Ofsted has praised the quality of inspections carried out by the three inspectorates (other than Ofsted) that inspect independent schools - and advised them on how to continue improving their inspection services.In the 2010 report letter on the quality of the inspections and reports by the ISI, written by Christine Gilbert, HM Chief Inspector of Schools (i.e. the head of Oftsed) to Christine Ryan, Chief Inspector of the ISI, Gilbert is full of praise for the professionalism and efficiency of the ISI inspectors. The letter was written on 25th August 2010. It makes no mention of safeguarding or child protection. It makes no mention of any shortcomings in this area, with respect to St, Benedict's or any other school (and there have been failings at other schools as well).
...
In our recent letters to the inspectorates, Ofsted noted that all inspectorates were operating well and met the standards for an approved inspection body in independent schools.
Ofsted also recognised the expertise of the lead inspectors across all the inspectorates, the good evidence base they gathered to substantiate judgements, their good communication and engagement with schools and the fact they all took safeguarding very seriously. Their reports were clear and useful to schools.
This is praise for the ISI inspectors who completely missed the clear regulatory failings in the Child Protection Policy at St. Benedict's School, and who only noticed that there were any problems when they made a further visit at the insistence of the DfE, who had in turn been told by a member of the public (i.e. me) about convictions of former teachers during the current inspection period.
What a joke. What a sick joke.
Ofsted the ISI and the other smaller inspectorates - are not culturally equipped to inspect Safeguarding which is the cultural and operational opposite to education inspection. Education inspectors never wanted to become social welfare inspectors but this important area of school inspection has been "bolted on" to their role. Such arrangements never work.
ReplyDeleteThe ISI also fails on rigour 'test' because it is a peer review inspectorate whose inspectors themselves teach or were former teachers in ISI inspected schools, and who appreciate how inconvenient it is having child abuse appear in a commercially operated setting.
When the ISI last inspected St Benedict's and did not notice any of the failures that emerged in its unprecedented follow up report, who on the original inspection team was the safeguarding expert? Was there anybody with in an depth understanding of, and qualification in, social care?
Did the ISI inspection team of November contain inspectors independent of the school being inspected, as stipulated?
These are questions that need to be answered by the ISI.
Ofsted quality assures all inspectorates. To give you an understanding of what this means all one has to do is look at Stony Dean School in Amersham.
ReplyDeleteThe inspection of 7/6/2007 described safeguarding and child protection as exemplary.
What the report failed to inform prospective parents is the school had experienced a number of very serious safeguarding issues. Since the previous inspection. The Head of Care at the school for example had been imprisoned for raping boys at the setting. It failed to inform us if the safeguarding infrastructure at Stony Dean contributed to these criminal acts occurring and what if anything, the school has done to ensure this cannot happen again. We are left uninformed of all this important information by Ofsted, and in the next breath informed that we can place reliance on their reports when choosing a school for our children!
You can read about Stony Dean here
Ofsted then quality assures all the other inspectorates. Be assured none of them do it better than Ofsted, they are all as equally abysmal on safeguarding and St Benedict's is an example of the ISI's incompetence.
Inspection is meant to contribute to improving standards in the areas onb which the inspectorate reports!
In safeguarding this is just tokenism from the top down with the same letter of congratulation from Ofsted going to the same inspectorates’ year in year out. One senses a certain relief in Ofsted that all the other inspectorates understands that none of them should be doing a better job than it does : OFSTED – THE LOWEST COMMON DOMINATOR
Charity commission report - ISI report.
ReplyDeleteI like them both but which one is correct?
FIGHT!
Paedophile priest jailed
ReplyDeleteNowhere in Archbishop Robinson’s statement is there an apology to the victims.
Just the usual weasel words we have come to expect from the Catholic church.
Did anyone notice - the church was paying Robinson £800 per month despite the allegations?
ReplyDeleteThe court heard Robinson continued to be paid up to £800 a month by the Archdiocese of Birmingham until December 2001, despite officials being aware of the allegations.
Robinson told the court he had been unable to afford to return to Britain, but the jury later heard that in February 2000 the archdiocese sent him a cheque worth £8,400.
Judge Thomas said: "The role of the Catholic Church [in the case] is questionable, but it's not for me to judge.
Now what do your suppose the cheque was for? Remaining in the US from where he could not be extradited until last year when change in the law permitted it?
