Friday, 26 November 2010

Comment policy

I normally operate a policy here of not deleting comments unless they are spam. However, now that charges have been made against Pearce and Maestri, I shall in addition delete any comment which in my opinion might be prejudical to a fair trial or leave me or the commenter open to allegations of contempt of court.

If it should become necessary, I will turn on comment moderation to ensure that comments remain within the law in this respect. I shall not delete comments merely because they are derogatory towards me.

UPDATE: On reflection and having received advice, I have decided to turn on comment moderation with immediate effect for all articles on this blog.


  1. .
    One effect of moderation could be, one hopes, a reduction in the more shrill and vacuous postings from the Millwall section of the Abbeyvistas "everybody hates us and we don't care." We all know one particular member of this unruly wing who has a certain punctuation addiction and suffers from a dissociative identity disorder for which I suspect he is treated with clozapine.

    But well done to the former pupil who stepped forward to get proceedings underway, it takes courage. But Abbeyvista's will again be telling us that Pearce has once again being charged for 'nods and winks.' It is delusionary stuff.

    Who will be representing Pearce one wonders?

    What might these new proceedings do to Carlile's inquiry?review?report? I think the terms of the inquiry? need to be revisited to understand the answer to this question.

    Happy weekend to all.

  2. It seems 'Happy Weekend' is rather intimated or miffed by opposition - 'moderation' (censorship) has to be the order of his/her day. Why, he/she wonders, does it 'take all sorts to make a world'? I and my kind are, after all, what is really needed.

  3. Simplicity v Complexity

    I imagine the strange word, on the first line above @20:32, should read ‘intimidated’? Anyway, it led me to reflect a little more generally on this blog as a whole. It seems, a high percentage of contributors do set out to intimidate someone or other. This because, though the subject/s dealt with are complex, few contributors treat them as such. Most postings are simply out to score points and discredit those who approach these problems from another angle. So, for instance, we have:
    i) some serious analysis of schools’ safeguarding policies and the bodies set up to monitor them;
    ii) attempts to discredit Ealing Abbey together with its monks and teachers;
    iii) attempts to undermine religion, especially Catholicism;
    iv) efforts to steer readers towards a thoroughgoing secular interpretation of society;
    v) cries from the ‘string em up’ brigade to eliminate all paedophiles;
    vi) some genuine and some rather less than genuine efforts to encourage the abused to come forward – to whom is not always very clear;
    vii) calls for as many people as possible to contact Lord Carlile. Largely, it seems, to demonstrate to the poor man that he too is under surveillance.
    viii) finally, there are one or two contributors who are obviously just along for the ride and intent upon setting the cat among the various pigeons.

    We would all be spared a lot of hot air and silliness if contributors would understand both the complexity of the subject matter and the responses to it. There is little to be done, I suspect, about those who cannot or will not see beyond their own personal agenda.

  4. 10.19 says:

    We would all be spared a lot of hot air and silliness if contributors would understand both the complexity of the subject matter and the responses to it.

    So please let's have your contribution.

  5. 10:19: men of religion, who pledge a celibate life in front of their god, yet get a kick out of putting their hand down a boy's trousers and sexually assaulting him. And are protected by their superiors.

    That is not "complex". Stop dressing things up in an attempt to obscure what this is really all about.

    As 13:49 said: where's your valuable contribution then? Oh, and just what is *your* personal agenda?

  6. In response to 10.19:

    (i) You seem to suggest that you are a child abuse/welfare literate poster. Please refer to yourself by a name of your choice on future posts so we can identify your postings and appreciate them as being from someone experienced in the subject.

    (ii) There have been no identifiable attempts to discredit the Abbey or the school - but certainly a discussion about the known child abuse that has been allowed to continue at the school unchecked for decades and which when finally it could no longer be ignored the school broke the law by failing to return statutory Notifications under the Educations Acts. These are facts – nothing less and nothing more.

    (iii) The lazy and over used persecution claim when there is no answer to the child abuse question.

    (iv) We are all permitted an opinion on whether religion is valid this has not been the subject of much debate here. The exchanges here have concentrated on St Benedict’s and other Benedictine schools which have manifested such a predilection for abusing boys placed in their care by over trusting parents across their educational franchise. In all cases the abuse was concealed and unreported.

