The St. Benedict's Child Protection Policy

One of the most disturbing aspects of the sexual abuse scandal at Ealing Abbey and St. Benedict's School is that the school has repeatedly failed to report allegations of abuse to the authorities.

If the school was serious about putting its house in order, you would have thought that the one thing they would do is to work as quickly and thoroughly as possible to make the school's safeguarding policy into a model of best practice.

One particular key point is that whenever there is an allegation or incident, not only of abuse, but also of misconduct related to safeguarding, the Local Authority Designated Officer for Child Protection (LADO) must be informed immediately.

The LADO has the training and independence to make a decision as to whether the allegation needs to be followed up, whether Social Services need to be called in to investigate, and whether a crime may have been committed and the police need to be involved. So, all allegations must be reported initially to the LADO.

But the school's policy doesn't say that. Section 30 of the policy says the following.

30. Action by the Designated Teacher

The action to be taken will:

a) conform to the local inter-agency procedures of the Ealing Safeguarding Children Board.

b) ensure that the school will not investigate concerns but refer them to the Local Authority Designated Officer (LADO), SSD or police.

c) satisfy the wishes of the complainant's parents, provided they have no interest which is in conflict with the pupil's best interests and that they are properly informed. Again, it may be necessary, after all appropriate consultation, to override parental wishes in some circumstances. If the Designated Teacher is concerned that disclosing information to parents would put a child at risk, he or she will take further advice from the relevant professionals before making a decision to disclose.

d) respect duties of confidentiality, so far as applicable.

e) ensure that a child’s interests are paramount.

f) ensure that, if there is room for doubt as to whether a referral to SSD should be made, the Designated Teacher will consult with the Local Authority Designated Officer (LADO) or other appropriate professionals on a no names basis without identifying the pupil. However, as soon as sufficient concern exists that a child may be at risk of significant harm, a referral will be made within 24 hours. If the initial referral is made by telephone, the Designated Teacher will confirm the referral in writing to SSD within 24 hours. If no response or acknowledgment is received within three working days, the Designated Teacher will contact Social Services again. The Designated Teacher will agree with the recipient of the referral what the child and parents will be told, by whom and when.

Item (a) shouldn't need to be said, the school's policy as written should already conform to those procedures. It also is a copout in that the school is claiming to follow procedures which it neither publishes not makes a direct reference to. The parent is left with the job of trying to find out what those procedures are.

Item (b) is wrong, the school should immediately report to the LADO. The LADO then makes the decision to bring in other agencies as needed. If the school contacts other agencies directly, this should be in addition to its report to the LADO, not as an alternative.

Item (c) is very dangerous. It has happened in many independent schools that the school has persuaded the parents of a victim that the last thing that their child needs is the further trauma of answering questions, and so the parents' consent to notify the authorities is withheld. So, the child and its family don't get the professional help and support they need at a very traumatic time, and the actions of the alleged abuser don't get properly investigated. And so the abuse can continue. Such a scenario is entirely consistent with this clause of the school's child protection policy, and completely undermines any claim that the school will automatically report all incidents.

Item (c) is also inconsistent with item (e). If the child's interests are to be regarded as paramount, then automatic reporting must occur, so that the necessary professional support is made available to the child.

Item (f) is also dangerous. We don't need weasel words about cases of doubt. If there is any doubt, you report to (not consult with) the LADO anyway, and then let the LADO decide whether a referral to SSD (Social Services Department) is needed.

There are several other severe shortcomings in the school's safeguarding policy. If the school wanted to make sure it prevented any repetition of the errors of the past, it should have been as keen as mustard to make the safeguarding policy an absolute model of clarity and thoroughness. Instead, the policy has been left muddled and contradictory, and with no more than grudging improvements on the policy in place at the time of Father David Pearce's sentencing, which was one long excuse never to report anything to the authorities.