Interesting that the victims get no apology, and have to fight for assistance and compensation. The perpetrator with the knowledge of the Church flees to live abroad from where he cannot be extradited and remains salaried and on a bonus!
The Catholic Church and paedophilia. No you really cannot make this stuff up!
How the church pays for silence and ignores victims.
ReplyDeleteA short clip from Amy Berg's Oscar nominated documentary - Deliver us from Evil.
Oh dear, this feigned naivety! We all know and only too well that it’s all too easy for almost anyone to MAKE ALMOST ANYTHING UP!
ReplyDeleteYup, the blog's editorial stance does rather shift around. We've had 'Outrage', ‘solemn analysis’, ‘outright condemnation’, ‘smears and sneers’ and we’re now into Victor Meldrew territory. In other words, slogans such as 'You cannot make it up', 'It's a joke' represent Mr West's latest editorial line; his take on Victor’s ‘I don’t believe it!’
ReplyDeleteDoes anyone know what’s become of Mr West’s accuser? He or she promised to stick around, but appears to have come unstuck somewhere along the line!
ReplyDeleteGuess he is still waiting for Mr West to respond to the accusations. The absence of denials from Mr West are worrying. Is he as squeaky clean as he would have us think?
ReplyDelete.
ReplyDelete.
Catholic Sex Abuse cases
.
MR WEST WAS A CATHOLIC, WASN'T HE?
ReplyDeleteThink he said he wasn't
ReplyDelete.
ReplyDelete.
Catholic sex abuse cases by country.
As the page states this is an incomplete list but it does include an entry for St Benedict's which needs to be updated.
Operating a double standard!
ReplyDeleteOkay, let’s, by all means, have every last 'jot and tittle' vis à vis St Benedict’s. But, how about Mr West? We’ve had no response from him whatsoever regarding the serious accusations levelled against him! It seems what's sauce for the goose mustn't come within a mile of the gander?
.
ReplyDelete.
Sexual abuse in the English Benbedictine Congregation
Not fully up to date.
Sexual abuse is now described as "jot and tittle" by the Abbey supporters.
I guess it makes a change from "nods and winks."
.
12:20 is a bit dim
ReplyDeleteBing 'dim' is, one can only suppose, what motivates comments such as those at 12:20 and, sadly, given their repetition they form the majority of contributions to this blog.
ReplyDeleteRight! But, the form of dim’s contributions, including 12:20, leads one to suspect they emanate directly from Mr West. Note, for instance, the hyperlink.
ReplyDeleteYes, its his trademark, but posted anonymously so he can pretend this is not an anti Catholic exercise?
ReplyDelete.
ReplyDelete.
Catholics fuss too much about anti-Catholicism
.
Well, perhaps. But, as 17:37 indicates, whatever ‘fuss’ there is on this blog concerns its hypocrisy and double standards both of which clearly stem from Mr West and his personal problems.
ReplyDeleteYup, West's 'trademark' is all over this blog! He really has to be super dumb to imagine anyone's taken in by him or his ‘anonymous’ comments!
ReplyDeleteHe both IS and DOES! The poor thing!
ReplyDeleteNow I am confused..........is he dim or is he dumb?
ReplyDeleteHe is dim/dumb and does imagine etc.
ReplyDeleteClerical abuse – part of the essence of the Institutional Church?
ReplyDeleteBy Father Tom Doyle.
DimDumb rides again
ReplyDeleteYup, indeed he does! But, given his lack of balance, that rocking-horse might prove too much for him!
ReplyDeleteTut, tut....have no fear for Dim-Dumb! He'll just pick himself up and rush back to that good old anti-Catholic sausage machine of his. Well, at least, I think they’re sausages?
ReplyDeleteWe've had just about enough of this nonsense! Anti-Clerical abuse is one thing, but to abuse Mr West in this unseemly way is quite unconscionable!
ReplyDelete.
ReplyDelete.
Catholics speaking to Catholics: ‘TEN STEPS TOWARDS REFORMING THE CATHOLIC CHURCH’
Voice of the Faithful
.
You’re right, 11:30. Mr West may be obsessed, weighed down by chips on his shoulder, accommodate several nasty skeletons in his cupboard, be devious in his manipulation of facts and blog....but who can hold any of this against him? His accusers make him sound like the Catholic Church, for God’s sake, or even worse! To hell with these vicious, spiteful Abbeyvistas! Let’s rally round Mr West.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, all you detractors, take a look above...there's balance for you and, what’s more, coupled with discreet anonymity.
