Sean O'Neill and David Brown of The Times have been Highly Commended in the judging for another award, the Paul Foot Award for the best investigative campaigning journalism of the year. According to Private Eye their commendation is for their report "on the failure of Ealing Abbey to protect children from a known paedophile priest".
Congratulations again.
Tuesday, 26 October 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Picking up on the questions in the previous thread about the legal ramifications. The 1956 Education Act makes it illegal for a school to knowingly employ a teacher who is unsuitable to work with children. In 2003 the law was tightened making it a statutory duty to report any member of staff who is either dismissed or would have been dismissed had they not resigned. Such reporting must be done within 'a reasonable period'. This period is defined in Every Child Matters as one month of the said person's employment ending. The relevant law is Statutory Instrument 2003-1184. Failure to report carries a maximum penalty of 5 years imprisonment.
ReplyDeleteFurther to 13.54's very interesting post.
ReplyDeleteThe duty to return a Notification under the Education Acts commenced around late 50's. 13.54 indicates that it is illegal for a school to knowingly employ a member of staff who was/is unsuitable to work with children. This has been the case since the 50’s. The 2003 Act revoked the previous Act of 2000 and its amendments. The 2000 Act similarly revoked previous Acts and their amendments right back to the late 50’s at which time this statutory implement - the ‘Notification’ was created to track adults who were a risk to children. I know of Notifications returned by schools in 1962 for example.
When a new employee was hired from the 1960’s onwards, a school should have contacted the DCSF (and predecessors) with a clearance request that the applicant did not have a/any Notifications against his/her name. Hence it being illegal to hire someone who is a known to be unsuitable to work with children. A Notification against a member of staff is sign of them being unsuitable to work with children – but the reasons are never specified. In practical terms it was discovered that few schools were going through this procedure hence the development of the Guidance document "Safeguarding Children, Safer Recruitment in Education' around 2001.
Schools have always been required to return these Statutory implements within 30 days of the incident occurring.
This process is the only means of tracking an alleged perpetrator with the express purpose of keeping identified adults away from children.
The return of a Notification is of no benefit to an abused child. For a child to benefit from an impact assessment for example, the school has to contemporaneously report an incident to the LADO, Police or Social Services – which of course is non-mandatory. If a school fails to report the incident to the LADO, Police of Social Services then there is no sanction on the setting.
Returning a Notification is important, but not more important than ensuring an abused child is assessed and treated. This is where the system is seriously wrong.
13.54 - you have introduced an interesting piece of information of which I was unaware which is the sanction for failing to return Notifications being up to five years imprisonment.
I would appreciate you informing me where this is cited.
http://www.mjsol.co.uk/resources/library/statutes/education-prohibition-teaching-working-children-regulations-2003/
ReplyDeletehttp://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2003/1184/contents/made
Education (Prohibition from Teaching or Working with Children) Regulations 2003
You are here:
2003 No. 1184
It does not state in this Statutory Instrument that it is an offence not to provide the report.
Thank you for the information - but it is the sanction in which I am solely interested - the statement that failing to return Notifications can result in up to five years imprisonment.
ReplyDeleteI would be surprised if this is correct hence my question.
Mr West's more or less back on track here, I see. At least there are no neo-fascist calls for direct action (cf. ‘What a joke!’ - 29 October 2010 10:35)! I can only hope we see no more of that kind of vicious nonsense, but my confidence regarding this point isn't, I'm afraid, all that strong.
ReplyDeleteThey are best left to their fantasy world and leave the various inquiries at the abbey to get on with their work.
ReplyDeleteRe: that wet, leftist posting @ 11:58
ReplyDeleteWhat rubbish! I say, bring it on! In fact, I'm organising a little book burning for 5th November. You know the sort of horrid stuff I mean – the works of J. M. Barrie, 'The Ring of Bright Water' and other disgusting books by Gavin Maxwell, the scores and librettos of that monster Benjamin Britten and those horribly corrupt works by Lewis Carroll - ‘Alice in Wonderland’ and ‘Through the Looking Glass’, etc.
Please, join me in this, let’s set Britain ablaze and rid ourselves of all deviants, perverts and liberal bastards of every kind!
