It is possible that you find that unreasonably small to read. You can expand it to see what it says by clicking on the graphic above, but then it will be far larger than it actually appeared in the paper. I've looked in detail at the advert, and I can tell that the body of the advert was printed in Georgia font (or a font very siilar to Georgiam with a the characteristic descending capital J) , at a size of 4.5pt, (to the nearest 0.5 pt). This is the text repeated, in 4.5pt Georgia.
CALL FOR EVIDENCEAn enquiry is being undertaken by Queen's Counsel, Lord Carlile of Berriew, in relation to events at St Benedict’s School, Ealing and Ealing Abbey, which have given rise to adverse publicity. The terms of reference are:
• The history of abuse allegations and findings made by and/or concerning pupils at St Benedict’s School.
• The history of abuse allegations and findings made in connection with Ealing Abbey, and anyone involved in any
activities at the Abbey.
• The action taken in respect of the matters described in paragraphs 1 and 2 above.
• Past and present policies, written or otherwise, for dealing with such abuse allegations and findings.
• A future policy for the effective protection of young persons by whom any such allegations are made.
• An effective complaints system, and the provision of information about such a system.
• Files and paperwork concerning complaints.
• Other reassurance for present and prospective students and their parents/guardians.
• Issues concerning presence at the Abbey or School of persons who have been the subject of findings and/or allegations.
Anybody wishing to provide evidence to the enquiry should do so in writing within 28 days to:
Lord Carlile of Berriew QC
c/o 9-12 Bell Yard
London, WC2A 2JR
I challenge you to copy and paste that into a Word document, format it using Georgia font at 4.5pt, and then print it and see if you can read it. Remember that the paper loaded into your printer is much better quality than newsprint, and that text is correspondingly more legible because of the higher contrast.
That is the sum total of the advertising campaign for the inquiry in the national press. As far as I am aware, there have been no other adverts placed in any other national paper. So much for the headmaster's promise that "adverts would be placed in local and national newspapers", and Carlile's statement to me at our meeting that there would be "a further round of adverts in the national press". One advert, with text so small as to be illegible if you don't use a magnnifying glass.
I think there is now every reason believe that it is not the Trustees' intention for the Carlile inquiry to uncover the truth about abuse at the school. The balance of the evidence seems strongly towards ensuring that Carlile discovers as little as possible about the past abuses at the school, by ensuring that as few victims as possible get to hear of the inquiry.
So the only national advert was in the Daily Torygraph, sorry - Telegraph. It was too small to read and talks only about 'events'. This could be an inquiry into cheating on sports day for all anybody could guess from the wording. Whereabouts was it in the paper? Presumably bottom of a page hidden amongst the hatched, matched and dispatched.
ReplyDeleteOur thanks to Indiana Jones for finding the single advertisement placed in a national newspaper ‘calling for evidence’ into.....er.., hold on a minute..ummm, sorry no clue! I agree with 14.27 in the previous strand, this is the bare minimum and you need the eyesight of an F15 pilot to spot it. Talk about concealing the reason for an inquiry, but then concealment is a Benedictine default.
ReplyDelete12.09 (prev strand) said:
Look at the number of 'inquiries' which have depended on a 'safe pair of hands' to get their targets out of a jamb.
And can you 16.36 name one inquiry where a "reputation" now lies in ruins as a result of being a ‘safe pair of hands?’ Of course not. Such tripe is written by those desperate to defend the indefensible but please note, none of the defenders engage meaningfully on the subject matter of this blog because its’ too frightening for them. They are completely reliant on Carlile (the safe pair of hands?) to dig them out of the manure, so in the interim they just fizz and pout at the margins.
Most proper 'inquiries' are of a certain stature. St Benedict’s on the other hand is a second or third division independent school run by a succession of lawless monks (viz: No statutory Notifications returned to the DfE or its forerunners, under the Education Acts since the school's inception: ISI ) from a long established paedophilic franchise . What kudos does this have for Carlile? Add to this he is neither qualified in nor does he have experience of social care or the subject of abuse in commercial environments. There are many well qualified people who would be more effective and less costly and who would bear little or no risk in doing the job because it is what they do all day every day, and they are known for it.