.
ReplyDelete.
Abuse tracker from BISHOP ACCOUNTABILITY.ORG
Featuring the Salesian's once again. More about them in a later post.
.
Silly 11:09. Dim-Dumb’s mount isn't a rocking-horse at all, but, as you see, a hobby-horse. And he's really going at it, isn't he?
ReplyDeleteI could post pages of abuse stories by non catholic and non Christian clergy, but I won't. The motivation of this blog is anti-catholic, not constructive comments on what should never have happened at St Benedicts school.
ReplyDelete.
ReplyDelete.
Catholics's are anti Catholic.
Got it!
.
Golly, Mr West has got it! But what exactly 'it' is must, it seems, remain known only to the great man himself! What a remarkable fellow!
ReplyDeleteFEAR NOT, HELP IS AT HAND - TAKE A LOOK AT THIS:
ReplyDeleteSNIPPIT FROM ‘A CATECHISM FOR AN ATOMIC AGE’
Q: What must I acknowledge?
A: That Dim-Dumb’s got it.
Q: How do I know he’s got it?
A: Because, he himself says so and his word is true.
Q: Of what value is Dim-Dumb’s knowledge?
A: Dim-Dumb’s knowledge is of infinite value.
Q: How do I know that?
A: Because it’s of no earthly use.
Q: If Dim-Dumb’s knowledge is of no earthly use why should I take him seriously?
A: Because, what is not of this earth is transcendent and therefore serious by definition.
Q: How do I know Dim-Dumb exists?
A: Because his words can be found all over this blog.
Q: Are they, like his knowledge, ‘transcendent’?
A: Yes, no one can make head or tail of them – they’re utterly middling.
Q: What do you mean by ‘middling’?
A: By middling I mean having no head or tail and thus beyond ordinary recognition.
.
ReplyDelete.
No mate - I'm not West. You hope every poster is West such is your anger. Hope he appears soon for the benefit of your health.
Meanwhile
Catholics helping Catholics
Despite the Catholic voices of outrage about child abuse, Rome hits rock bottom and promptly breaks out the Kango hammers and starts digging.
.
PS to 18:26 For anyone who might be interested, there's a whole section in this Catechism devoted to the mystery of Dim-Dumb's anonymity.
ReplyDeleteIF YOU WOULD LIKE TO PLACE AN ORDER FOR THIS MOST ATTRACTIVE AND ENLIGHTENING BOOKLET - CONTACT MR WEST.
.
ReplyDelete.
More on the Salesians
.
.
ReplyDelete.
And still more on the Salesians
.
.
ReplyDelete.
An example of the scale of a victim’s denial. This time its the Jesuits
.
No one is denying that some catholic priests have abused. It is a scandal. So is abuse by Anglican, Methodist and other clergy. Also by Imans and Rabbis etc. Abuse by such clergy is a serious betrayal of the trust placed in them and also of their church or faith. Abuse by teachers and care staff is at a much higher level than clergy and also a betrayal of trust. Up to the 1980s, many organisations seriously mishandled abuse cases.
ReplyDeleteI agree this blog is seriously unbalanced and seems to be motivated by anti Catholicism. Some of the comments also display a woeful ignorance of child protection. It may have had some usefulness but if it did, it has long since outlived it.
How delightfully fortuitous! The name Salesian might just be taken, by some, to mean ‘the sale of sleaze’. But, thank God, we wouldn't find any thing of that sort on this blog, would we?
ReplyDeleteWhat we do find, however, is that, thanks to his inordinate diligence, Mr West has amassed a huge file of cuttings on his favourite subject – in fact on his only subject!
Does he have an unnatural interest in his favourite subject?
ReplyDeleteYou bet he does!
ReplyDeleteExplains a lot if he is
ReplyDeleteA lot? You mean THE lot, surely?
ReplyDeleteThe spirited and unguided Abbey supporter (there is just one in case you are wondering, and he is on half term which explains why he is boring us so often) tends not to read any links.
ReplyDeleteHad he read the last link he would have found a further link to this very interesting and important legal precedent that has been established by Mr Raggett.
This will most certainly affect all older claims of child sexual abuse, particularly at schools such as St Benedict’s at which abuse has been so prevalent.