The policy is better than it was, but in the circumstances parents had a right to expect a whole lot more than this. There is no justification for waiting for Lord Carlile to report before doing anything, these shortcomings have been obvious for ages and work should have started immediately. If Lord Carlile happened to make additional recommendations, then they could be added to the policy afterwards.

But the school hasn't done that, they have done the bare minimum. This doesn't offer confidence that they are serious about safeguarding. If the policy were left as it is now, then when Lord Carlile's fees have been paid, the press has lost interest and the parents have forgotten about the brouhaha, this policy would enable an abuser to get into the school and not be detected and reported for some time. And then we will be back where we started. It's just not good enough.

Back in the beginning

The Daily Mail article has prompted me to take a look back at the first article about Ealing Abbey that I wrote here, way back in August 2009, Catholic clerical abuse at Ealing Abbey and St. Benedict's School.

I think it is worth re-emphasising the main points I made in that original article.

• I made it clear that I did not blame the ordinary Catholics who attend Mass at the Abbey, I acknowledged that they had no idea what was going on.
• I suggested that the Abbey's records on all matters of complaints or allegations of sexual abuse connected to the Abbey should be independently reviewed.
• I suggested that provisions should be made for counselling and pastoral care to be provided to victims, including those who had not yet come forward.
• I suggested that a full and unreserved public apology be issued.
• I suggested that the parish and the schools review their child protection policies.
• And finally, I hoped that those involved in putting things right avoid getting into a siege mentality.

In my naivity back then, it seemed to me that this was a very reasonable and moderate set of suggestions, which no reasonable person, Catholic or otherwise, would have any difficulty with, given the awful truth that had recently come to light about Father David Pearce.

I wasn't asking for the school to be demolished or for the monastery to be dissolved. I wasn't branding all catholics as child abusers or suggesting that the pope was the Antichrist. All I was asking was that the mistakes of the past be acknowledged, the victims be apologised to, and measures be taken to make sure that this can never happen again.

It is now 2 years and 2 months since that original article. Had there been a determination on the part of the Abbot to do so, almost all these things could have been achieved 2 years ago. Each passing month lessened my respect for Abbot Martin and increased my conviction that he was deliberately hiding matters that had not yet come to light, and hoping that it would all blow over.

In December 2009, the Charity Commission published the report of its two Statutory Inquiries into Ealing Abbey. I had no hand in them being set up, they started before I ever became aware of the issue. Publication of the reports had been delayed until after the trial of Pearce had been concluded. The local MP Andy Slaughter said that he had never seen such a damning and critical report from the Charity Commission

In February, what purported to be the report of an "Independent Review" commissioned by the Abbot was published. I later learned who had conducted the inquiry, and a friend of mine spoke to him concerning the circumstances under which it had been carried out. It turned out that:

• the terms of reference were the Abbey only, not the school, 
• it was a paper-only review, nobody was interviewed.
• the reviewer visited for only half a day
• the review addressed only the period covering the abuse of Pearce's last victim, when Pearce was already under restrictions
• the reviewer was not told about the duration and number of Pearce's other known crimes, though he inferred that other crimes not disclosed had been committed.

Despite this, the report was placed on the school website as being the fulfilment of the Abbot's promise of an independent review.

As my concerns increased, and as more facts came to light, I wrote to the Independent Schools Inspectorate and the Department for Education expressing my concerns. The DfE's response was to order the ISI to make an additional unannounced inspection, which resulted in a critical report the like of which had never previously been published by the ISI. This inspection took place at the end of April 2010, six months after my original blog article.

That report was published in July 2010, but not sent to parents until September. In the meantime of course, the cheques for another term's school fees had been sent to the school and banked. By this time, publicity was growing, there had been articles in the Times and there was a degree of restiveness among parents. So a Parental Forum was held, at which two mutually contradictory lines were pursued by the Abbot and headmaster. The first was that the abuse was all in the past, nobody involved with the abuse had any current connection with the school, all was now well and parents had no reason to be concerned. The second line was that this was all so serious that the school had decided to commission Lord Carlile to conduct an independent review.. (The earlier review was conveniently forgotten.)