    (v) Well no sensible individual wants more paedophiles or do they? All that I have seen expressed here is a call to report abuse, for the school to clean up its act and operate a good and transparent child protection policy without caveats included which are designed to permit the school not to report allegations. I and others are keen to see the school commit to report all allegations of abuse in keeping with the London and Ealing Safeguarding Board ‘best practice’ which guarantees independent review of such incident/s.

    (vi) May I remind you of the posting by Mr West following his meeting with Lord Carlile for which I provide this link and an extract from the posting below.

    He (Lord Carlile) expressed the view that if anybody wishes to come forward with allegations about David Pearce, then it would be advisable to do so sooner rather than later. The more time that passes, the greater the likelihood that Pearce's lawyers would be able to get any prosecutions struck down for abuse of process because of the delays involved. I might not have the form of words that he used exactly right, but this is the essence of it. So if you are a victim or a witness and have an account of abuse by Pearce, then his suggestion is that you should come forward and give a statement to the police about it as soon as possible.

    (vii) It was Lord Carlile that asked for people to contact him and for Mr West to post this on his blog. If you are going to contribute to the blog please do make an attempt to read and understand what has preceded you post. See (vi) above. 10.19.

    (viii) One has to show a degree of tolerance on all open sites and live with it or leave.

    I hope this addresses the points you made

  7. 20.22 And yours sir.

    I have no comment to make. I wish to read and attempt to understand. 10.19 you seem keen to comment - I for one am interested to read what you have to say from your perspective as someone who has an understanding this is a 'complex subject.'

  8. Interesting that a posting that made ‘no contribution’ has provoked such a hefty response. Having read through 10:19’s breakdown of some of the attitudes found on this blog, I have to say that the above may provide responses (though no questions were asked, as far as I can see) but certainly no answers, in the sense 23:46 means. But, it’s enlightening to read what these responses have to say, they’re at least coherent if far from convincing.

  9. 23:46 claims he's addressing the points made earlier @ 10:19. What he actually offers is a brave attempt to undress them. One only has to look back over this blog to see how way off the mark some of his statements are.

  10. Re-flection - re 22:07

    This contributor offers us a thumb nail sketch of the issue as he sees it: ‘men of religion, who pledge a celibate life in front of their god, yet get a kick out of putting their hand down a boy's trousers and sexually assaulting him. And are protected by their superiors.’ He then assures us: ‘That is not "complex".’
    Well his own statement covers – the religious life, celibacy, theology, morality and, last but not least, the psychology of sex. All that, in two sentences. No, of course the issue is not in the least complex.
    To talk up just one of the areas he touches on - the psychology of sex, may I remind him just how much he has in common with the paedophile he describes? His own sexuality stems in large measure from a physiological drive, it has an object - again not essentially of his choosing, the niceties of his sexual activity may or may not involve trousers but, if not, blouses, skirts, undies or whatever. In what we call extreme cases this latter point gives way to fetishism but is, nevertheless, for most people, an important, if not essential, aspect of sexual play. Given this degree of common complexity, over which we have only limited control, perhaps 22:07 might like to reflect a little more on what he wrote. The fact that we, each and every one of us, have so much in common is either the basis for compassionate, intelligent understanding or fearful, unintelligent blind rejection.

  11. The above poster is absolutely spot-on. There is a very simple principle here which is that the law exists for the good and protection of everyone.
    The law appears to have been broken in three ways:
    1. The abuse of minors.
    2. The continued employment by the school of people whom it knew to be unsuitable to work with children.
    3. The failure to make proper notifications to the Department when such people either resigned or were dismissed.

    So, clearly there has been, and continues to be, action on point one; there has been a keen focus on the individual perpetrators.

    But, what of points 2 and 3? Should there not now be criminal charges brought against the trustees, advisors, and headmasters who have failed in their legal duties?

    If independent schools are to clean up their acts on safeguarding, then surely some heads must roll to send out a clear message that schools are not little kingdoms and are not above the law. Almost certainly in a maintained sector school a failure to notify would result in a dismissal of the nominated child protection officer as it is a failure in their primary function.

  12. 11.07 - I have written to the Director of Safeguarding at the DfE and asked what action the Department intends taking over the repeated breaches of the statutory obligation on the registered owner/s of the school to return Notifications’ under the Education Acts. I expect a reply before Christmas and will make this available to this blog.

  13. 09.51 continues to provide no evidence for his claims :

    One only has to look back over this blog to see how way off the mark some of (23.46's) statements are.

    If you don't put up the evidence then none exists to support the wayward nonsense you post.