It is becoming easier to see a day when schools with poor safeguarding records and questionable protection policies will find it impossible to secure public liability insurance which includes child abuse. This position would have to be declared to parents and the consequential loss of business would demand root and branch change in the school/s in question if they are to survive.
The sooner this day happens, the safer children will become. Left to the DfE, Ofsted and the ISI, no improvement will arrive because schools safeguarding, under it's Director Ms Jeanette Pugh, is undemanding and part of the problem, not the solution.
Another small but telling factual error from Mr West who writes:
ReplyDelete'The spirited and unguided Abbey supporter (there is just one in case you are wondering'
This is not the case and, therefore, Mr West's statement is untrue.
.
ReplyDelete.
So parents with Children at St Benedict's please note the posting @ 08.36 - these are the morally rigorous 'charmers' in whose care you place your children.
No wonder the phones were ringing nonstop at Durston House with St Benedict's parents seeking an alternative for their children.
.
WE...parents and others...can only wonder at the last posting! Does it mean anything at all? Is it a sane response to 8:36? One can only wonder and wonder!!
ReplyDeleteIt is plainly not true. As has been said above, much of the activity on this blog is motivated by anti Catholicism
ReplyDelete9:05 - would seem to be nothing more than a very loud cry of desperation!
ReplyDeleteYup, no one can take that sort of rant seriously. I'd have thought Mr West would have had enough common sense to realise that - but apparently not!
ReplyDelete00:42 Don't quote case law unless you understand the law. The case you quote is but one of many which are relevant to the matter. It is so easy to search the internet and get a few facts but you don't have the understanding to discern their relevance.
ReplyDeleteOh dear, oh dear....Mr West’s being 'got at' yet again! Could it be that he persistently leaves himself wide open to such attacks? Not, I’d have thought, the mark of an even moderately astute blogger!
ReplyDeleteAstute? - West? Are you having a laugh? If he was astute he would have commented on the claims made which, if true, do question both his judgement and motivation. Maybe he can shed some light on this.
ReplyDeleteThe Times published an interesting article about the case of Patrick Raggett which was raised at 00:42 today.
ReplyDeletehttp://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/article6229864.ece
In her analysis, Ruth Gledhill says that "the level of the claim to be made by Patrick Raggett is the clearest indication yet that damages for abuse cases in Britain could rise closer to US levels".
I will await the final outcome of this case with interest.
Michael.
.
ReplyDelete.
16.11 - well please educate me with relevant case law. Your opinion perhaps on the almost default use of an application for a stay of indictment for so called 'historic abuse' cases employing the discretionary use of the precedent set by R v Brian Selwyn Bell (2003) EWCA Crim 319, (2003) 2 Cr. App. R 13, over which LCJ Woolf presided.
This precedent is used liberally, often mistakenly in my opinion, to dismiss cases such as Raggett's - but it failed in his case and he set a new precedent. The Court of Appeal decision in the case of R. v. S. (Crime : Delay in Prosecution), reported in The Times 6th March 2006. In R. v. S., Lord Justice ROSE extrapolated and summarized from the earlier authorities going back to 1992 five principles for a Judge to follow when an application for a stay of an Indictment is made. Sadly and all too often this ruling and the principles are forgotten.
Personally I do not like these 'abuse of process' hearings - I was never a supporter of the idea. My view is that this is all for the jury.
But please - let's hear from you. Your comments suggest you are an expert so I defer to you.
I just love this; here we have Mr West going at it for all he's worth...and on his best behaviour too. First as 'Michael' now as anon...soon we'll have anonymous+link, then ... who knows? Well, yes we do know; we'll turn a nice clean sheet and head off into November with a wonderful new and highly stimulating posting.
ReplyDeleteYup, it's wonderful...you can keep all your Desperate Housewives, Downton Abbeys and True Blood!
ReplyDeleteCome on! This is realy serious stuff here, more like up-market radio - Law in Action! That's what you should be thinking of!
ReplyDeleteYup, as the geat man would say, What a joke!
ReplyDeleteNone of this nonsense that has been posted by abbey supporters(s) is going to play well with parents and prospective parents - instead of showing humility about its dreadful past St Benedict's is smearing a man who is trying to bring abuse to light and ensure it never happens again. And they are smearing him because no one has provided one shred of evidence to support the allegation/ innuendo about Mr West that was posted here some time ago.
