defensible or just that you might be still considered guilt by inference. The lesson of the whole Savile affair is that all incidences of abuse should be investigated thoroughly, (had that happened, he would have been imprisoned thirty years or so ago for his vile crimes) rather than that everyone accused of abuse should be treated as if guilty, even when they have been duly investigated and the evidence against them has been shown to be so slim as to be effectively baseless. How does that in any way help to protect vulnerable people?
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:I was a teaching assistant for eight years. Imagine my middle finger saluting you in solitary splendour.
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
quote:You're welcome. Thank you for proving you have no understanding of what it is like to be falsely accused.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Thank you for proving you have no understanding how grooming works. I and everyone else here can simply ignore anything you say on the subject from now on.
quote:Doc, I usually find that refraining from putting words in another's mouth is an aid to good communication, so would be obliged if you forbear doing so. I have no idea what your LA or school has in the way of safeguarding policy, and even if I did, I have no idea what you might think of them. Clearly I hold a different point of view to you with regard to the principle of holding someone innocent until proven otherwise. I consider this a bedrock, perhaps the bedrock of the English common-law system. On the evidence of your own words, you seem to disagree with me about this. That's fine. We disagree. As I understand it, disagreement is allowed, even (especially?) in Hell? So, whence the "temerity"?
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
No, you're just very surprised that someone could have been a TA for eight years, and known someone(s) (or been someone) who had a mistaken or malicious accusation made against them, might have the temerity to disagree with you and agree with the safeguarding protocols that the school and LA have in place.
Having had the crap scared out of me by the (mandatory) safeguarding training I received, I was completely onboard with why and how responses were made to accusations. Responses, I will add, that were as much designed to protect the accusee as they were the accuser.
Given that, if the Dean and Chapter, supported by their lawyers, have decided that on balance and on the evidence, this one person shouldn't be around minors, then I'm going to both respect and support that decision.
quote:I think this kind of covers it for me, too. When Ian Huntley - the Soham child killer, was brought to Justice there was a huge outcry that the police had had some pretty big question marks over his previous behaviour, but that there was nothing prosecutable. So he got a job in a school as a janitor, and then went on to abduct and murder two little girls.
Originally posted by Gee D:
Jolly Jape, your last post indicates that you're still not grappling with the difference between a criminal prosecution, where the prosecutor bears the burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt , and child/vulnerable person situations where a person needs to prove on the balance of probabilities that they do not present an unacceptable risk.
quote:I haven't been falsely accused of something like this, but I've observed reaction to it. A few years ago my husband was working as a taxi driver. One hot day he parked under a shade tree to read his paperback and wait for a call to come in. It was his bad luck that the shade tree was opposite a playground. A teacher called the police who came along and questioned him. That's all that happened, they saw his taxi driver license and understood why he was parked in the only shady place on the street. Nevertheless, my husband was so horrified, that he said he felt sick, he washed his hands a dozen times that day and has not driven on that street in the years since, even if it means going out of his way.
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Thank you for proving you have no understanding of what it is like to be falsely accused.
quote:yes - this is what I was trying to say above
Originally posted by Anselmina:
quote:I think this kind of covers it for me, too. When Ian Huntley - the Soham child killer, was brought to Justice there was a huge outcry that the police had had some pretty big question marks over his previous behaviour, but that there was nothing prosecutable. So he got a job in a school as a janitor, and then went on to abduct and murder two little girls.
Originally posted by Gee D:
Jolly Jape, your last post indicates that you're still not grappling with the difference between a criminal prosecution, where the prosecutor bears the burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt , and child/vulnerable person situations where a person needs to prove on the balance of probabilities that they do not present an unacceptable risk.
quote:In dealing with a suspected offender, York Minster will have offered arrangements, including some restrictions on their operations to the suspected person. If the person under suspicion has refused to co-operate then unfortunately, they've waived the right to participate. The usual requirement is an agreed contract as to which behaviours are deemed safe for the vulnerable and which not.
Our congregations can be a refuge for those who have perpetrated abuse but are seeking help in maintaining a non-abusive way of life. We have also to be aware that some who abuse may see church membership as an opportunity to be close to children or vulnerable parents in order to continue their abusive patterns of behaviour. Experience shows that whether penitent or not, those who abuse need support in taking responsibility for their own actions and in stopping their abusive behaviour: in addition, of course, the vulnerable need protection from them. The genuine penitent will accept the need for careful arrangements, including some restrictions, for his or her return to church fellowship. This is in line with the Church’s realistic understanding of sin and its effects, and the Church’s responsibility to love all God’s people.
quote:That statement shows 2 matters:
Originally posted by Chamois:
The Minster ringers have now published a statement which gives more information.
quote:This.
Originally posted by Pyx_e:
This whole safeguarding game makes me puke. You can not square the circle. In regard to this situation (York) the only thing so far not mentioned is - the legal advice, which they have to take or they are not insured. Which means they are liable. Courage, right and wrong, Truth all are washed away in the hidden reality - Money talks.
And Diocesan leadership will NEVER do anything that their lawyers do not sign off on, so no point blaming them. In fact they only do what the lawyers say. Welcome to the real world.
Pyx_e
p.s I try and follow every guideline and law, and I would do ANYTHIGN to keep children and vulnerable adults safe. But this much power corrupts safe guarders and lawyers care more about money than they do children. sad face