  14. Re 12:35 - The Evidence Is Under Your Nose
    This blog offers, to anyone who cares to look, fulsome evidence of various kinds of malicious posting. For example –
    • abusive comment directed at a number of individuals - monks, teachers, etc;
    • claims that no one, but no one, is up to their job - Lord Carlile, the Abbot of Ealing, the social services, the ISI, the judiciary, the catholic church, etc;
    • accusations of criminal behaviour on the part of several people, again without a shred of evidence;
    • repeated insistence that almost everyone is trying to cover up abuse, generally together with the implication that there is masses more to be uncovered.

    But, these issues are, I suppose, just more nonsense.

  15. Seems 12:35 is a little put out, might it be that the 23:46 contribution was all his own work?

  16. I would like to thank 10:54 for his/her comments which show up many contributions in a new light, not just those @22:07. It's too easy for us to be smug and condescending; the more difficult thing is to examine our own lives. How many of us would want open them up to close examination? We might ask ourselves the question: 'What am I only too happy to cover up?'

  17. 14.01 (09.51)You have still not produced any evidence. You seem unable to understand that your opinion is not evidence.

    Link your opinion to evidence within the blog. It's not difficult unless of course no such evidence exists to support your opinion.

    We won't be holding our breath.

  18. 16:51 is a tiresome but persistent sort of chap. But I suspect, as Mr West is now monitoring his blog, any reminder that evidence might be found for the kind of statements @10:19 is most unwelcome. Yet, there it plainly is, in abundance. To dismiss this evidence by saying, for instance, there have been 'no identifiable' attempts to discredit either the Abbey or the school is disingenuous. Naturally, most of the accusations levelled at individuals, the Abbey or the school have been anonymous. However, anonymity does not disguise the sentiments expressed.

  19. Evidence is in such abundance 19.38, and you repeatedly fail to produce any.

    The nonsense from the Abbeyvista continues. You are such a credit to the school.

  20. Yup. But, 'obtuse ‘and 'stubborn' might be more accurate, if less generous, descriptions of 16:51. What a pity he's not holding his breath.

  21. Does 20:00 know what he's talking about, at all? Statements have been made right from the inception of this blog that fall squarely into the categories listed @27 November 2010 10:19.

    If 20:00 cannot see or accept that, then he really is the most hopeless of cases.

  22. 19:38 - Please do not respond, for heaven's sake, to the contributor @20:00. It's becoming a little embarrassing.

  23. It's your third strike and still no evidence so that's it.

    You make claims which you cannot support, knock, slur, anything to distract attention from the issues discussed on this site.

    It is you the supporters of the Abbey and the school that reveal the Trust for what it is.

  24. Thanks for that flourish 23:39 - we can all make up our minds, of course, as to whether it's a sky rocket or a damp squib. :-) Keep your fingers crossed.

  25. As an occasional, but regular, visitor to this blog, I am amazed to see just how much animus there is towards anyone who fails to toe what can only be described as the ‘party line’ - directing as much hatred as possible at Ealing Abbey and its schools.
    Clearly, at least from my perspective, those contributors who seek to discredit any postings they find threatening are desperate people. No one sure of his or her ground seeks, in this way, to destroy legitimate opposition, criticism and comment.

  26. 12:47 As an occasional, but regular visitor to this blog, you are of course entitled to hold whatever opinion about it you choose to.

    But I would very much welcome it if you would offer an example or two of the party line you describe. Are there any particular articles I have written which you consider fall into that category?

  27. Reply to Mr West -
    Mr West I think if you look back over your postings you will find many if not most of them are directed at the abbey and its schools; often in quite unbalanced terms. I recall, for instance, one of your offerings, relating to David Peace I think, in which you volunteered information based solely on your own calculations that well over a 100 boys had been abused by him.

    The majority of your presentations are, of course, more subtle. However, to take your latest posting as an example, while dealing with the issue of St Augustine’s safeguarding policy, it, nevertheless, raises several quite tendentious questions. These questions are then treated to your own gloss which in turn gives way to what you call ‘reasonable speculation’. This speculation may or may not be reasonable, we don’t have the facts to judge, but it certainly manages to plant several, shall we say ‘useful’, suspicions in the reader’s mind. This oft repeated journalistic ploy is what reveals most clearly, throughout your postings, the ‘party line’

    The ‘line’ shows up far more clearly, however, in contributions from the ‘party faithful’. Much of this material is often quite over the top and, rooted as it is in aggrieved emotions, might well emanate from the least savoury elements of the BNP.