ReplyDeleteI wonder if the school's solicitors are really happy to be working for such a disreputable client? The behaviour of the school on this website is vexatious, verging on libellous. I may have to hand out some leaflets outside their offices soon, asking why they choose to provide legal services to an institution that harboured paedophiles for many years. I don't think this will make them popular in Bristol.
Incidentally, as there seem to be so many lawyers commenting here, can anyone tell me if it is a crime for an adult not to report knowledge of paedophilia to the police? I only ask because to my certain knowledge a number of teachers who were at St Benedict's in the 1980's - several of whom are still there - knew exactly what was going on and that David Pearce was a serial sex abuser. Were they committing a crime by failing to inform the police?
On the face of it, the above entry reads like a fairly sane plea to respect the work and integrity of ‘a man who is trying to bring abuse to light and ensure it never happens again’. But, on closer reading one sees it has all the hallmarks that have brought such discredit on this blog. Not least because its ire is directed squarely at Ealing Abbey which it depicts, in the overall spirit of this site, as a den of paedophilia!
ReplyDeleteThe fact is that most of the ‘nonsense’, to which the contributor objects, is directed at the thoroughgoing anti-Catholic sentiments that represent a constant theme of this blog, not least in the postings of Mr West himself. Furthermore, Mr West is delighted to pick over any and every bit of gossip relating to Ealing Abbey and turn it, in the process, into indubitable fact. However, many of his accusations have proved to be seriously wrong. There has been no correction or apology, however, from this man who, we’re told, is so intent on bringing ‘abuse to light’.
Similarly, Mr West does all he can to publicise the kind of accusations made against himself by an ex-friend, provided that is they relate to someone else, preferably a member of the Catholic clergy.
Many people have commented on the odious nature of this blog and several have suggested it to be closed down. This request is made because, as they see it, the blog is doing no good whatsoever and a considerable amount of harm. If, and again this has been pointed out several times before, Mr West merely wished to ‘ensure (abuse of the kind that has taken place at St Benedict’s) never happens again’ this is certainly not the way he would go about it!
Finally, might I ask 20:54 how he came by his 'certain knowledge' regarding the teachers at St Benedict's in the 1980s?
I have nothing really to add to the above comment. Though, I’d point out to 20:54 that, we’re told, there’s one thing the devil can't stand. That's not being taken seriously. Laughter, 'nonsense', is often the best way to deal with vindictiveness, obsession and hatred.
ReplyDeleteAh - the anti Catholic nonsense once more. The fatuous claim designed to blunt any observation that fails to heap praise on the Catholic Church. Try to get over your religion which seems set to asphyxiate you.
ReplyDeleteThis blog is about the child abuse which has occurred in the Catholic setting of St Benedict's School. Who were the perpetrators? Teachers, some of which were monks. Who brought the full extent of these issues to the attention of the authorities for the first time resulting in the ISI follow up report of April, the DfE involvement and now the Carlile 'inquiry?'
West.
You see none of you Abbeyvistas discuss child abuse. None of this central matter occupies your time - it never did with the school which is why none of the occurrences were ever reported to the authorities and why never in the history of the setting did successive abbots, who were respectively the registered owner of the school, return any Notifications under the Education Acts advising the DfE (Teacher Misconduct Team) that abusers had been discovered. This permitted Maestri to continue abusing in other schools having presumably received a positive reference from St Benedict's permitting him to continue his career in teaching. Had a Notification been returned he would have been stopped from teaching because the full details of his crimes at St Benedict's would have been in possession of the teaching and child protection authorities (but not the police).
Returning Notifications is engrossed into primary legislation and is a statutory duty – we await to see what the DfE is going to do about St Benedicts breaking the law.
But the priority for the school's administration was not to protect children, just reputation.
Abbeyvistas see these matters as anti Catholic. It’s a skewed view. Child abuse is rarely mentioned in their postings which entirely accords with St Benedict's approach to these criminal events.
Ironically, posts on this site were reducing and for perfectly logical reasons. But the Abbeyvistas decided to ‘kick off’ once more with their anti Catholic chipset which has reignited the site.
Mr West will be thanking you.
Not a bad effort Mr West. But I'm afraid it doesn't wash. Anyone looking over this blog will look in vain for any sensible, reasoned or informed discussion of 'child abuse' which the above posting claims to be the blog's sole purpose!