Carlile on the other hand is an experience free zone. Child abuse is a unique subject, and child abuse in independent schools has a set of complex and unique dynamics. His previous experience of abuse in independent schools? Zero.
Shipperlee may as well have chosen someone from Eggheads (BBC2 – 18.00 Monday) but none of them has the same Lordly gravitas – but all are bright and just like Carlile, have no experience in child abuse as far as we know. They are likely to miss the mark just as effectively as Carlile and for far less money.
But as we know this is Carlile’s ‘show’ -
• not for the kudos.
• not for the money.
• and not because he is subject literate.
So the question WHY? is valid.
If it’s a “matey” operation as 14.27 speculates, then who is the mate and what is the connection? By the way such mateyness should be disclosed at the outset, but often its ‘forgotten’ because it is speculated that no connection will ever be made.
Can someone enlighten me. Who will the actual report belong to when it is finished? Can the school or abbey authorities just chose to bury it if it contains bad new? Can they release an edited version with only the best parts for them or do they have to release it in full? Has anything been agreed.
ReplyDelete@ 13:38.
ReplyDeleteThe Trust of St Benedict's Abbey are paying for Lord Carlile's inquiry so they will own the final report. When they eventually receive it they can do exactly what they please with it.
You will probably recall the Abbot's original "Independent Review" carried out by a social work expert and the safeguarding officer for the diocese of Arundel and Brighton. The Abbot published an edited version of that report and I guess that he will attempt to do the same thing with this one.
Two enemies of safeguarding :
ReplyDeleteCommercialism : the principles and activity of commerce, especially those connected with profit and not quality or morals.
Reputation : the opinion that people in general have about someone or something, or how much respect or admiration someone or something receives, based on past behaviour or character.
Responding to the observations of 15.06, Serious Case Reviews are in future to be published in full. The past has often seen Executive Summaries which can be so manipulated that the subject of the Review is unidentifiable. Reported in Community Care Magazine the British Association of Social Workers said:
ReplyDelete“BASW believes that SCRs should be fully anonymised to protect the identities of the people involved in the cases and to avoid detracting from the real issues. They should be published in full so that everyone can understand clearly and transparently the complex situations that many professionals work hard to resolve and support."
In such circumstances it would be extremely unwise for Shipperlee to consider a précis of any report.
I have seen the original advert for the Carlile Inquiry in The Telegraph and I agree with everything that Mr West has said about it. I found it hidden in the 22nd October edition of the paper, in the bottom right hand corner of page 36, under the heading "Legal Notices".
ReplyDeleteThe capital letters are 1 millimetre high (I measured with a ruler) and my eyes hurt when I tried to read the text. It is the smallest lettering in the newspaper and Lord Carlile's email address has been left out. In fact it is so small and spidery that the whole advert blends into a grey blur and you have to squint at it.
I only found it because I had been told where to look, the truth is that it was never meant to be found. This is not a serious attempt to appeal for evidence and I would be very surprised if more than a handful of people ever saw it.
The School has done the bare minimum to live up to the promise of publicity in the national press that was made by the headmaster at the safeguarding meeting in September. If anyone feels that I am overstating the case, then I suggest that they reserve their judgement until they have been to their local library to look at the advert for themselves.
Michael.
In some ways the Telegraph ad, as described, is worse than no ad at all. The manner in which it was done is an insult to the victims (me being just one among so many) of sex abuse at the school. It mocks. It's saying "Look, the ad appeared in a national paper! What do you mean it was unreadable and hidden?"
ReplyDeleteAt least *no* ad would have said clearly "Fuck you all. We really don't care" - brutal but honest. This ad, however, continues the noble Benedictine tradition of saying "Fuck you all - but you'll never make it stick."
I made a written submission to the Carlile inquiry. I now rather wish I hadn't. I increasingly feel I've been suckered into an sham exercise designed to simultaneously fatten the wallets of the legal profession and further fortify the paedophiles and their protectors.