    Take a look over this blog Mr West, tedious as that may be, and count up the entries that, by any normal standard, would be deemed offensive, abusive and derogatory. In certain cases, the language used can, in fact, only be described as vicious if not homicidal.

  28. 16:46 I recall, for instance, one of your offerings, relating to David Peace I think, in which you volunteered information based solely on your own calculations that well over a 100 boys had been abused by him.

    That is my estimate, and I gacve the basis for it. If you feel that the estimate is out, at least you have the calculation I used and you can offer an alternative.

    These questions are then treated to your own gloss which in turn gives way to what you call ‘reasonable speculation’.

    Will, in the context of St. Auguistine's the ISI report has been substantiually delayed, the headmistress has commented about factual error before the report has even been published, the school's safeguarding policy is inadequate and the school does have an association with Ealing Abbey by virtue (if that is the correct word to use) of the fact that Father Gregory Chillman was until recently Chaplain and Chairman of Governors. The speculations that arise from taking all these facts together are reasonable. They might turn out to be wrong, which is why I labelled them as nothing more than speculations. It is a situation worth watching to see what transpires.

    I have no party line. I'm just interested in discovering the truth. And quite a bit of truth has been uncovered already and I suspect that more is still to come.

    As for commenters, I believe in free speech, and you will note that I make no attempt to censor comments that are against me. If the comments have a degree of sense in them justifying a response, I'll respond. If they are merely rants I consider them to require no commentary, and simply leave them to speak for themselves.

    Surely you wouldn't want me to engage in censorship?

  29. No. Please, no censorship. But, where comments verge on the criminal you might just acknowledge that fact, Mr West.

    I find your 'calculation' as to the degree of David Pearce's culpability gratuitous. It's only purpose, as far as I can see, being to further the 'party line'.

    Your work of analysing schools’ safeguarding policy is often quite excellent but can hardly be described as 'uncovering the truth'.

    The facts relating to misconduct at Ealing Abbey have come/are coming to light, but how far this is the result of your efforts is questionable. I see in your reply you 'suspect that more is still to come'. Well, you may be right, given that the future inevitably brings new facts/information to light. But, the effect of your statement is merely to re-emphasise your ongoing contention that 'the cover up' in and around Ealing Abbey is much deeper and wider than anyone imagines. This again springs from pure (if that is the right word to use) speculation and, as I say, speculation with a purpose.

    So, again, no censorship Mr West but perhaps some genuine dialogue, some real engagement, on your part, with those statements that cry out for qualification or even a little sane emendation. This can be done with as much grace and finesse as you like.

  30. 18:01: You suggest that, for example, that suggestions of a "cover up" or talk of the wider scale of abuse t St B's is pure speculation. I think that is very unreasonable. West has heard numerous reports from people such as myself, a former pupil at the school, who provide information, both in the blog postings and to Lord C, which suggests that there is considerable basis for such "speculation".

    You wish to imply that West has somehow conjured this up out of his twisted imagination, with an agenda to discredit the school, the Abbey and its inhabitants.

    While I cannot ultimately vouch for anyone's motivation, I assure you that the "idea" that the abuse was much more widespread and continued for years due to a "cover up" (for want of a better description) is much more than "speculation". There are numerous witnesses and victims (I count myself amongst both) who support that. While I am pretty sceptical as to the ultimate benefit of Lord C's report (if... when...) I do think you might be shocked by the contents. I think you will find it hard to claim it's all "speculation".

  31. As you say 07:01. we're awaiting a report. What then is the point of speculation - not in private but on an open blog? It is precisely for fear of such speculation that Mr West is now monitoring the blog's contributions. So what’s written @18.01 is not an idle claim but a statement of fact.

  32. 7:01, while your comments are in good faith, you have I think missed the essential point. Calling what Mr West writes in his posting ‘speculation’ is meant to highlight a wider issue – what 18:01 takes to be the blog’s party line. In that context, I can’t help feeling he might well be right.

  33. Unfortunately, I have to agree with the above criticism. The ‘party line’ has transformed this blog into a curate’s egg. Analysing events and policy statements is one thing and a very good thing. A campaign of smears and jeers is something very different. Ironically, as presumably it was meant to create more interest, it has served only to weaken the blog’s impact, which is a great shame.

  34. 07:01 here again...