The first approach was holed below the waterline when a perceptive parent asked if there had been any recent allegations of abuse against monks or members of staff apart from those mentioned in the ISI report. There was dead silence in the room for several seconds, before the headmaster admitted that a current member of staff was at present suspended following allegations of misconduct. (That member of staff was subsequently returned to duties, and the headmaster wrote to all parents on his return. The letter didn't state whether the allegations had been substantiated, but did say that the staff member concerned had been given training in "communication skills". The staff member has since been given additional pastoral duties.)

In June last year, I learned of the connection between Father Gregory Chillman and St. Augustine's Priory School. I also learned of allegations of misconduct by Father Gregory in his role as Chaplain there. There had already been allegations made publicly in the comments of the blog dating from his days as a teacher at St. Benedict's. I took a look at the school's child protection policy on the school website, and saw that it was so bad it made the St Benedict's policy look like a model of thoroughness and diligence in comparison. So I wrote again to the ISI and DfE, passing on the allegations I had received and requesting that they look into it. As it happened, St Augustine's had recently joined the Independent Schools Council, and had just had an ISI inspection in March, and the report had not yet been issued.

The ISI's final report was as critical of St Augustine's as the report of the special inspection had been of St. Benedict's. But rather than accept the report and make the necessary improvements, Mrs Gumley Mason sought Judicial Review of the report in the High Court. Judicial Review is a hard thing to obtain. In order to get an administrative decision by a public body overturned on Judicial Review, you have to demonstrate that the original decision is so perverse that no honest and reasonable person with two braincells to rub together could possibly have reached the original decision. Nearly a year after the original inspection, the report was finally published, still containing all the criticisms the school had complained about.

In June this year, I wrote to the new Papal Nuncio. I summarised my concerns regarding the abbey and both schools, providing brief histories of the key people involved. When I met the Nuncio at the end of July, he told me that he had been so concerned about the letter that he had researched the matter, and as a result had contacted Rome. Cardinal Levada, head of the CDF, had ordered an Apostolic Visitation, which would start in September and be conducted by Bishop John Arnold (auxiliary bishop of the diocese of Westminster) and Abbot Richard Yeo (Abbot President of the English Benedictine Congregation).

So this isn't just a matter of some sad obsessed individual with a grudge against the school (which is how the Abbey has portrayed me to journalists recently). My concerns were well-founded, the authorities agreed with me and have conducted investigations, the results of which so far have borne out my concerns.

In his prizegiving day address in September 2010, Mr Cleugh used the occasion to express his belief that the recent publicity seemed "hell-bent on trying to discredit the School and, at the same time, destroy the excellent relationship between School and Monastery",and speculated that it was "part of an anti-Catholic movement linked to the papal visit". This is not the attitude of a man who thinks that there is any need for improvements.

If I were as anti-Catholic as Mr. Cleugh appears to suggest, I would be taking no trouble at all over the safety of Catholic children. It is after all mainly the children of Catholics who attend Catholic schools. If I were anti-Catholic, I would say that it served them right and leave them to stew in their own juice. But in fact, I believe that the children of Catholics have as much right to be safe in their schools as any other children.

The next chapter will open next week, with the release of the Carlile Report. I very much hope that this will finally set the abbey and St Benedict's School on a new path where the evils of the past are acknowledged and apologised for, and work is finally started in earnest to ensure that this cannot happen again. I do not wish to see the closure of the school. For as long as there are parents who wish for a private Catholic education for their children, the existence of independent Catholic schools is entirely valid. All I expect is that those schools provide the highest standards of safeguarding for the children in their care.

More in the press

The Daily Mail has a piece about Ealing Abbey today.: Predators at the Abbey.

The Mail describes the ghastly experiences of a boy it calls Jeff (not his real name), and then goes on to describe an even more shocking incident.

In an apparent fit of despair, one of his friends in the middle school, Lewis de Luca, shot himself in the temple with an airgun at 16. It took 13 months for him to die.

