tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6518202135348193859.post4414934136211144783..comments2024-01-25T09:28:56.610+00:00Comments on Confessions of a skeptic: The Abbot's letter to parentsJonathan Westhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00527063732905729010noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6518202135348193859.post-78371384090116246182010-05-29T12:15:18.986+01:002010-05-29T12:15:18.986+01:00So one of more of the elderly denizens of Charlbur...So one of more of the elderly denizens of Charlbury Grove seem to know how to use computers, judging by some of the trolling in the comment sections of JW's blogs. <br /><br />It will be interesting to see what the Church does when it finally decides to try to suppress its critics in relation to the decades of sexual abuse of boys at our old school and the related cover-ups. There again, as Archbishop Nichols appears to have suggested that he has no authority or jurisdiction over Ealing Abbey, perhaps we are dealing with a new breakaway Benedictine order that is not part of the Church of Rome. <br /><br />I have known a number of ex-Ampleforth boys and would say that their accounts mirror those of former Benny Boys who suffered or witnessed the depredations of the likes of Pearce, Soper and others.Prosper Keatingnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6518202135348193859.post-76325990197428738612010-05-29T01:56:11.312+01:002010-05-29T01:56:11.312+01:00I went to this school during the late 80's and...I went to this school during the late 80's and early 90's, all the boys in my year knew about Father David....Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6518202135348193859.post-75514606556804277702010-05-08T09:10:57.414+01:002010-05-08T09:10:57.414+01:00Until the Board of Governors (BoG's), called s...Until the Board of Governors (BoG's), called school advisors at St B's it seems, realise that St Benedict's has a serious safeguarding issue, then little is going to change. It is they who are ultimately responsible for embedding effective safeguarding into the school with one Governor having to be named at the 'Designated Governor' responsible for safeguarding. Looking at the BoG’s page on the school website the designated governor is unidentified. This runs contra to DCSF guidance. Why did the Independent School Inspectorate (ISI) pick this up in their most recent inspection of the school? <br /><br />St Benedict's board like most in similar settings will remain inert convincing eachother that "this all happened a long-time ago and it’s not like this anymore." Such thinking is convenient, mistaken and common of BoG's, and of course it 'thankfully' means they do not have to do anything.<br /><br />What is needed at St B's? A complete open review of safeguarding and its failures back to the 60's. The review needs to be commissioned with an independent and credible body - I can suggest one that we can all have confidence in. The range of issues that need to be reviewed in this setting are significant and include the issuing by the school of Notifications under the Educations Acts and the inspection of these by the questionably competent ISI - the dubiously named peer review body. Events at St Benedict's are as bad if not worse than the abuse at Ampleforth in which an individual completely independent of the school forced the Abbot to call in the police. Unfortunately Ampleforth chose not to have a complete and open review of safeguarding despite the numerous convictions. <br /><br />Sacrificial resignations are pointless especially when those people have important information to contribute to an inquiry – let’s have an inquiry and following the publication of their findings they should set out their recommendations which will provide us with confidence for the future.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6518202135348193859.post-50826190655233997042010-05-07T16:19:44.801+01:002010-05-07T16:19:44.801+01:00The monastic community at ealing abbey appears to ...The monastic community at ealing abbey appears to be in denial about its past and this is not confined to the scandal around FrDavid Pearce but over a much longer period of time . None of us outside of that community will ever know if its members agonisely kept suspicions to themselves but unable to act because of loyalty and the reputation of the comunity being at stake . Many will undoubtedly take those issues to the grave but those that remain even those untainted by history or ignorance of events (and there will be some !) there remains a major issue of the community's credibility at stake . this community desperately needs help to come terms with its past and the resignation of the current ABbot may be a step forward to acknowledge this cleansing process that needs to begin !I write as someone with a professional background in child protection .Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6518202135348193859.post-68216205757616586482010-05-04T12:54:10.820+01:002010-05-04T12:54:10.820+01:00To the poster at 1 May 2010 23:25 - you make a fal...To the poster at 1 May 2010 23:25 - you make a false dichotomy.<br />"the staff and the Heads are really caring and good Christian people" <br />This may well be true, but that doesn't mean they are right, or that they are properly informed about child abuse, or that they have effective policies to deal with it. It's perfectly possible to be well meaning but wrong. <br />I haven't read any accusation that the staff and heads at the school don't care, but there is plenty or evidence that their systems were not good enough (Pearce's long career as an abuser is a case in point) and the evidence that they have now addressed the issue properly is somewhat lacking too. Under the circumstances the onus is surely on the school to show that it has taken critism on board and that it has in place effective policies now. It's nothing to do with whether they are nice people or not.<br />"and we have no doubt whatsoever that if anything was reported it would not be covered up, or swept under the table, but passed on to the local authority" - If you really "have no doubt" I wonder whether you have really followed the case in detail. Pearce was already on resticted ministry (finally!) when he found it possible to abuse again. What makes you think the system has improved? All the evidence (as in the Abbey's own stated policy documents) suggest the system for dealing with accusations of abuse is still not adequate and does not match the standards expected by child protection experts. <br />What's more, the Abbey still seems reluctant to deal with the historic abuse and the outstanding allegations against monks and staff. The past is indeed the past, but as you should know if you read the evidence in any abuse case, the effects persist long into the victims' lives, and as long as people are still able to abuse, historic abuse is relevant.