    09:44: I think West was pretty clear as to why he has enabled comment moderation - it's to avoid the danger of compromising ongoing criminal actions, and possibly being in comtempt of court. I do not see how that ties in to your mention of a "fear of speculation" in any way at all. Let me turn it around: should he *not* moderate comments, and risk a criminal trial failing? Would that be a good thing...? Hmmmm?

    10:03: "Party line" - it's such an innocuous but grosly misleading term which make one wonder what is your "party line"? In the time I've been reading and contributing to this blog there is, without doubt, an aim. West (and others of us) believes that something bad has gone on for a long time, was covered up for a long time, and due to inadequate actions could still go on in the future. And it seems to me he's trying to uncover the truth, have those who facilitated it identified, and to have others take action to ensure it cannot happen again.

    Is that a "party line"? I guess to you it is. Well, call it what you like. I'd call it a worthy objective.

    And 11:27: you too seem to worry about a "party line"? You talk of "a campaign of smears and jeers". While one can't be too specific due to the ongoing criminal charges, are you genuinely and honestly worrying that folks have been a touch unfair to convicted paedophile Pearce? Or to the abbotts who, over decades, protected him? While I'm not sure I'd accuse West of this, I have no doubt that the language and style of others (very possibly myself included) has maybe sometimes strayed close to what might be called angry, emotional, raging, impolite, and so on... If that's your "jeering" then does it really worry you so much? Does it really negate what's being said? Or is it just an excuse to ignore whagt's being said, citing "the tone" of it?

    And as for "smears": let's just see what upcoming court cases and the Carlile report have in them. If Carlile does his job, I predict that any so-called "smears" seen around these parts will look pale by comparison.

  35. Re 12:34

    Whatever the court's judgement it will be delivered, I’m sure, without sneers or jeers. A court essentially judges the crime and not the criminal, per se. To make one's case one does not have to resort to sneering and jeering. No one, I suspect, is in any way opposed to Mr West pointing up wrongdoing or highlighting bad and inadequate policy making. I’m sure most people would support him on both counts. But, a lot of the language and many of the sentiments expressed on this blog go far beyond what is generally considered acceptable among ordinary civilized people. It has, furthermore, been employed - and allowed to be employed - to an end. It is this wilful employment of base material that is, I think quite rightly, coming under attack.

  36. 16.49, can you please link us to examples to support your claim.

  37. Are you completely foolish, 20:10 or simply fooling around? Surely you must realize that this ploy of requesting chapter and verse has worn so thin it's hardly visible? You must know only too well what the likes of 16.49 are referring to. If you are genuinely unable to understand these references, one can only wonder how you cope with life at all.

  38. What a request, 20:20. Such examples are all over the place, in almost every other posting.

  39. 16;49: "...But, a lot of the language and many of the sentiments expressed on this blog go far beyond what is generally considered acceptable among ordinary civilized people...."

    So much attention to language, yet so little attention to the victims and the paedophiles.

    There are those of us who don't get so very hung up on "language" and "sentiments", when we're talking about an institution whose members and actions "go far beyond what is generally considered acceptable among ordinary civilized people."

    THAT is what matters. "Sneers and jeers"? Inelegant maybe. But you could look beyond it if you wanted to. But you don't, for some very strange reason.

    So you can keep being offended (or pretending to be offended) by style if you wish, while others here will keep on with what matters.

  40. Well 21.15/26 still no examples produced.

  41. 'What matters' has been carefully spelt out, 21:43 - on one is unaware of the points you are making. The case has been made many times over and is now being dealt with. Repeating yourself, as if no one has even begun to cotton on to what you are saying, is silly. One can only think that lawful investigation of your allegations is not enough for you. So the likes of me are left wondering what it is you really want. It is not that the language is inelegant but that it betrays a lust for vengeance, preferably, one can only imagine, by bloodletting.

    What exactly, 21:43, beyond what has and is being done to rectify an admittedly very bad state of affairs, are you looking for? Do, please, spell it out for us.

  42. Could the guy @21:43 let us know what 'attention to the victims and the paedophiles' he'd like us all to give? Naturally, they both have their problems and needs but what specifically can we do about/for them?

  43. 22:28. Well so far, not very much has been done so far "to rectify an admittedly very bad state of affairs".

    The school's child protection policy is still woefully inadequate, and even now contains language that would allow the school to wriggle out of a commitment to report every allegation of child abuse to the LADO. This despite the fact that the policy has alreasy been updated 3 times since the beginning of this year.

    The recommendation of the ISI that those subject to findings or allegations of abuse shoud not live on the premises has not been implemented.