An inquest heard that he had become depressed after being accused — falsely, he insisted — of stealing a tennis racquet at St  Benedict’s, and expelled on the eve of his O Levels. Jeff is convinced it was the paedophile masters who really drove him to his death.

At 13, he says, Lewis had been one of the school’s most popular boys — outgoing, handsome and a champion athlete. Then he was summoned to a monk’s office where it seems he was violently assaulted. Jeff saw him emerge white-faced and trembling with his trousers soiled.

‘Lewis was terribly abused; broken down,’ he told me. ‘You just knew. I left the school at 13, and lost touch with him, and then one day I heard he was dead. I am absolutely convinced it had something to do with what happened to him at that school.’

Having followed the unfolding scandal at St Benedict’s, Lewis de Luca’s mother Rosalind harbours the same suspicions.

The experience of losing her teenage son was so devastating, she told me, that for many years she blanked out many memories. But now she remembers how he came home one day and told her someone, a teacher, had ‘made a pass’ at him, and he had made it clear he wasn’t interested.

She hadn’t thought this incident to be serious, but now wonders whether it was a hint of something far more sinister. ‘It’s very disturbing for a mother to think he might have been subjected to abuse and couldn’t tell me about it,’ she said. ‘It’s such a horrible feeling. In those days, I’d heard about Gay Dave, but I thought the boys were making it up. I didn’t think it was happening. They were priests. Men of God. I just didn’t believe they could go around doing that sort of thing.’

Mrs de Luca, I don't know if you will ever read this blog, but if you do, please realise that if Lewis was sexually abused, it is no surprise that he was unable to tell you at the time. Because of the psychological manipulations carried out by their abusers, many victims are unable to tell anybody at all for many years, and a significant proportion feel unable to come forward until both their parents are dead, because they cannot bear the distress it would cause to those they love the most.

If Lewis couldn't tell you it is not because you are a bad parent, almost certainly it is because you are a good parent and he was trying to protect you as well as he knew how.

I have heard of other suicides amongst pupils and former pupils of St. Benedict's. It is of course impossible to prove that those pupils were abused or that there was a connection between the abuse and the suicide. That is something known only to their abusers, and they aren't likely to admit it, even to themselves. It is to prevent more pupils going through the experiences described by Jeff, and to reduce the risk of suicides such as Lewis's that I will not rest until I am satisfied that the child protection measures at the school and Abbey have been made a model of best practice, and that there has been a complete change of culture there, from the denial that exists now to one of awareness and education in these issues.

From a parent

Below is an open letter about St Benedict‘s School from a parent of a child who attended this school between the age of 7 and 18. For entirely understandable reasons the parent wishes to remain anonymous.

=====================

The revelations about the child abuse that went on at St Benedict’s School for a period of about 40 years are distressing. As a parent one attempts to do the very best for one’s child; this included a Catholic and Christian education at what was then known to be an excellent private Catholic school in West London. The struggle to find the fees was thought to be well worth while for the prize of a place at St Benedict’s.

My son was taught religion by Father David Pearce and Father Pearce was also his form master. As “Captain David” he ran the Cadet Corps which involved going away to camp in Wales. This priest, as we all now know, is serving 8 years, (now reduced to 5 years) imprisonment for child abuse. One trusted these priests and the lay teachers, as one consigned to their care, the most precious commodity – a child.

My son did not really achieve what he should have done at St Benedict’s, although with much parental support and help he has turned out to be a model and responsible citizen, with a good career and a happy marriage. His success in life has come through his own efforts with strong family support and not, I regret to say, from his time at St Benedict’s which made him under achieve and with left him with a contempt for authority. I now understand why.

When the news broke about Father David, my son’s reaction was “Oh, I am not surprised it’s him, but there was one monk, much worse that has not been mentioned”. I had had no inkling at all before this that anything inappropriate had gone on. My cousin’s son, also a pupil at St Benedict’s at about the same time, similarly never raised with his family any inappropriate behaviour, yet both boys were obviously aware that “things were not right”. I suppose some strange code of schoolboy behaviour prevented them from saying anything. 