ReplyDeleteWhat they will find over and over again are cries, some quite desperate, for revenge against certain individuals, whose names come up time and time again, coupled with crude attempts to belittle a great institution to which these individuals happen to belong. I'm not referring, of course, to Ealing Abbey or even the Benedictine order but to a Church which sustains millions the world over and to which thousands still turn for spiritual and psychological nourishment.
May I suggest that Mr West and his supporters read or reread what the Protestant historian, Lord Macaulay, wrote about the Catholic Church which they so assiduously seek to discredit? Here is how Macaulay depicts it:
‘There is not and there never was on this earth a work of human policy so well deserving of examination as the Roman Catholic Church. The history of that Church joins together the two great ages of human civilisation. No other institution is left standing which carries the mind back to the times when the smoke of sacrifice rose from the Pantheon, and when camelopards and tigers bounded in the Flavian amphi-theatre. The proudest Royal houses are but of yesterday when compared to the line of the Supreme Pontiffs. The line we trace back in an unbroken series from the Pope who crowned Napoleon in the nineteenth century to the Pope who crowned Pepin in the eighth; and far beyond the time of Pepin the august dynasty extends, till it is lost in the twilight of fable. The republic of Venice came next in antiquity. But the Republic of Venice was modern compared with the Papacy; and the Republic of Venice is gone, and the Papacy remains. The Papacy remains, not in decay, not a mere antique, but full of life and youthful vigour. The number of her children is greater than in any former age.’
In short, for thousands of deeply sincere people, the Catholic Church has a significance way beyond the understanding of men like Mr West whose persistent attempts to undermine it merely highlight the severity of his own limitations.
In response to the question asked by 20.54:
ReplyDelete...can anyone tell me if it is a crime for an adult not to report knowledge of paedophilia to the police?
England, Wales and Scotland are non mandatory reporting jurisdictions.
So for example not even rape of a pupil by a member of staff is reportable (either by the school, or a member of staff) to the Police, LADO, or social services. And if it is subsequently discovered that a school has failed to report this matter, there is no sanction on the setting for failing to report.
This is precisely why a school’s Child Protection Policy is so important. It is only this document which can provide clear written undertakings to parents about the care of their children whilst they are in loco parentis. Abused children in EWS are provided with no support from the statutory framework so if the Child Protection Policy is useless then the welfare of your child is at very serious risk.
Unless there is a clear written undertaking, void of caveats located earlier in the policy, to report all incidents of alleged abuse to the LADO – then the document is worthless.
I’ve looked at the current policy operating at St Benedict’s. I think this is about its fourth metamorphosis in recent months. The skeleton author of this document is a firm of lawyers well known for creating policies designed to protect the reputation of institutions at the expense of their clients. They have once again achieved this with the current document despite appearances to the contrary.
Parents may wish to look at paragraph 5. What are the ‘proper circumstances?’ The reader is left uninformed. So the balance of the document, which seemingly contains various commitments, is rendered potentially obsolete at the discretion of the school.
Meanwhile London Safeguarding Children’s Board clause 15.2.1 says:
The employer must inform the local authority designated officer (LADO) immediately an allegation is made.
No weasel words located in a different part of this document designed to neuter the commitment to report allegations of abuse, just forthright undertakings.
Ealing Safeguarding Children’s Board is part of the London Safeguarding Board and operates this guideline; you can read it on their website. But once again a school does not have to adopt this best practice because the statutory framework surrounding education is almost nonexistent and does not demand settings conform.
You have to ask – why would a school decide to ignore best practice?
This question explains the increasing rancour surrounding the performance of the DfE Safeguarding Directorate which is responsible for this unsatisfactory state of affairs.
Two good contributions, 10:23/10:46.
ReplyDeleteThe latter is a clear, unemotional statement of facts that should be of concern to everyone, not least to parents. But, as the post before points out, it would also be interesting to see some genuine discussion about the nature of child abuse and the complexities surrounding it!
A seemingly never ending (non-professional) analysis of a particular school’s policy statement is okay, as far as it goes. But, as 10:23 demonstrates, these issues have really to be addressed in a much wider context.
Finally, I’m not a Catholic and not particularly concerned about the Catholic Church. However, what does concern me, as an ordinary human being, is the amount of sheer venom on this blog and that would concerned me no matter who it was directed at! There is a confusion of issues here – this blog lacks any real focus and, therefore, integrity.
The Nazification of this blog!