My only hope is that when (if?) the report ever comes out the anger felt by people like me will boil over and all hell will finally break loose. For the avoidance of doubt, I do not refer to any sort of physical action, deserved and satisfying though that might be. I refer to a shit-storm of protest and legal action the likes of which the Abbey cannot yet imagine.
You are correct 22.29 - this particular single advertisement in a single national newspaper is simply an insult to those who were abused at St Benedict's. But Carlile would not understand this because he is subject illiterate.
ReplyDeleteIs Carlile being taken for a sucker or is he party to this foolishness? Carlile's family is Polish - so this makes him either Catholic or Jewish. Does anyone know which?
Why on earth is he doing this job? As previous commenters have indicated there is something very odd about his involvement.
I can't believe people are thinking the essential nature of this inquiry is beginning to stink. There was even one guy who said he didn't trust the inquiry enough to come forward with evidence. I must admit I feel the same way. If the Abbey itself has sponsored the inquiry, and there is any evidence that Carlile is in any way "an inside man" then of course it stinks, but even so, let's see what he's got to say before rushing to judgement.
ReplyDeleteI agree - Carlile needs to be asked about these matters 23.13
ReplyDeleteI do personally have pertinent evidence relating to the early 1970s when I was at the school. Is it too late for me to submit this to this enquiry? I was a pupil at the school between 1971 and 1977.
ReplyDeleteI am posting under my real name and my email address is
jamesmiller@yourconvenience.co.uk
Can James Miller not read properly? The address to which he can submit evidence is plastered up and down this blog - twice on this page alone!
ReplyDelete08.46 - A sniffy posting from, one suspects, a sniffy teacher of a bullying disposition who has nothing to be sniffy about?
ReplyDeleteQ - where on this page is Carlile's email listed twice?
The answer will be fascinating.
What is the difference between: placing an illegible advertisement in a concealed location in a national newspaper which allegedly calls for evidence to be submitted to a London postal address, and a legible 1/4 page advertisement on P3 of the telegraph calling for evidence to be submitted 'in person to our offices in Haixi' central China.
ReplyDeleteNo difference at all - both are designed to generate as little evidence as possible.
For James:
ReplyDeleteLord Carlile of Berriew QC
c/o 9-12 Bell Yard
London, WC2A 2JR
Just in case you still haven't found it!
Well don't, for heaven’s sake, let's deprive 10:01 of a little fascination = the Carlile address is posted twice in Mr West's opening statement - THE TELEGRAPH ADVERT.
ReplyDelete.
ReplyDeleteWell that explains it, doesn't it? No one, but no one, reads what Mr West writes any more. After all, if you've read one of his statements, you've read the lot!
@19:35
ReplyDeleteThe question was "where on this page is Carlile's email listed twice?"
The answer is nowhere, because it was omitted from the advert.
Ah yes - but his address (not email address) is listed twice - but as in the advert, it is illegible on both occasions.
ReplyDeleteHistorical Allegations and Investigations into Child Protection Issues
ReplyDelete23rd November 2010
Dear Parents
Historical Allegations and Investigations into Child Protection Issues
As indicated at the Parental Forum in September, the police are conducting on-going investigations into a number of historical allegations made by former pupils of the School. The School and the Monastery continue to co-operate fully with these enquiries.
In one particular case charges have now been laid. These are in connection with David Pearce (currently serving a five year sentence) and John Maestri (a former lay teacher who left in1982). We understand these relate to incidents in 1978/1979. The two will shortly appear in Court.
We ask for your prayers for all affected by these latest allegations and for the School at this difficult time.
We know that Lord Carlile has gathered a comprehensive file of evidence in his review of safeguarding matters and is still planning to complete his report early in 2011.
Should you have any questions then please do contact us directly.
Yours sincerely
C J Cleugh R G Simmons
Headmaster Junior School Headmaster
Historical Allegations and Investigations into Child Protection Issues
23rd November 2010
Dear Parents
Historical Allegations and Investigations into Child Protection Issues
As indicated at the Parental Forum in September, the police are conducting on-going investigations into a number of historical allegations made by former pupils of the School. The School and the Monastery continue to co-operate fully with these enquiries.