My son, regularly returned home from the Rugby field, dressed in two shirts (possibly not his) no socks or two pairs of socks and clothes thrown on any old how; my reaction to that was that boys did not care, and paid no attention to how they dressed. Now I learn that Father David appeared in the changing rooms complete with ciné camera and, with hindsight, I now realise the need for speedy dressing. It never dawned on me at the time that anything could be wrong; my son never complained. 

Likewise my cousin’s son mentions a group of boys going up to one monk’s office to stand outside and make a noise, whilst one of their friends was inside being “chastised”. This was their effort to ensure that the headmaster knew they were there, so nothing “inappropriate” might happen to their friend. My worried question to my son “were you.....?” was answered by “don’t worry Mum, I knew enough to keep out of his way”. Really? Is this the best St Benedict’s could offer its children? 

My question to the monks and lay teachers at St Benedicts is this: How over a period of nearly forty years did all this abuse go undetected? Within any organisation, especially one as close-knit as an abbey, can no-one else, ever have raised or had any suspicion about what was going on? I am afraid it beggars belief.

Careful wording of documents issued from the abbey can confuse the issue. Does one need to know “officially” about child abuse before deciding to take action? Letters stating that “I am sorry you feel you were let down” puts the blame on the victims. Fathers, we don’t just feel we were let down. Five or six child abusers in one school? We were let down and badly. 

We now hear that Father Lawrence Soper, has failed to turn up for police questioning or “jumped bail” as eloquently reported in the national press a few days ago. It is a wild stretch of the imagination to believe that this 80 year old, known to the boys as Father Florence, has simply gone on the run. Obviously someone, somewhere is looking after him, caring for him and giving him succour. I only hope and pray that this won’t turn out to be a Benedictine monastery or convent somewhere in Europe.

As for my son? His “caring” Catholic and Benedictine education has made him “not officially” a practicing Catholic. Not quite the hoped for result in sending him for a good Catholic education. With whom, Fathers, rests the responsibility for his lost Soul?

Catherine Pepinster

In her column in The Tablet, Catherine Pepinster has been lamenting the defilement of Ealing Abbey, which she regarded as "a very special home for me". I have a good deal of sympathy for her. I would like to address this blog article to Catherine Pepinster, going over some of the issues raised in her article.

Several years ago, I clearly remember being at Mass in my parish and thinking at the Consecration: imagine if the hands that held the host were the hands of someone who had assaulted a child. To those who are not Catholic, such a thought would be meaningless alongside the horror of a vulnerable child being abused. But it would make any Catholic shudder. Might I have had any inkling of what was to come? A short while later, a priest friend asked to meet me. Something was clearly up yet it never occurred to me - not once - that this Benedictine monk whom I'd known most of my life was to tell me that he was accused of abusing children.

Today, Fr David Pearce is in prison.

Catherine has previously gone on record as having been a longstanding friend of Father David, and I entirely sympathise with her shock about this. Clever career paedophiles are very good at polishing their outward appearance of respectability. The primary damage they do is to their child victims. But while it doesn't compare in seriousness to the damage done to children, it is worth acknowledging the damage done to the adults who were taken in by that outward show of respectability. Father David was the very epitome of this. What could possibly be more respectable than a monk, priest, teacher, former dentist, TA officer? All jobs which earn people's trust. There is no disgrace in having been taken in by such a very plausible liar.

Three of his fellow Ealing Abbey monks have been investigated as well. One has been restricted in his dealings with children; another was found not guilty but after his acquittal was asked to leave the monastery. The third, Fr Laurence Soper, is wanted by the police after failing to answer bail. He is thought to be somewhere in Italy.

I'm sorry to have to break this to you Catherine, but there are more than this. The ISI report last year mentioned six separate cases, five monks and one lay teacher. Four of the five monks are Father David Pearce, Father Gregory Chillman, Father Stanislaus Hobbs, and Abbot Laurence Soper. I have a good idea who the fifth is, (he no longer lives at the Abbey) but I haven't had sufficient confirmation yet to justify naming him.