    Those in charge at the Abbey and the school who have allowed safeguarding to degenerate into a woefully and illegally inadequate state have not resigned.

    A full and public account of events has not yet been obtained from Francis Rossiter, who was Abbot in the 1970s and 80s, a time when there appears to have been a huge amount of abuse at the school.

  44. 22:41. I think a good start would be a full and unreserved public apology from the Abbot and headmaster with the regard to their and their predecessors failings, followed by a description of the effective measures that will be taken to prevent such a thing ever happening again, and a promise that they will both resign with immediate effect.

    A good second point would be for the Abbot and all supporters of the Abbey to realise that attempting to "talk down" the extent of the abuse is seriously offensive towards the many victims, and accept that they can best support the Abbey by offering support and sympathy to victims and by exercising the greatest possible vigilance over all those at the school and in the parish who have responsibility for the care and welfare of children.

    A third point (in tandem with the second) would be for the parish actually to have a child protection policy, for it to be properly imploemented and for it to be published on the Abbey website.

  45. Given that there have been several requests for contributors to cite examples, I took the trouble to look back over this blog via its archive. I was, to say the least, surprised to find that huge sections of achieve have simply disappeared. In their stead substitutions from Mr West's theological bloggings have appeared. Very strange, has anyone got an explanation?

  46. Thank you Mr West for your comments. Some of which I have no quarrel with. But others are based, I feel, on some quite unrealistic suppositions.

    However, I was actually seeking a response, not from you, but from the contributor @21:43. He is, presumably, able to answer for himself.

  47. 23:48.

    No articles have been deleted from this blog.

  48. Re the above comment -

    If no articles have been deleted how come virtually all the postings for 2009 are not to be found. There’s masses of theological comment there but, from what I could see and I took a long careful look, hardly any postings relating to Ealing Abbey.

  49. 12:14
    Remember that I first took an interest in Ealing Abbey after hearing about the criminal conviction in August. So there is one article about the Abbey in August 2009, one in September, three in October, three in November, and one in December. That is all I wrote, and no further articles have been deleted.

    You'll note that I wrote articles at about the same frequency through the first half of this year, and the rate only increased in July when I started working my way paragraph by paragraph through the school's child protection policy and the ISI supplementary report.

  50. 21:43 here... I did not reply as it looks like JW covered what I would have put, and did so both more comprehensively and much more politely (none of those nasty sneers or jeers that so offend sensitive souls)

    FWIW, absolutely key to what I want to see is an unambiguous, genuine, heartfelt apology from those concerned. No mincing of words, no double-speak. Genuine sorrow and contrition. Throughout this all I have yet to see that, nor do I expect to, sadly. For the school and abbey the focus is always on damage limitation to themselves. How little can they do to "get away with it"?

    Pre-empting one thought: I do not want humiliation. The present abbot, and his predecessors, do not have to grovel. What they must do is admit what they have done (or not done) in the past, show that they now really do see how tragically bad that was, and show a real *willingness* to make things better.

    None of those happen. Even the Carlile enquiry is not something the abbey *wants* to do. It feels *compelled* to do it.

    I am not a Christian, but I have great respect for those who can admit their failings and ask for forgiveness from their fellow humans. That an abbey-load of monks are unable to do just this is off the scale irony-wise.

    Should such confession not be forthcoming (and let's face it, there's not much sign of it!) then my desire is for the people concerned to be punished. The paedophiles themselves can be (and some have been, but alas far from all) dealt with under the UK law. But the rest? Their protectors and excusers? If they have broken the law, then they can be dealt with the same way. And if they have not broken a law? Then I want them to be haunted by their acts for the rest of their lives. I want them to feel some of the misery and pain that so many others have had inflicted upon them.

    I'm rather Old Testament for an atheist, eh?

    Anyway, you'll be relieved to know (after posting a few more comments - you lot always do) that I am now switching off from this thread. It's clear that one thought so glaringly absent from so many of the critics on this thread is the key one of compassion for the victims of the paedophiles. Concern for the tone? Check. Concern for the smears? Check. Concern for the abbey? Check. Concern for every damn thing except the young boys who suffered.

  51. You say no articles have been deleted, Mr West. Is the same true for the comments? Have any comments been removed other, of course, than those you yourself have specifed on the blog?

  52. 13:09
    I delete spam comments. Some time ago, after giving notice of my intention, I deleted some comments that were arguing in favour of paedophilia as a normal and perhaps even desirable condition.