ReplyDeleteI glance at this blog a couple of times a month. I’m used therefore to its often intemperate use of language. But, I’m deeply shocked to see that one contributor is now advocating direct action, similar to that employed by American Fundamentalists and extreme Animal Rights Activists in this country.
Apparently believing that ‘paedophiles’ exist, or should only exist, outside civil society and its laws, 27 October 2010 20:54 is calling for direct action against the Bristol firm of lawyers representing Ealing Abbey. Such action and the mindset behind it herald the end of a just and humane society and even, perhaps, the demise of our species, at least as we now know it. To the vast majority of us, such 'thinking' represents a real and terrible danger
10.35 - Get over yourself! If it rains it seems possible you might melt.
ReplyDeleteOh dear, seems a raw nerve's been touched!!
ReplyDeleteThe deviant Pearce was caged more than a year ago.
ReplyDeleteHow much longer do we have to wait for the Church to defrock the wicked old villain?
Oh my goodness, the tone of this blog is, I see, rapidly sinking again! Another sign of desperation I suppose, but so utterly unintelligent!
ReplyDeleteI suspect the touched 'nerve' referred to @13:02 might be Mr West's - as he's given to leafleting, as we know, but I do hope 13:51 isn't also his work? Could he please clarify?
ReplyDeleteRe 16:02.
ReplyDeleteThe 'Nazi' mentality is always a 'terrible threat', in fact it's quite terrifying, but just how intelligent do you expect it to be? Take a look to the responses to the 10:35 contribution, for God's sake! The word 'mindless' just doesn't cover it!
No answers here you notice. Merely a sudden spurt of activity under the posting 'The Paul Foot Award'; mostly, if not all, clearly contributed by Mr West!!
ReplyDeleteWow, the contributor of 29th October 10.35 was really upset by the suggestion that the Bristol firm of solicitors who represent the school might be leafleted? He even describes this as 'Nazification' and misrepresents the original post as calling for 'direct action'. It did no such thing - handing out leaflets to show how a firm of solicitors has produced a safeguarding policy which might protect paedophiles is NOT direct action, simply lawful freedom of expression. No unlawful action has been called for. But the merest suggestion that the firm in question might be brought into the spotlight has certainly touched a nerve.
ReplyDelete'I wonder' - wrote the guy above - 'if the school's solicitors are really happy to be working for such a disreputable client?...I may have to hand out some leaflets outside their offices soon, asking why they choose to provide legal services to an institution that harboured paedophiles for many years. I don't think this will make them popular in Bristol.'
ReplyDeleteMake of that what you will, to my mind it's a straightforward condemnation a firm of solicitors for simply doing it job within the framework of the law. To hounded such firms out of business is obviously to assure that certain citizens, of whom the leafleter disapproves, are placed 'outside the law' and left without legal representation - a statutary right. As that famous Meercat say...'Simple'. Yes, indeed, the simplicity of extremists of all colours from the Nazis to modern anti-abortionist killers. Such tactics do indeed 'touch a nerve', Sir!
21:08 is clearly so eaten-up by his hatred of Ealing Abbey that he just can't take anything in. What you write, 21:39, is therefore going right over his head.
ReplyDeleteYup, Mr West's capacity to attract supporters more or less equals that of a toilet brush!
ReplyDeleteSo why do so many people hate Ealing Abbey so much? Can the level of hatred really be completely unrelated to the Abbey itself?
ReplyDeleteNo, 18:12, obviously not, that is something that is widely acknowledged. But, what is disturbing and extremely distasteful is the depth of the hatred and the crude, not to say downright ignorant nature of so many of the comments.
ReplyDelete20:43, I won't argue with your description of some comments as ignorant but you mention the 'depth of the hatred' - why is it so deep, where is this coming from? There must be a reason for it. One possible reason is that the 'haters' are vicious people, but this seems simplistic.
ReplyDeleteUndoubtedly some people do like taking out their aggression online, and this may be a partial explanation, but this can't be the whole explanation for what goes on here. I feel strongly that the hatred doesn't exist in a vacuum, it is a response to the Abbey and the school, and therefore those two institutions need to examine themselves. They should be welcoming Mr West as a partner in that process rather than dismissing him as someone who is only interested in 'hits', controversy or even gratification (and no, I'm really not Mr West!).