Good on yu, 13:08! I'll burn anyting or anyone yu like! But, wile yur at it, can yu tell me why the hell Paul's foot got an award?
ReplyDeleteOH DEAR….You’re tempting fate...we’re now almost certainly in for another solemn declaration of the blindingly obvious from the WEST.
ReplyDeleteI can not only see it coming but almost quote it word for word! But, you never know, if we'er lucky, he may just let it hang over till November.
Journalism from the Times on this subject was not exactly earth-shattering. Good journalism with some resources can go much further. The issue is that victims and observers are keeping their mouths shut. Journalists on the Times are to be applauded, but this is not prize-winning stuff. This blog comes a lot closer to that level.
ReplyDeleteThank you for that Mr West! When one's down, a little self-praise does help, doesn't it?
ReplyDeleteYup, really lovely to hear from Mr West and his trumpet! He blows it with such finesse and subtlety....quite enchanting!
ReplyDeleteThere were no calls for direct action in the comments after the previous post, neo-fascist or otherwise. Just a suggestion that the Bristol firm of lawyers which represents the school, Veale Wasbrough Vizards, should be exposed to greater scrutiny, because ultimately it is selling a product that fails to protect children. No one would suggest that it was neo fascist to scrutinise a toy shop which sold toys that presented a safety risk.
ReplyDeleteAs for the fact that it has been illegal since the 1950's for a school to knowingly employ a person who is unsuitable to work with children, should I go to the police and tell them that in the 1970's and 1980's literally every individual employed by the school and every pupil could not have failed to know that Father David was a paedophile? Several of them - including Peter Halsall - are still employed by the school.
Perhaps I should contact Yvonne Spencer at Veale Wasbrough Vizards (yspencer@vwv.co.uk) and ask her for her opinion?
You imply that Peter Halsall was aware of Pearce's offending. Have you proof?
ReplyDeleteIt's very interesting that the discussion has taken this turn. Every teacher in the school at that time was aware of David Pearce's offending. It was openly discussed by pupils with teachers in lessons where teachers permitted a degree of license and/ or were unable to control the class (I would say that Halsall falls into both these categories) and quite simply it was universally known that David Pearce had a sexual interest in little boys. Grafitti describing Pearce as 'gay' - the pupils somewhat ignorant shorthand for what he was - appeared a number of times around the school, and there was a kind of black humour surrounding his appointment as Junior School Headteacher ('all those little boys...'). Teachers would even discuss it in abstract analytical terms, saying that communities like the Abbey often rallied round to protect people like Pearce. And yet, it never occurred to any of these individuals to investigate further or inform the police. David Pearce operated because adults could discuss the fact that he was a child molester yet somehow not connect this with their own responsibility as teachers, or even just as members of society.
ReplyDeleteI really think the above contribution is both outrageous and silly! How come 9:52 is in possession of such intimate knowledge? If he was there, in the school, and heard what he claims to know, then clearly he's as culpable as those he's now attacking. Secondly, if these matters were so widely discussed around the school and even in lessons, how come parents or parishioners didn't get wind of it? If they did, of course, then they are clearly also part of the great conspiracy. How, does this guy come by his information? How can he, for instance, write with such assurance 'Teachers would even discuss it in abstract analytical terms...'? Please, 9:52, as you're so well informed and so keen to inform, tell us of your own involvement in all this and precisely how you came by these details.
ReplyDeleteYesterday’s post @ 21:23 has missed the point! I hope not deliberately? The criticism s/he is challenging has nothing to do with undermining the protection of children but rather a mindless challenge to our rights as citizens of a civilized country. In particular our rights before the law.
ReplyDeleteAs a previous contributor has pointed out, acting in the way advocated @27 October 2010 20:54 would mean that a whole section of our society is deemed ‘untouchable’ and unworthy of justice. This is, again as has been pointed out, the tactics of the extreme right ‘at all times and in all places’. If you’re unable to see this point, 21:23, then, so be it!
Regarding the point made at 10.51. I am very much hoping that Lord Carlile will be asking teachers who worked at the school exactly what they did know or have concerns about. The problem for teachers at the school at the time was Who signs my pay cheque? If all you were going to get from the people running the school was grief I'm afraid most people would think of their mortgages and decided to leave to others.