In one particular case charges have now been laid. These are in connection with David Pearce (currently serving a five year sentence) and John Maestri (a former lay teacher who left in1982). We understand these relate to incidents in 1978/1979. The two will shortly appear in Court.
We ask for your prayers for all affected by these latest allegations and for the School at this difficult time.
We know that Lord Carlile has gathered a comprehensive file of evidence in his review of safeguarding matters and is still planning to complete his report early in 2011.
Should you have any questions then please do contact us directly.
Yours sincerely
C J Cleugh R G Simmons
Headmaster Junior School Headmaster
Once, twice...not at all??
ReplyDeleteMy goodness! Isn't this a complicated matter? This business of the Carlile address, I mean. Perhaps, I'm missing something? Though, I suspect not!
I see that Mr Cleugh and is announcing above that Father Dave and Maestri (sounds like pastry)will be back in Court soon. Does that mean they have already been charged with fresh offences?
ReplyDeleteI did wonder why Fr Dave was so keen to appeal his sentence. Did he not think he deserved 8 years?
I also see that Mr Cleugh (I assume he is Dach's successor) adds the (I assume obligatory) "call to prayer".
May I suggest that the Abbot and Monks of Ealing lead heed this call with daily and public chanting of the 7 Penitential Psalms (it's in the old Brev. Rom. gentlemen) flexis genibus please? What do we want? Reparation (ter).
How sad to see that the Crown Court at Isleworth will host (in all likelihood) another trial regarding abuse at St Benedict's.
.
ReplyDeleteNot sad at all, 21:29! The more the merrier - after all, it’s meat and drink to this blog!
22:48, do you support child abuse? You and your exclamation marks are all over these comment pages and I'm at a loss to understand how any reasonable person could be against discussing and reporting events at a school where many children had their lives ruined, precisely because no one would ever discuss the abuse outside the school.
ReplyDeleteHow on earth can you find this blog more offensive than the abuse (and the cover ups) that it discusses?
But it is sad for the victims of abuse 22.48 - that rampant child abuse was permitted to continue for decades with the full knowledge of the administration of St Benedict's school.
ReplyDeleteIt is no one's meat and drink, that is an appalling remark. Your arrogance is symptomatic of what is wrong at this institution which is why I would be happy to see the place deregistered.
22.48 - you are a vile piece of work that no amount of therapy could assist.
ReplyDeleteCleugh and Simmons have only issued the above letter to parents at 4.30 today as they have another parents forum tomorrow (Wed) to discuss sport issues and maybe answer questions afterwards about other topics of interest.
ReplyDeleteThe school has inspection next week from the Diocese.
Historic abuse.
ReplyDeleteThis is a pejorative description designed to minimise and dismiss such complaints. Extraordinarily it is commonly used by the Police, the CPS, and the courts, and it is wrong because before any investigation starts the complainant's position is being prejudiced and this continues throughout the entire process. Everyone except the complainant benefits from using this term and you might wonder why.
Police child protection units are massively under resourced. They struggle to deal with the abuse that came in last night involving children. Abuse from 30 years ago is dealt with in between the emergency cases. In Thames Valley child protection is 13th on the list of priorities – behind burglary and car theft. Police forces get no money for child protection and therefore it is an unrecoverable cost and as a result down the list of priorities. The pejorative term ‘historic’ hung on a complaint can all too easily mean – “as and when.”
The CPS loathes child sexual abuse complaints being filed in adulthood. The passage of time complicates these cases and they inevitably take longer to prosecute ruining CPS targets, so the pejorative term ‘historic’ is liberally used to let the complainant know that they have little chance. “It’s the problem with historical cases” can be heard along the corridors of the CPS. You also have barristers working for the CPS that are woefully inexperienced in the subject, and expensive defence lawyers who are top of their field. The playing field is woefully in favour of the defendant.