Re: 23:46
ReplyDeleteSorry, my friend, 'hatred' like every other human passion has to be kept within bounds of some kind. To let it slip over into the dehumanisation of people and institutions is simply too much.
To take another example, there are constant suggestions, not always direct of course, that rape and/or buggery has taken place at St Benedict's. For instance, David Pearce is referred to constantly on this blog not as 'Gay Dave' but as 'that sodomite Pearce'!
In his summing up of the David Pearce case the judge spoke of offences said of his offences that were at the less serious end of the spectrum of abuse. For this blog to go on insisting, without a shred of evidence, that this judgement was wrong and that Pearce was guilty, together with other members of staff at St Benedict’s, of much graver offences is, to put it mildly, malicious, wilful, calculated troublemaking of the very worst kind!
I agree with the above contributor. This blog is not only given to expressing 'hatred', which it does freely, but to whipping up hatred in the name of 'child protection'.
ReplyDeleteA clear distinction can be made between those who genuinely wish for better safeguards in this important area and those who are out simply to blacken the name of Ealing Abbey by fair means of foul. Some, like Mr West, seem to jump quite happily from one camp to the other.
The blog persistently attempts not only to 'blacken' Ealing Abbey but everyone and anyone associated with it, e.g. Lord Carlile and the entire judicial system. It’s pathetic!
ReplyDeleteAnd who said Pearce was a sodomite? Quite probably an Abbey supporter given the muck you've posted on this site.
ReplyDeleteYou are collectively (all two of you) doing the Abbey a great disservice.
And of course as you have posted several times before David Pearce is inside for "nods and winks!"
You want this site to cease, and no further questions to be asked about safeguarding at St Benedict's or the Abbey. You want "normal service to be resumed" whatver that is.
Who caused all this trouble? Not West - he just spoke about it when he discovered it.
What complete rubbish!
ReplyDeleteMany comments on this strand indicate that most posters from the Abbey have not visited many blogs regarding the emotive subject of child abuse.
ReplyDeleteThe first emotion expressed by victims of abuse, following the very challenging admission that they were abused, is anger. This is usually the start of a long and challenging process to some sort of recovery.
It would be wrong to even attempt to silence this. A site on which this can be seen is Stuart Syvret’s blog about the abuse of children in Jersey’s children’s homes. The Jersey Government’s corrupt and dishonest concealment of the facts have fuelled the flames, the story is far from unique.
Syvret runs a liberally ‘moderated’ site because of the difficult subject under discussion. Among many activities Syvret has named child abusers who have escaped or avoided justice. Is he wrong? Well one could debate that long and hard particularly in light of the lamentable and conflicted Jersey judiciary. One named abuser was until recently a senior Civil Servant – has he sued Syvret who named him? No. You will see many comments on the site about the ‘Pinball Wizard.’ The abuser acquired this tag because his particular predilection involved hurling children around small rooms and ‘bouncing them off the walls’ and furniture. Just Google - Syvret + Pinball Wizard and you will discover entries on Syvret’s site. Until shortly before his retirement the Wizard was Director of Education.
Jersey born Syvret who until very recently was the father of the Jersey Parliament is frequently described as ‘anti Jersey.’ He has been accused of many things by the Government, his home has been raided illegally by the police, and he’s currently in court on contrived charges about which you can read. He has been portrayed by his detractors as mad, bad, and dangerous, a self publicist, psychotic, schizophrenic, a Jew hater, (he is half jewish), anti Church of England because of comments which implicated the Church, and so it goes on.
His detractors are devoid of comment on the appalling child abuse that has happened on Jersey and which the Judiciary lack the will to do anythiing about
His efforts to have the Jersey authorities address the long concealed child abuse issues brought all this abuse on him. The authorities consider his activities ‘bad for business.’ He has sacrificed his public life, been vilified and only narrowly lost re-election. His blog is read by 357,000 people as the counter indicates. He is supported by many on and off the island, including the former Chief of Police who was illegally ‘suspended’ over his alleged mismanagement of the child abuse investigation which was praised in an ACPO report. The retired detective Lenny Harper who led the investigation has also had his reputation trashed despite another report commissioned by the government praising his methodology.
All that the defenders of the Jersey regime can do about this dirty child abuse bomb that has exploded on the island, is trash the name/s of people who exposed the abuse. So sites such as CoS can become ‘lively.’ If I were West I would liberally moderate this site to sharpen the focus of debate.