ReplyDeleteWhy go to all that bother? Lord Carlile need only consult 10:51 or failing that Mr West, of course!
ReplyDeleteWell, okay. But we are still waiting to hear again from 10:51 with some answers!
ReplyDeleteInteresting case reported in the Telegraph about a week ago. A blog owner who refused to remove an entry when he was informed it was libellous, ended up with a substantial fine. Apparently blog owners cannot make use of a disclaimer. Who is the blog owner here? Its good old Mr West, not Blogspot. Maybe Mr Halsall's solicitor will be taking advantage of this ruling.
ReplyDeleteLet's hope Mr Halsall's solicitor does! As we know only too well this site, whatever its pretentions, basically exists to mount and sustain a well focused smear campaign against the Abbey and several individuals connected with it.
ReplyDeleteHow come Mr West and his supporters can dish out just about anything EXCEPT ANSWERS?
ReplyDeleteMaybe, Mr West will address this particular question in his next great posting for November?
As a former pupil at St Benedict's from 1975 until 1982, I am sure that Peter Halsall (geography teacher) must have known of the activities of Father David Pearce. Pearce was the most obvious offender at the School and even the most naive pupils and staff must have at least strongly suspected what was going on.
ReplyDeleteI have had no contact with the School since I left but, a few years ago I met an old friend who had joined the Old Priorians and still attended their functions. He told me that Peter Halsall claimed to have campaigned for years to have Pearce removed from contact with boys and said that he had been instrumental in having Pearce sacked from his position as Junior School headmaster.
It is ironic that some people now see Peter Halsall as part of the Problem. It would have been better if he had gone to the police with his information, but at least he appears to have done something (unlike others), and for that he deserves credit.
While I was at the School complaints were made against Pearce but no action was taken against him. One of the boys in my class had the courage to denounce him to his face in front of a room full of classmates. He was allowed to remain in the School for a few weeks and then quietly expelled for a minor breach of the school rules (he had a crew-cut). I will not name him, but if any of my contemporaries read this, I am sure they will remember him.
I contributed to the article in the Times last April and will be submitting my evidence to Lord Carlile later this week. I hope that as many people as possible contact him so that he can conduct a fair and thorough inquiry. It is sad that it has taken so many decades for the Abbey and the School to begin to face up to their responsibilities, but at least something is finally being done.
If anyone from my year reads this, good luck and I hope that life is treating you well.
I too was at the school, although slightly later. Peter Halsall always struck me as a very decent individual, but the fact remains, he must have known about the abuse, and not just by Father David but by John Maestri. However, his name is only one among many (and he seems to have been singled out because he is still teaching at the school). Everyone who was teaching at the school at that time must bear some collective responsibility for the conspiracy of silence around Pearce's activities. As was pointed out above, staff seemed to be capable of keeping the knowledge of Pearce's activities in a separate mental compartment from their duty to stop it. But as someone else said, they had mortgages and pensions to consider. I hope I would have been braver in their position.
ReplyDeleteI note from the school website that Mr Thomas, Mr Gasiorek and Mr Murphy are still there - the last survivors from my time at the school. I hope Lord Carlile will be interviewing them, as they would have had to have been deaf dumb and blind not to know about Pearce.
One thing people have to understand is that there were three monks there, Lawrence Soper, Gregory Chillman, and David Pearce, who were not only powerful but really rather menacing in the way they used their position and their intelligence (in Chillman's case, a bullying manner). I lived in fear of them as a child, and I would not have wanted to cross them as an adult. Not all the monks were like that - I liked Father Stan and Father Benedict - but those three were very unpleasant individuals.
The above @16:52 and 16:33 sound like reasonable contributions. But, the majority of contributors to this blog are, in the words of an earlier post: 'best left to their fantasy world and leave the various inquiries at the abbey to get on with their work.'
ReplyDeleteIn other words, it is obvious to me, as apparently to many other contributors, that this blog is now, on balance, doing far more harm than good.
What harm is this blog doing, exactly?