But in addition to those five, and John Maestri (the lay teacher referred to in the ISI report), Father Kevin Horsey would very likely have been charged by now had he not died in 2006.

The fallout from this scandal continues, day after day, in Ealing. Monks who have given their lives to the Church, to their order, to their school, and to the parish, and who are innocent of any crime, are now viewed by some with suspicion.

That suspicion is understandable. Not only because people will be wondering whether somebody else will be charged with abuse, but because they will also be wondering who knew about the abuse, and covered it up.

The individual who was found not guilty of abuse was made to leave the monastery, under pressure from the diocese.

The way you have presented this suggests that you might have been misinformed about the circumstances. The monk in question is Father Stanislaus Hobbs, and he has indeed been moved out of the monastery. And I don't doubt that pressure from the diocese was a factor. But the primary insistence on this came from the Department for Education.

Hobbs was indeed acquitted in 2007 of the charge made against him. But in the course of police questioning, recorded and played during the trial, he admitted to a similar indecent assault on the same boy during a school trip to Italy. Because of the way the law stood at the time, that assault could not be prosecuted in the UK because it took place abroad. the defence argued that the victim had made up the story of the assault in the UK because he knew that the assault in Italy couldn't be prosecuted. The jury decided there was reasonable doubt and acquitted, as they had every right to do.

The Independent Schools Inspectorate, the Department for Education, Ealing Social Services and the diocese all formed the view that Hobbs on balance of probability was a danger to children, since there was a recorded admission of an assault on a child, even though no prosecution could result from it.

The ISI in its recent report on the school advised that the trustees should "Ensure that any staff or members of the religious community live away from the school, if they are subject to allegations of misconduct related to safeguarding or convicted of wrongdoing." On the basis of that recommendation and in the light of Hobbs' own admission, there was no way that his continued presence at the Abbey could be justified. And yet the Abbey fought tooth and nail to prevent his removal. Why?

And the monk you mention who "has been restricted in his dealings with children" by the same token also ought not still to be at the Abbey. He would hardly be restricted unless he too had been found to be a danger to children, and yet he remains at the Abbey, in defiance of the ISI recommendation. Have you attempted to find out why this is so?

There have been rows between parishioners with very different opinions, from those who think that a priest in prison is evil and should have no contact with any of us, not even a Christmas card, to others who refuse to believe that "Father" could possibly have done anything wrong and it's all a plot by the anti-Catholic media.

I can believe it. Those who claim it is all an anti-Catholic plot include the headmaster of the school Mr Christopher Cleugh, who used his prizegiving day speech in September 2010 to press that line. In front of several hundred assembled staff, pupils and parents, he said "Recent media and blog coverage seems hell-bent on trying to discredit the School and, at the same time, destroy the excellent relationship between School and Monastery. Is this part of an anti-Catholic movement linked to the papal visit? I do not know, but it feels very much as if we are being targeted." Has it occurred to you that at least some of those who complain most loudly about anti-catholic plots might be doing so in order to divert attention from genuine catholic abuses which they have committed, or at least know about?

There is also a great deal of suspicion about the past. When Fr Laurence Soper was abbot and suddenly resigned, we were never given any formal explanation. Then a story floated which seemed to stick: that he'd had a row with his brethren about the cost of the church extension. Or did he flee because there were already complaints about his behaviour towards young boys?

I think you are right to be suspicious. It is perhaps a pity that your suspicions weren't aroused earlier. One of the things school inspectors are supposed to be trained to do is regard any sudden departure of somebody from a school setting as worthy of detailed investigation, especially if it occurs in the middle of the school year, and even more so if it occurs in the middle of a school term. All such sudden departures are supposed to be checked during an inspection. The majority do have an entirely innocent explanation - a move to a better job at another school, a departure for reasons of illness or to look after a sick relative. But concealed amongst them can be departures that are actually for reasons of abuse, which the school has kept quiet about because they don't want the adverse publicity. This it seems is how John Maeastri's departure from the school was handled, it was put about that he had left for reasons of ill health. And for that matter, ill-health was also given as the reason for Father Gregory Chillman's retirement as a governor of St Augustine's Priory School last year.