    For as long as there are ongoing criminal cases, I shall keep moderation on and not publish comments that might prejudice any criminal case or which might be considered contempt of court.

    I don't delete comments that are critical of me. I'm happy to respond and act on constructive criticism. Unconstructive criticism is clear for all to see and requires no commentary from me, so I publish and ignore it.

  53. I cannot for the life of me understand what contributors like 13:00 are really on about. Thousands upon thousands of crimes are committed day in and day out. People suffer because of these crimes. But how are we to demonstrate our compassion for these millions?
    As far as I can see, other than banging on and on about how terribly 'the young boys' have suffered and how utterly monstrous their abusers are, there is no meaningful demonstration of either concern or compassion on this blog! I can’t help feeling that those who go on telling and retelling the history of this affair are seriously deluding themselves. They may even be doing more harm than good to ‘the young boys' they say they care for so much.
    13:00 informs us that he has an Old Testament mentality. It seems to be more a medieval mentality, to me, in which trial by ordeal, the ducking stool, the stocks played such a huge part. Contrition had. In those days, to involve a heavy dose of public humiliation and/or a huge expenditure of both money and energy. Perhaps, we ought to arrange an enforced pilgrimage to the Holy Land for the Ealing Community, on foot, of course.

  54. Thank you for that response Mr West @13.22. However, if you look back to the contribution you were responding to @13:09 I think you will find that you have not actually answered the question.

  55. Having now established the site is intact will you now produce the evidence to support your opinion 21.15/26.

  56. 14:55 - Which question do you think I have missed?

  57. Well, Mr West, you've listed everything covered by the pharase 'other than those you yourself have specifed on the blog'. The question, of course, related not to what we know already but to any other commments that may have been removed. I presume 'spam' doesn't cover normal contributions to the blog, to which the question does refer?

  58. 15:29 No comments have been deleted outside the categories I have described.

  59. -
    Tedium or Mania?

    The trouble and it is a trouble of getting involved in a blog of this sort is that it's difficult to know when to stop. The danger is that everyone simply goes on repeating the same thing/s ad nauseam. Eventually, there is no new input and, so, no real stimulation either of an intellectual or emotional kind.

    I note 13:00 felt more or less the same way. He wrote: 'Anyway, you'll be relieved to know (after posting a few more comments - you lot always do) that I am now switching off from this thread.'

    Having, myself, on more than one occasion - :-), accused contributors of indulgent repetition, I feel I must follow 13:00's eminently sane example. Blogging can seriously damage one's health – talk a look! – and I suppose that’s why there are now so few postings on this blog?

    I’d like to think Mr West might find more direct and productive ways of keeping the ‘guardians of youth’ on their toes. Not easy, I know, but I really don’t think this blog is doing the trick.

  60. 16:06
    I’d like to think Mr West might find more direct and productive ways of keeping the ‘guardians of youth’ on their toes.

    Do you imagine that the blog is all I do?

  61. So 16.06 chickens out - the other one already has.

  62. Here, 14:59, are a few of the blog’s hidden gems. They’re in no particular order and reflect more than one standpoint. For‘chapter and verse’, it's quite easy to locate these quotes. -

    •….there should be more pressure to increase the prison sentences and also to chemically castrate these evil monsters. I would dearly like to meet Pearce when he gets out and tell him how evil he is. May they all rot in hell.
    •Once again to those victims my thoughts are with you dont let the dirty fuckers win.
    •" a minimus incipe"- a bum a day keeps the doctor away!
    •The sodomite Pearce was convicted more than six months ago. Why is he still a priest?
    •Gay Dave, the asian houseboy in the army who committed suicide in Dave's dentist chair because he wouldn't pay his gambling debts, they were school lore.
    •Just the usual weasel words we have come to expect from the Catholic church.
    •Sexual abuse is now described as "jot and tittle" by the Abbey supporters.
    I guess it makes a change from "nods and winks."
    •No wonder the phones were ringing nonstop at Durston House with St Benedict's parents seeking an alternative for their children.
    •I 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.
    •Try to get over your religion which seems set to asphyxiate you.
    •The deviant Pearce was caged more than a year ago.
    •Undoubtedly some people do like taking out their aggression online…
    •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'.
    •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!
    •Piffle, but nasty piffle.
    • Hi Jonathan
    Remember me? please Answer 05.46am did you up and leave? and how was France?
    You allways wanted to publish your articles so here you are getting closer, the problem you have it has now attracted others (chuckle,chuckle)so I will now sit back and wait.
    Enjoy Jonathan
    • Abandoning his lover and son and the dodgy music lessons, surely You couldn't make it up?
    • Mr West is very free when it comes to explaining the actions and motivations of others, but is quite incapable, it seems, of explaining himself! It really is something of a sick joke
    • Ah - the Abbeyvista has appeared from the swamp once more!
    •….may the abbey abusers and their apologists burn in hell.
    • ‘ you think I ought to have an article or two extolling the virtues of buggering choirboys?’
    • ‘...if I saw a child being raped on the other side of the street by a Benedictine monk my response would not match exactly the response of a trained police officer..
    • ‘The supporters of the St Benedict's perpetrators’ on this blogsite write that Pearce did not abuse, it was only "nods and winks" for which he was mistakenly found guilty in Crown Court and imprisoned.