ReplyDeleteTake a look at its spite, its malicious often wild accusations, its pandering to obsession, its lack of veracity, its unwillingness to see anything but one side of an argument, its tendency to sensationalise and/or exaggerate facts, that it is hell bent on demonizing certain people while protecting others, i.e. when questions are asked, sometimes very serious questions, they are simply ignored because they refer to the ‘wrong’ people, its free use of language belonging to mobsters and petty criminals, well…etc, etc, etc.
ReplyDeleteSadly, I seriously doubt that any of the above will stike 20:40 and his friends as in any way harmful.
ReplyDeleteI'm sorry, 20:58, but I don't find anything on this blog that approaches your description, with the exception of some crude attacks on Catholicism which I wouldn't really subscribe to (although I am a lapsed Catholic, I retain my respect for the faith, even if I no longer share it). Those gratuitous attacks aside, it seems to me that this blog is right to press for transparency and proper safeguards at a school where child abuse has taken place.
ReplyDeleteI can see that some people here express themselves with a certain amount of heat, but that is the nature of the subject - children's safety is a very emotive subject, when combined with religion, well, I'm surprised that the comments here are not more heated!
The sad fact is that the school in question has a record of failing to protect children from sexual abuse; and the blog author, despite some innuendo here, has not been convicted of any crime against children, nor have the innuendos against him been substantiated in anyway. I was horrified when I read the 'allegation' against him, but it has not been supported by proof or even further allegations. If there is proof I would genuinely like to see it.
I have in front of me a copy of the Priorian from the late 1980's in which Father David Pearce, then Headmaster of the Junior School, wrote an article in which he mentions the importance of the Christian Family, and how he has sometimes had to gently remind parents of their obligations towards their children, and which makes numerous other points about the welfare of children that no one could disagree with. Yet, the author of this fine article was a predatory paedophile who destroyed the lives of many children (the use of the word 'destroy' is not exaggeration or sensationalism but reflect the accounts I have read by his victims of the effect his abuse had on their lives).
I mention this, not to highlight the man's hypocrisy and further make a case against someone who is already in prison anyway, but to show that I have, in this article, the best possible example of how someone can plausibly claim to have the welfare of children at heart when the precise opposite is true. So I am very well aware that this blog, which I currently see as a good thing, may actually be a gigantic sham designed perhaps to divert attention away from criminal behaviour towards children on the part of the blog author. I don't believe it is, but I am alive to the possibility, however remote, that this may one day turn out to be the case.
So the question is - what proof do people who have hinted at criminal behaviour on the part of the blog author actually have? If there is any proof at all, let us have it.
I am not ignoring the 'serious questions' in your post 20:58 - lets have them, you and anyone else who has evidence of wrongdoing on the part of the blog author should put it in the public domain. To do otherwise is to behave as the school behaved for so many years.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDelete23.48 makes positive suggestions about the future structure of the Trust, and perhaps even further changes should be considered. Proper and robust independent Governance for St Benedict's is vital, as it is for all schools. There have been some insightful previous comments on this blog about Governance in the independent sector.
ReplyDeleteSchools are micro communities filled with politics, jealousies, charismatic characters, a proportion of alcoholics, and of course fear. The fear of losing one’s job from a privileged environment can be one of the biggest.
I’d just ask you to consider the following. If you were a teacher in an independent school, what attractions are there in teaching in the maintained sector?
If you teach in an independent school at which child abuse is noticeably occurring, but the administration of the school is doing nothing to stop it, what options do you have?
If you decide to report allegations directly to the police, then what happened to the former pupil mentioned in the posting @ 16.33 could very easily happen to you for daring to blow the whistle and thus ‘damage the schools reputation.’ If you try to agitate an unresponsive and inert administration to do something you are likely to be ‘sidelined’ at the very least or be in some other form of perhaps worse trouble. Let’s not forget the pupil who was expelled was a fee payer, and you by comparison are a cost which can easily be replaced. But there is something which turns ‘fear’ to menace. If you agitate or whistleblow, you are likely to find it almost impossible to secure another job in the independent sector because it is a ‘club’ which is dominated by The Independent Schools Council of which coincidentally St Benedict’s is a member.