In Court 'historic' is used frequently to imply in the mind of the judge that this case should not be here. “This case is from yesteryear, how has this reached court?” The term historic is also used to imply that time has somehow eroded the veracity of the complaint. And perhaps this is why child abuse only manages the tiny conviction rate of 2% on those few criminal cases that manage to reach court.
Now we have Simmons and Cleugh using the same pejorative term for reasons known only to them. Perhaps their thinking includes - it did not happen on my watch! Historic = untrue. Nothing to do with us, therefore take no notice of it.
We now read that Pearce and Maestri are on their way back to court. Is their alleged abuse of children “historical” to the complainants? Absolutely not – it remains very current for each complainant.
All abuse is current until it has been reported to the authorities, investigated and been through the court services if wanted and if this is the appropriate course. Even at this point abuse remains current in the case of schools. The final part of the equation is for the school inspectorates to inspect against any further matters arising from court processes, no matter that the incidents occurred thirty forty years ago, it is vital they satisfy themselves that there is little likelihood of a repeat of abuse in similar circumstances.
At this point, such incidents can be described as historic, but certainly no earlier.
Incidentally, has anyone ever heard murder described as "historic?"
In his letter to parents dated 23 November, the headmaster refers to “historical allegations and investigations into child protection issues”. He makes it seem as if the alleged offences happened in the distant past, perhaps during the Norman Conquest or the Boer War.
ReplyDeleteIn fact the allegations relate to the late 1970’s when I was a pupil at the School.
Michael.
Yes, Michael, we all know that and, therefore, obviously read the headmaster's comments in the light of what we know!
ReplyDeleteHis vileness is back again!
ReplyDelete08:40 - Referring to past abuse, as opposed to current abuse, the word historic is normal terminology, used as you say by police and the judicial system. It is not intended to be pejorative and nor is it. It distinguished between cases where children are currently being abused and what has happened in the past. The former are an absolute priority for the police and also for the courts. Such cases are fast tracked into the system. The handling of historic cases varies from police service to police service. Whilst current abuse is always investigated by specialist officers, in some forces historic abuse is investigated by local police. Whatever else, the school should not be criticised for using appropriate terminology.
ReplyDeleteThank you 18.12 but you are mistaken.
ReplyDeleteThe CPS is currently looking at how this description came into their lexicon. The reason for their concern - the term is pejorative and prejudices an adult complainant of child abuse. The reasons are obvious especially to defence teams. HMCS is also considering the terminology for precisely the same reason. This is an important matter.
Take rape - is there historic rape? No.
So it is perfectly correct to bring this matter to the attention of the school that has for decades knowingly permitted child abuse to occur. When it became impossible not to ignore it members of staff were redeployed or sacked, but the school then broke the law by failing to return Notifications under the Education Acts. Children were expelled for speaking out. These actions indicate a setting which is prejudiced against complainants.
St Benedict's now has the opportunity of correcting any future statements by removing the word 'historic' so as not to knowingly prejudice complainants.
This might be a sign that the school intends turning a long overdue a new leaf on safeguarding.
Do let Mr Nelson know.
Remove the word 'historic' by all means. But I can't help remembering just how many contributions, not least from Mr West, have done their best to point up the historical nature of the Abbey's crimes. I recall one contributor, for instance, firmly trying to demonstrate that they went back right to the founding of the Abbey, as Ealing Priory. But, Oedipus Smedipus etc.
ReplyDeleteSome interesting thoughts on the abuse/corruption under 'Little Ted'. Take a look, especially @ 16:24.
ReplyDeleteI think, 21:07, that should be Schmedipus. :-)
ReplyDeleteA convenient mixing of two completely unconnected points 21.07.
ReplyDeleteAny port in a storm.
Sadly a new battleground is opening courtesy of Mr Gove and the safeguarding illiterate Children’s Minister Mr Tim Loughton. In today’s white paper "The Importance of Teaching – The schools whitepaper 2010." an intent of the coalition is to:
ReplyDelete“Protect teachers from malicious allegations – speeding up investigations and legislating to grant teachers anonymity when accused by pupils.”