<br />I can understand that you may still be unwilling to believe allegations against people you like, trust and respect. Both Maestri and Pearce were well-known to my family and Maestri was often a guest of my parents'. Finding out about them has been a horrible shock. Of course, this trust has made it harder for their victims to be believed, and seems to have encouraged Pearce at least to believe he could get away with it. <br />The point is that *he was right* - he DID get away with it, for years!Sarahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16288917377032021803noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6518202135348193859.post-46695699362433971462010-05-02T21:20:27.472+01:002010-05-02T21:20:27.472+01:0023.25 01May is an interesting post with which some...23.25 01May is an interesting post with which some parents will be in agreement. My reply is made from significant experience of abuse in schools, and I am not associated in any way with St Benedict’s. <br /><br />The poster’s comments suggest that s/he is a former or current parent and someone who has in the past made a decision to send their chid/ren to St Benedict’s. A number of default dynamics tend to occur among the various ‘stakeholders’ when abuse bob’s to the surface having been trapped like a Mine out of sight for many years. 23.25’s post is an example, and the author uses a number of arguments which are deployed by parents at similar settings because they seem logical, considered and worthy. When analysed with an understanding of institutional abuse they take on another hue. <br /><br />To dismiss concern about an institution as a “personal attack”(sic) is common. It is designed to silence Mr West because 23.25 does not like what s/he is hearing. Why so? Well let’s not forget that Mr West is effectively criticising an institution which was chosen by 23.25 to educate his/her son. It is common for some parents to illogically man the ramparts in defence of an institution when their silence would be far better. Parental defence is unwise for a number of reasons too many and complex to detail here. It is a subject that requires dialogue which includes the effects of institutional abuse on students. Sadly when the subject of abuse arises adult logic needs to be switched off. 23.25’s ‘logic’ is noticeably ‘on.’ <br /><br />The question asked at the start of the author’s second paragraph causes one to double take, but only for a femtosecond. <i>“Do you really think people would send their children to this school if anything that we have read concern us?”</i> It is a question asked at the wrong time and in the wrong tense and it is foolish for reasons which will not escape the attention of most readers. Also 23.25 does not seem to understand the un-wisdom of the question s/he intended to ask. The NSPCC might assist with an explanation but perhaps if you decide to read <a href="http://www.childabusecommission.com/rpt/pdfs/" rel="nofollow">The Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse Reports</a> in Ireland you might eventually understand. The reading is extensive. <br /><br />The author’s comments worsen hereafter and it suggests we have someone in deep denial who is prepared to accept uncomplainingly the words of the administration of a setting which is firstly a business which happens to be in education, and which is also a charity for tax reasons. I can’t think of a single business in the last twenty years which has volunteered the worst of all news to the authorities, its client base or shareholders on a voluntary basis – can you?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6518202135348193859.post-26429071900603837872010-05-02T20:29:59.181+01:002010-05-02T20:29:59.181+01:00Mr. West don't be defected 30 years of abuse w...Mr. West don't be defected 30 years of abuse was covered up. It seems the Abbott is happy to take a hit for the failure in 2006 but draws the line on exposing what occurred in the 1975-2006 period. He appears to be concerned for previous Abbots reputations rather than doing the right thing. As for the previous contributor yes we all know abuse has occurred in other institutions and churches. The difference is <br />THEY DON'T TRY AND COVER IT UPAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6518202135348193859.post-80276577816172193292010-05-02T19:58:37.200+01:002010-05-02T19:58:37.200+01:00Hello Father Stan - how are you?Hello Father Stan - how are you?Jonathan Westhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00527063732905729010noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6518202135348193859.post-29405473257506528492010-05-02T19:18:15.742+01:002010-05-02T19:18:15.742+01:00I for one have followed your Blogs for several mon...I for one have followed your Blogs for several months, and in the whole can understand what I think you intended to do, but the readers’ comments are now dropping and I think this is because you’re blatant attack on this establishment, in fact it looks personal, which is not helpful for any potential victims or readers, you are tarnishing what seems to be a very good school with history of the past, and just look around Mr West it is not just the Church schools who have had this problem and I see no reference to other establishments on your blog highlighting any abuse, or asking people to comment on them, the past is the past so yes it is a personal attack by you.<br /><br />Do you really think people would send their children to this school if anything that we have read concern us? the staff and the Heads are really caring and good Christian people and we have no doubt whatsoever that if anything was reported it would not be covered up, or swept under the table, but passed on to the local authority. I think the recent case and your apology confirmed this, but no, you very quickly posted a new article like this one to attempt to slur the school. <br /><br />I am sorry you time as a parent at this School was an unhappy one but for us, it’s fantastic and we will look back with very warm heartfelt thanks.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6518202135348193859.post-47559828291879884972010-05-01T23:25:44.906+01:002010-05-01T23:25:44.906+01:00I attended the school in the early 80's. What ...I attended the school in the early 80's. What about other monks who disappeared? I just wonder whether any monk that left may have been aware of what was really going on and left in disgust? I can't see how lay staff and other monks could have been unaware of what Pearce was doing or at least have been suspicious of him. The whole school was mismanaged during my time there..........ineptitude was rife they seemed to be living off a reputation long lost. There was a lot of snobbish stuff - big fish in a small pond etc. Academic results were very poor. I just think the whole place was poor and am not wholly surprised to see that the abuse cases were so badly handled.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com