I know of a former headmaster (ISC School) who menaced parents for daring to arrange a meeting with the Governors about a serious incident involving their child at his school. During the meeting the Head threatened the parents several times, and the Governors sat in stony silence collectively dominated by this man. The Head told the parents that if they pursued this matter any further he would “personally ensure that your son fails to receive a public school education inside the M25.” It is unlikely the Head could have delivered his threat not least because he did not know the Head of Merchant Taylors’, but you get the picture. So just imagine being one of his staff - goodbye career.
In order to report you need backbone. Few people volunteer to display their courage, most perfectly aware that those who attempt to do the right thing usually get shot. So teachers in independent schools often become complicit – it is not unique to a particular school, I could name a school at which most of the staff knew rampant child abuse was occurring. No one spoke!
But here we now have Carlile – is he a patsy for the Abbott and his cadre? Time will tell, rule nothing out. Were I Carlile I would want to know why long service staff seemingly failed to speak out about abuse which was so obvious. And if the answers did not stack up, I would be reviewing the staff that remain in the interests of the new culture that my report must help create at St Benedict’s if it this process is to have any value.
There are inquiries under way into how both the school and the abbey have dealt with the abuse situation. The writer of the comments above at 23.48 should have passed his evidence and opinions to Lord Carlile. We have to await the outcome of the reports. There may well be organisational changes. To call for the resignation of the head and abbot now, before the inquiry has been completed just shows how ignorant the writer of the comment is. If he were on trial for a crime, how would he like it if, before the evidence was heard, the judge found him guilty and sent him to jail. Yet another example of the crass ignorance of some of the people who post and comment on this blog which detract from what I hope is the main purpose - the safety of children.
ReplyDelete08:30 - Is Carlile a patsy for the abbot and his cadre? Are you seriously suggesting that a leading QC would prejudice his credibility by being such a patsy? The abbot must be commended for, albeit belatedly, instigating an independent inquiry by someone who has no connection with school or abbey.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDelete09.13 – “But here we now have Carlile – is he a patsy for the Abbott and his cadre? Time will tell, rule nothing out.”
ReplyDeleteYou are mistaken to suggest that the inquiry/ review or whatever it might be, is ‘independent.’ In no sense is this an independent process and it is very doubtful the Abbot had any choice but to arrange it following the meetings with the DfE and the ISI which Mr Nelson (school solicitor) explained to the newspapers.
Mr West and his allies are completely impossible! They neither listen nor think but simply babble on and on!
ReplyDeleteWhen Fr David Pearce was abusing, it was known about outside of the school among parishioners. As a parishioner myself, my neighbours from up the road had a son in the junior school. The boys' parents, who were friends of ours at the time, spoke openly about the heaadmaster touching boys, being creepy, being weird, and other things like that. These parents seemed ok about their boy being at the school as any abuse wasnt affecting him. But they knew of boys who had been touched and abused. It was as if it was kind of accepted or people were in denial or disbelieving.
ReplyDeleteIt's all so terribly explicit isn't it?
ReplyDelete'touching boys, being creepy, being weird, and other things like that.'
What on earth does it 'in reality’ add up to? We’re not told; again it’s left to the imagination. But, words like 'creepy', 'weird' and 'touching' don't, I have to say, do a great deal to engage my imagination.
By the way, it is so cheap of some anonymous writers to accuse Jonathan West of inappropriate behaviour just because of some kids coming to his house for music lessons with his partner. It is pathetic that his opposers should do that. They are just trying to divert the scent because of the guilt of the abbey.
ReplyDelete12:04
ReplyDeleteHave you read the entry properly at all??? it was parents of boys at the school who were saying that.
At the time, these things were said in the course of normal conversations. Parents who had children at the school knew this was going on. It was as if it was acceptable because it was a good school. It was as if it was acceptable as long as it didnt get too rampant. So weird that parents knew and didnt complain.
ReplyDeleteSHOCK AND HORROR!!
ReplyDeleteMy aunt Nelly has a friend, who has a friend, who knew someone who, I think, had a boy at St Benedict's! And, do you know what? Well, I just CAN'T BEGIN to tell you what she told me about the place!