If it turns out that Soper did skip town because of complaints about his behaviour (for instance, possibly at Feltham Young Offenders Institute, of which he was a visiting chaplain until he left for Rome), then the rumour put out about the row over the church extension must have been a lie, and known to be a lie by those who spread the story, and know to be a lie by Abbot Martin Shipperlee, who clearly did nothing to prevent the story from being accepted.

And what of Fr David: how long did other monks know of his activities? What secrets were kept hidden for so long

I can answer that for you. His abuses were kept secret for at least 15 years, and possibly considerably longer. He "retired" as Junior School Headmaster at the end of 1992, as a direct result of complaints about abuses. I have spoken to the victim concerned. But he wasn't removed from the Abbey, he was instead made Bursar of the school, and as far as I am aware remained associated with the Cadet Corps. Later, he was even given additional responsibilities within the Abbey, being appointed Novice Master in 2004. This was at the time the diocesan safeguarding adviser, Peter Turner, was advising the Abbey that Pearce should be placed on restrictions because there had by now been several independent and credible complaints against him. That advice was ignored by Abbot Martin Shipperlee.

In 2006, the boy known as "C" sued the Abbey and Pearce for damages resulting from Pearce's abuse of him when he was a pupil in the school in the period 1989-93. The Abbey fought the case and lost. Damages were awarded to the value of £43,000. I have been told by a number of parishioners that the story put out was that the case had been settled out of court, not because the abuse had occurred, but out of consideration for the claimant's fragile mental state. This was of course a complete lie.

But at least after this, the Abbot, under pressure from the diocese, did finally put Pearce on restricted ministry. But you appear not to have known that he had been put on restrictions - it seems that very few people did know that he had been restricted, and even fewer knew the real reason why. At the sentencing hearing of Pearce's trial in 2009, the prosecution read out part of a letter from Abbot Martin which stated that the restrictions were "to protect Father David from unfounded allegations", whereas in fact the allegations were all too well-founded, as Abbot Martin knew perfectly well.

And problems with several monks from the same monastery: is that bad luck or symptomatic of a failure in leadership?

You don't get a mess like Ealing, with multiple abusers able to operate unchecked over a period of many years, without there having been serious management failures at many levels. The earliest account of abuse I have been told about dates back to the late 1940s. Here we are, over 60 years later, and the Abbey has not yet come to grips with the problem.

Yes, of course the Abbey's leadership has failed in the most catastrophic way imaginable. But the failings haven't ended there. The Abbot President of the English Benedictine Congregation is supposed to advise the Abbot. Whatever advice was given doesn't seem to have been effective. And the diocese of Westminster has known about abuses at Ealing for many years, and yet has neither obtained the Abbot's agreement to a diocesan inquiry nor made a request to Rome for an Apostolic Visitation. That request was made by me, and passed on by the Papal Nuncio, bypassing the diocese altogether. Archbishop Vincent Nichols had essentially washed his hands of the business, offering to do no more than pass my concerns back to the Abbot. There is plenty of blame to go round, enough for it to stick to a lot of senior catholic officials.

Time and again, the Catholic Church's response to calamity has been secrecy. Last weekend, I went along to a parish meeting at Ealing Abbey, wanting to know more about the abuse scandal and Fr Laurence's disappearance. But the parish priest refused to take any questions other than those submitted in advance. Those selected were about lighting, sound systems and the new translation of the Missal. Any other business would throw things off course, he said.

The conspiracy theorists will view this as a sinister attempt to conceal scandal. I suspect it is more to do with incompetence and the fears of people who are completely out of their depth.