This news comes when last week The Government abandoned plans to grant anonymity to those (predominantly men) accused of rape.
The announcement was made on Friday, always a good day to announce a U-turn, at the same time as the Ministry of Justice published the report it promised on the evidence for and against anonymity.
The report reveals no new data that might cast light on the issue, though it does promise that the MoJ will undertake further research into the level of false allegations. A high level of false claims would be the only rational base for providing anonymity to defendants, but the existing statistics are unhelpful, as Straight Statistics has reported earlier.
The mystery is why the Coalition Government ever made the undertaking, not why it has now withdrawn it. Given the lack of any decent measure of concoction, the justice minister Crispin Blunt was always facing an uphill struggle to win over sceptics.
The same lack of statistics exists in child abuse – but the teaching lobby is huge and powerful. The lobby group for abused children – non-existent.
Gove and Loughton have not thought through the mechanics of this and it is a sop to the unions at the expense of safeguarding. Legislating for this whim should be almost impossible, and frankly I cannot see how it will work.
Thank you to the contributor who gave a detailed and plausible argument against the use of the word 'historic' - which struck me as odd when I first read it. Presumably Cleugh's letter was written by the school's solicitors in Bristol, who know all about downplaying child abuse.
ReplyDeleteHas anyone written to Carlile to ask him why he has undertaken this enquiry when he is not an expert on child abuse?
Two really great point there 22:24.
ReplyDeleteRight on! This blog's getting really 'in depth' and tough. Serious stuff from serious folks - I love it.
ReplyDeletePeter
Yup, we're all learning so much, it's great. Especially about the subtleties of legal usage, of course. Thank you all so much, it's all so wonderfully educative.
ReplyDeleteHere we go...another rude Abbeyvista posting! They make me sick. Yes, sick. They really just don't care for children, at least not in the way we guys, who've actually been children, do.
ReplyDeleteA new battleground is opening courtesy of Mr Gove and the Children’s Minister Mr Tim Loughton. In today’s white paper “The Importance of Teaching – The schools whitepaper 2010.,” An intent of the coalition is to:
ReplyDelete“Protect teachers from malicious allegations – speeding up investigations and legislating to grant teachers anonymity when accused by pupils.”
This news comes when last week The Government abandoned plans to grant anonymity to those (predominantly men) accused of rape.
The announcement was made on Friday, always a good day to announce a U-turn, at the same time as the Ministry of Justice published the report it promised on the evidence for and against anonymity.
The report reveals no new data that might cast light on the issue, though it does promise that the MoJ will undertake further research into the level of false allegations. A high level of false claims would be the only rational base for providing anonymity to defendants, but the existing statistics are unhelpful, as Straight Statistics has reported earlier.
The mystery is why the Coalition Government ever made the undertaking, not why it has now withdrawn it. Given the lack of any decent measure of concoction, the justice minister Crispin Blunt was always facing an uphill struggle to win over sceptics.
The same lack of statistics exists in child abuse – but the teaching lobby is powerful and demands the attention of the Government. Meanwhile the lobby group for abused children is non-existent.
Gove and Loughton have not thought through this sop to the unions at the expense of safeguarding. Legislating for this whim should be almost impossible.
Come off it!
ReplyDeleteAlmost every teacher and the government realise that children have very fertile imaginations which today are liberally fed on all sides, especially by film and television. This is no 'sop' but the kind of balanced common sense that is, on occasion, all too sadly lacking on this blog.
Come off it, indeed! Surely you're not seriously suggesting, 11:07, that any pupil from St Benedict's would ever, under any circumstances, exaggerate the facts or over-egg the pudding in any way? What nonsense! These boys, each and every one, are patently quite beyond reproach.
ReplyDeleteReally, given the well-publicised appalling nature of their education and educators? Personally, I'm not convinced.
ReplyDelete11:22, I have to disagree - I'm sure that a great many former pupils from St Benedict's are fantasists and inveterate liars who are prone to exaggeration. How could they not be, given the teachers they've had?
ReplyDelete