What exactly, yes, EXACTLY is it that parents knew was 'going on'?
ReplyDeleteThat several children found one of their teachers 'creepy and weird'? So, what's new under the sun?
ReplyDeleteSadly, 12:19, the accusations against Mr West were of the same order as most of the accusations on this blog. The person who made them has not come forward again; so, his/her accusations are, as far as we know, just more malicious gossip.
ReplyDeleteThe writer of 12.04 seems annoyed that David Pearce was rumbled in the end. It seems as if he wants specific details of the abuse. Well, its obvious that the 'touching' and the 'weirdness' was going on undetected and undealt with for years. Its as if people knew but didnt know what to do about it. Many people knew, parents, teachers, parishioners. But noone knew the extent of the damage until the boys that were abused finally came forward. It was obviously the damage caused by the abuse years after it happened that makes us realise how bad it was at the time. At the time, the boys being abused wouldnt know how to complain about what was happening to them. The writer of 12.04 seems to want the sordid details and is one of those who wont accept the truth and cant live with it now that the truth is out.
ReplyDeleteI don't know who you are, 12:38, anymore than I know who 12:04 is, but I really think you have got hold of the wrong end of the stick!
ReplyDeleteto 12.30
ReplyDeleteParents were hearing things that were being said by their children who attended the school who would come home saying they did not like the headteacher. It was more than the usual 'creepy and weird'. Some teachers could be accused of that and not have done anything they shouldn't to pupils in their care. But this 'creepy and weird' was different. pupils knew what was happening to them or their friends but they were unable to describe it. They were just kids. Many of the parents picked up on what was going on from listening to what their kids had to say, but they were puzzled and confused and didnt know whether their kids were exaggerating, that kind of thing. It is only NOW that the full extent of the abuse is known, but, sorry to previous anons, the actual details of the abuse are secret. But the lives of those concerned have been damaged, and only they know the full extent of what went on. There seems to have been too much complacency at the time, but WHO SHOULD HAVE DONE SOMETHING ABOUT IT?
Who has got hold of the wrong end of the stick???
ReplyDeleteIt's the right time of year; the defenders of the abbey are increasingly looking and sounding like Pantomime Dames!
ReplyDeleteThey exclusively and solely belittle, deride, use innuendo, character assassinate, and all in a cloud of anonymity.
West and the critics of St Benedict’s are in the audience yelling "its behind you." But even with the abuse touching their noses the Dames neither see it nor understand what the fuss is about.
It’s not a good outlook for the future of the place.
WONDERFUL - A CONVERSION OF MANNERS
ReplyDelete'PANTOMIME DAMES'! How refreshing, how light-hearted, what fun! So different to most of the name calliing on this blog. Clearly, Mr West's supporters are slowly learning a thing or two. As they say, it's never too late.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteI've removed comments which have named the teacher currently suspended. I already knew who he his, but it's not fair on him to have his name published unless and until the investigation is complete. To the best of my knowledge it is still ongoing.
ReplyDeleteYou were quick enough to name Father Greg even when he had never been arrested. Will you now remove all untrue references to him?
ReplyDelete18:10 I've made no untrue statements about Father Gregory Chillman, and you might care to notice that the fact that he had been the subject of investigations and had been placed on restricted ministry was confirmed in the ISI Supplementary report.
ReplyDeleteYou stated that he had been arrested - that is untrue.
ReplyDeleteDespite some of today's posts, I feel that real progress has been achieved in the last couple of days. People here are now talking about the widespread knowledge of what Pearce was doing at the time he was abusing boys, and yet somehow that knowledge seemed to co-exist in their minds with acceptance of the situation. This was true of teachers, parents and even parishoners (it was not the duty of children to report Pearce). Lord Carlile must consider this in his report - it is absolutely vital to understanding why Pearce could continue as he did.
ReplyDeletePeter Halsall has been named as someone who knew of the abuse but did not go to the police. To his name I would like to add two other names. The first is Mr Strahan. I recall being present when complaints were made to him about the frequency of Father David's visits to the Upper Fifth toilets. Pearce was accurately nd vivdly described to him as a paedophile. Strahan's response to this was not to investigate, or even to punish the boys making the allegation, but to snigger. I should add that I detested Strahan.