I suspect that they realise that no honest answers will remotely justify their continued management of the school. And they also probably realise that any lies they tell may well be found out next week when Carlile publishes his report. So their only option is to say nothing and helplessly wait for the axe to fall. Carlile is due to publish next week.

St Gregory's Primary School

Now it is spreading further. There is a story in yesterday's Ealing Gazette concerning a girl who was molested at St Gregory's Primary school.

She was told she was a liar and when she refused to tell teachers she had made it all up, was frogmarched to Ealing Abbey in Charlbury Grove and ordered to confess to a priest.

She said: "The teacher claimed he was just comforting me because I was crying in his office but that wasn't true. I was dragged to the abbey and put in front of a priest who was very disapproving. I'd never been in a confessional box before, it was very intimidating. I kept saying 'I've not lied, I've not lied' but in the end I gave in.

"I was called a wicked child and got nasty looks from teachers for all the trouble I'd caused. I don't know why he picked me, maybe because I didn't come from a good home. My mother never took it further."

 The girl was just six years old at the time.

Letters to the Times

Bishop John Arnold wrote to the Times yesterday about the Ealing visitation.

Sir, Abuse of children or vulnerable adults is a terrible crime and our concern is always for those who have suffered the severe and lasting wounds it inflicts (“Pope orders inquiry into child abuse at Ealing”, Oct 25). The Catholic Church in this country is committed to the work of safeguarding, maintaining transparency, and fully co-operating with the statutory authorities to whom all allegations are, and must be, reported. The two specific situations reported last week are a challenge (leading article, Oct 28), but are being addressed.


In Plymouth, the actions of the diocesan safeguarding co-ordinator in using internet images of child abuse are a painful betrayal of trust, particularly for those who confided in him. Following the discovery of these crimes and the safeguarding co-ordinator’s suspension, Bishop Christopher Budd acted in an exemplary fashion by calling in the NSPCC to conduct an independent review. They found that the handling of cases by the safeguarding co-ordinator over the past three years had been appropriate. This review continues to look at wider diocesan practice.


It is true that cooperation between some religious Orders and diocesan authorities needs to be strengthened. This is being addressed. Religious communities do not fall under the authority of the bishop, so where there are concerns it is not uncommon for an Apostolic Visitation to be initiated, as has happened at the Benedictine Abbey in Ealing where the life of the abbey and its safeguarding procedures are being reviewed. The associated school falls under the supervision of the Independent Schools Inspectorate. Lord Carlile of Berriew, QC, is leading an independent review of the school.

The Right Rev John Arnold
Cumberlege Commission, Apostolic Visitor to Ealing Abbey

The Times published my reply today.

Sir, In response to Bishop John Arnold’s letter (Nov 1), I have to say that on the available evidence the problems of Ealing are not being addressed. Bishop Arnold hasn’t yet arranged to meet the person who originally requested the visitation. That person is me.

I have compiled several hundred pages of information about the safeguarding shortcomings of Ealing Abbey and St Benedict’s School, and when I met the Papal Nuncio, Archbishop Antonio Menini, I made it clear to him that I was more than willing to meet the visitors and place all the information in their hands.

The bishop knows this but has not yet contacted me to arrange a meeting or to obtain my information. He has my contact details.


For Bishop Arnold to suggest that St Benedict’s School falls under the supervision of the Independent Schools Inspectorate rather than the Abbey is simply grotesque. The Abbey, the monastery, the parish and the school are all run by a single charitable trust, and the chairman of the trustees is the Abbot of Ealing, Abbot Martin Shipperlee. That makes Abbot Martin the proprietor of the school, not the ISI. Of course Ealing Abbey is responsible for St Benedict’s School.


Most of the abuses committed by Ealing monks have been perpetrated against pupils of St Benedict’s School. If the school is being excluded from the scope of the visitation, then I stand by my statement in The Times last week (report, Oct 25) that the visitation has been designed to achieve nothing at all. The design is even more careful than I was aware of at the time.

Jonathan West

The phone is still not ringing, so he still isn't calling me.