  63. Which other one are you referring to 19:17?

  64. Where are the links to the alleged postings? This was requested and is the easiest thing to provide but you haven't, so once again the copy is not evidence based and cannot be taken seriously or seen in context where it might exist.

    Please provide the links or else no one can take any notice of any of it.

    And please clarify what it is you are claiming by providing these alleged 'quotes?'

    Please make more effort if you want to be taken seriously.

  65. For goodness sake 22:34 are you a man or a sloth? Are you incapable of looking through a relatively short archive? All the above postings are, I assure you, there, waiting for you and anyone else to find.

    'Take more effort' can't be serious! In fact, I imagine like me, contributors now take your posting as a joke.

  66. .

    It’s very enlightening that 22:34 can’t believe in the postings @19:24. So far, I’ve found six! So they ARE THERE and ACCURATE. This proves, of course, that many of the sentiments on this blog are, as many have claimed, far worse than 22:34 and his fellow doubters believe. Pity, though, that 22:34 can't be bothered to find this out for himself; or is he, perhaps, just trying to stop others taking a look?

  67. A pertinent comment 18:16. I found the series of quotes disturbing. They're not the sort of comments one would expect from people seeking to protect children. Personally, I wouldn't want any one of them near a child of mine.

  68. You are trying to make a point without providing links to verify your claims.

    Until this happens they are claims, nothing more.

  69. You silly old Billy, 18:48. That verification, you're so keen on, is just a click or two away. Or is it that you feel you're not bright enough to look through an archive? It’s tricky stuff after all and to a novice may sound a bit daunting. On second thoughts, perhaps, you're not able find it? Well, it's to the right of your screen, at the top. Sorry but you're on your own now, but don't panic - keep calm and carefully scroll down and all, yes all, will be revealed. If you can’t manage do let us have another posting.

  70. .
    From 18:16 to 18:18

    18:18, 'claims' are verified NOT by someone giving you 'links', but by you going to and reading through the orignal material.

  71. Why does 18:48 call the postings @19:24 'claims'? They're not claims, they're quotes taken from this blog. There's nothing devious about them, they just mirror back some of the things that have been said.

  72. Well it is you who is trying to make a point. If you do not provide supporting information in order to introduce credibility to your claim regarding the alleged quotes, no one is going to get off their arse to ensure the 'silly' nonsense you are claiming is true.

    Gettit sweet pea?

    I seem to recall my degree; oh too many moons ago; required this perfectly understandable supportive verification in order to be credible.

    Are these people really teachers at this dump?

    You'd think ‘SUPER ABBOT,’ having given tacit approval for this motley poster (it looks like two but it's the one with dissociative identity disorder who pops clozapine) to spew bile in defence of his “institution,” would at least commission the intelligent wing of the school's teaching spectrum for the task.

  73. .

    Sorry folks, a shocking mistake has been made. ‘Silly Billy’ isn’t silly, is he? (apologies to Fuzzy Wuzzy) No, he’s ‘verified’ his *non*-silly status by implying he may have *a DEGREE*! Now, you can’t beat that, can you? No, not even by hinting, schizophrenically of course, that one might have 3 or 4 of the wretched things.

    But, enough of such frivolity. Whatever else Fuzzy Wuzzy -sorry, 23:27 - had verified (yes, I know, it’s a misuse of the term), that he’s a fearless and *deadly serious* opponent! But, whatever, from now on I intend to leave the good man in peace. But not, of course, before wishing him a VERY HAPPY AND SINGLEMINDED CHRISTMAS!

  74. There was a reply to the above, Jonathan. Where is it?

  75. Ah, it's arrived. Cf 12:04.