The second teacher who to my knowledge was aware of Pearce's activities was Dennis Johnson, for whom I had a great affection. And yet, this lovely man was able to describe Pearce as a paedophile within the context of a discussion of a Joyce story which features a paedophile - yet not report Pearce to the police. I think this very telling, and Carlile needs to examine this phenomenon. Literally every member of staff knew Pearce was known as Gay Dave and yet no one did anything about it. The current Abbot taught at the school in the late 1980's. He must have known - why didn't he do anything? For the same reason that no one else did - he may not have had a job, pension and a mortgage to lose, but as a monk at the Abbey he obviously risked losing everything else. That does not, however, absolve him. I am not calling for his head, but he should admit that he knew of Pearce's activities at the time. If he claims he didn't, then he would have been the only person at the school who didn't know.
Has Carlile contacted former teachers? Has the school encouraged former and current teachers to provide evidence to Carlile?
18:42 Why should I believe the unsupported word of an anonymous commenter about that?
ReplyDeleteDuring the recent half term I was talking to my niece, who is a pupil at St. Augustine's. She said her teacher told her that Father Gregory had "retired because he has a bad leg". Does anybody know anthing about this as it seems very odd when one considers the previous posts concerning him. This is also the school where Mr Strahan, whose name has also been connected with Chillman in previous posts, also works.
ReplyDeletePeter Halsall DID go to the police. He was instrumental in the removal of an offending teacher in 1984. Clearly none of the above commentors know anything of this upstanding man and his down right rebellious spirit. He was seen as a troublemaker by many people in the school because he went against the grain time and time again. He was supportive to me and family after a difficult situation at the school. He put his neck out time and time again for his boys.
ReplyDeleteI agree with 00:34.
ReplyDeleteAll of the information on individuals that have been singled out is speculative as ultimately we have no idea of individual teachers dealings and what they did with the information at hand.
How would any of you know whether Peter Halsall went to the police or not? Have you spoken to him? Have you spoken to the police? The above post seems certain he did actively do something, and I'm obliged to believe that, knowing Halsall's character.
Halsall is an incredibly well loved by the boys at the school and the ops, he may not have been the best 'academia' teacher (he would often go off on rambling tangents when writing on the board...or stick on a video and wander off) but he made a real difference to student's lives. He often stepped in to help me out when I was in trouble. He didn't need to do that.
I think he is just being targeted because he's still at the school, but for godsake, there were so many other teachers there for a just as long him, Stevens, Nonebel, Hardman. All of whom were also really decent men, and don't strike me as people who wouldn't have asked questions and done something. Perhaps therefore we should be asking what was going on within the school walls and what pressure from the Abbey occurring rather than why they didn't speak out (or did they? We don't actually know, because we weren't within the organisation.....) Maybe they spoke out and were silenced. Isn't that the nature of a cover up?
This cover ups been going on for 40 years. Don't you think that it was a skilled enough one to be hidden even from the staff members? I know people who taught there only for a few years and were downright shocked by the Maestri revelations. They literally had no idea. And when it comes to Pearce, perhaps they thought they knew, but what can they do without any solid evidence?
Nowadays it's different as every single issue, or even inclination of abuse would be reported immediately because schools have good child protection policies. The school clearly didn't have any of these. That is the organisation's failings not the individuals. If the policies were in place but weren't followed then it would be the individuals. The policies were simply not there. They failed their staff too.
Also, If they're not being told by the people at the top when these accusations are made, and information isn't shared, how can they be expected to know? It's the people instrumental in the cover up we should be blaming. We can't honestly make everyone involved in the organisation culpable. Otherwise, shouldn't we therefore make all the older students who had an idea it was going on but didn't speak out culpable too?
You cannot blame everyone involved in the organisation!
So I suggest people get their facts straight before they start wildly making accusation and defaming people's character. All it does is remove strength from Mr. West's argument. And it's a bloody good argument, and one I want to see him continue to fight...
BUT Let's keep our eye on the ball here people, and that's bringing those bastards to justice and having the truth out.