Abuse at St Benedict's has been going on for decades and we have 28 days to submit our evidence!Of course, he's right. It is completely unreasonable for this to be limited in this way. I've been contacted in private by a significant number of victims of abuse at the school. I know how hard it was for them even to make a private and confidential approach to me. Some of them have gone on to make a report to the police, some have not yet felt able.
Among those who have made a report, in some cases it took a gradual process of encouragement over several weeks before they finally plucked up the courage to pick up the phone and make the call. For the inquiry to go in just 28 days from an impersonal (and obscurely worded) ad in the local paper to victims coming forward with cogent accounts of events which they had suppressed in their memories for anything up to 40 years is just not remotely plausible.
There are only two possible explanations of this.
- Those who placed the ad have not the faintest idea of the psychological effect abuse has on children.
- Those who placed the ad have deliberately designed the ad in order to get the most minimal possible response.
I sent Lord Carlile an email saying that I had advised any victims who might be considering civil action to consult with their solicitors before making a decision about participating, and that similarly I had advised those who had made statements to the police and where there were ongoing police investigations to check with the police to ensure that any contribution would not hamper police enquiries. He replied as follows.
You are right to suggest that the persons you mention should obtain independent legal advice. I expect such advice to be to the effect that anything said to me will not risk compromise of other proceedings - not least because it is not my intention to publish the material they provide in an attributable manner.That's fine, but this is the first knowledge I had that he would not publish such material "in an attributable manner". That ought to have been included in the ad, not in an email reply to me. And unless that intention is published, then any legal advice provided by victims from their solicitors can't make the assumption that the information will be treated confidentially.
Then there are issues of the location of any meetings. Lord Carlile appears to be assuming that for his own convenience and the convenience of those who live near the school, meetings will be held at the school itself, and people will be waiting in the school for the previous meeting to end so they can go in for their own discussion. Nothing could be better calculated to discourage people to come forward than the idea that they would have to return to the scene of the crime in order to give evidence about it. I have arranged to meet Lord Carlile at his chambers. You can too. It is neutral ground, in Central London, away from the school. But it shouldn't be me assuring you of this, this should have been included in the original ad - if the aim was to encourage people to come forward.
Given that a current teacher is under investigation, and there are indications that the abuse has been going on for decades, even if the school were overnight to change so radically that no new abuse were to occur starting tomorrow, the chances are that as past victims gather the courage to come forward, there is going to be a long "tail" to this matter, as people perhaps 30 years hence come forward with complaints of abuse that they suffered at the school in their childhood. The inquiry cannot and will not be the end of the matter.
If you are a victim, even if you find yourself unable to contribute evidence to the Carlile inquiry, that doesn't in any way affect your right to go to the police later on with a description of the abuse you suffered, whenever you find that you have the strength to do so. The Carlile inquiry is entirely separate from any police investigations and has a different purpose.
I've been calling for an independent inquiry since my very first article on this topic back in August last year. I can hardly refuse to co-operate now that it has been set up and I've been invited to give evidence, no matter what my reservations might be about how it has been organised. So I'm going to tell Carlile all I know, subject to the promises of confidentiality I have made to the victims who have contacted me.
Why worry? Forget the 'impersonal (and obscurely worded) ad' for Mr West, through this blog and several other outlets, has been urging victims to come forward for the past two years and has done so on an almost daily basis. Just how much 'encouragement' is going to do the trick? And what exactly is the 'trick'? Harassing or pestering people to 'come forward' might well be seen as just another form of obsessive abuse.
ReplyDeleteI agree strongly with the above. 'Abuse' takes many forms and given the relentless nature of this blog it may well be inflicting a good deal of harm and misery on the very people it claims to be helping. Any 'victim' ploughing through it might have an unpleasant sense of déjà vu.
ReplyDeleteWe have all now been given the opportunity to show and tell,(well ok not show), but it seems no matter what the Abbey/School do it will never feed the hunger of WEST soon we will be hearing stories from pupils who were made to eat their greens at lunchtime or going out in the rain at playtime and this will be called abuse, for those who may have been abused I am realy and truly sorry for you please go foreward and tell all, but there comes a point when this Blog does more harm than good.
ReplyDeleteThis blog could never do harm. The harm has been done by the a busers at the abbey, and those who tried and still try to cover up for those who committed those crimes. Why should any parent feel happy about sending their child to St Bs? Maybe when proper safeguarding is in place, they can. But in the meantime, why should we trust them, for the abbot has lied and Mr Cleugh has not been honest. What they have done is to cover up the crimes of their colleagues and to try to diminish the consequences of the crimes. With that attitude, how can anyone assure themselves that this won't be allowed to happen again? What is worse, perpetrating the crime or covering up for the perpetrator? Be careful, parents, don't trust any of them.
ReplyDeleteThe above contributor - Mr West, perhaps? - is stating, yet again, what has been stated ad nauseam on this blog. What does s/he imagine such repetition is going to achieve? It seems that such contributors have an eradicable sense of their own impotence. Their endless repetition simply confirms their worst fears!
ReplyDeleteAh - the Abbeyvista has appeared from the swamp once more!
ReplyDeleteYes - and emerged to say what he has kept saying ad nauseam too - that it is really very tedious of people to keep harping on about this little issue of child abuse at Ealing. After all only five names from the community have been mentioned so far as allegedly supected of abuse and of them only one is in prison and one is dead. Why do we keep making such a fuss? Why don't we just go away? For the record I am not Mr. West!
ReplyDeleteWhy can't abbeyvistas get it into their heads that there’s only one point of view? And, as it's unique, it has to be fussed over and reiterated at every opportunity. Nobody but ‘the chosen’ really gets it! We'd dearly like to blow up Ealing Abbey and send its monks to Kingdom Come but, unfortunately, we lack the guts! So, given this failure of nerve, we have to go on telling everyone just how righteous we are; especially in not going the whole hog - like those hideous abbeyvistas did and would do again if we dropped our screaming and shouting for a single second!
ReplyDeleteYes, one has to say, many of the people writing on this blog come across as fanatical but the real issue is that it is doing a great deal of harm and precious little good.
ReplyDeleteWhether it likes it or not or whether contributors to this blog like it or not, Ealing Abbey and its school are now well and truly under the microscope - more so than probably any other establishment in the country. This scrutiny is not coming from Mr West and his fellow bloggers but is being undertaken by serious, professional people who have as much interest in getting things right and protecting children as anyone on this blog and it is sheer ignorance or arrogance to imagine otherwise. But, for this blog to go on stating otherwise is both malicious and highly damaging to all concerned.
14:31 et al - the authentic voice of the self-satisfied pseudo-intellectuals that dominated this rubbishy school in my time there. Later, after a change of school and a degree at Cambridge, in the company of genuinely intelligent people, I realised just how limited they were. Never were so many people smug for so little reason.
ReplyDeleteNo normal person writes or talks like the abbey stooges who posted above, although they remind me of the way Soper/ Chillman used to talk, their constipated, simulated eloquence. Pearce too. I imagine they'll find find the conversation very different in chokey.
Thank God for British justice, and may the abbey abusers and their apologists burn in hell.
West will not be taken seriously by this enquiry and quite rightly so. This is not just because of his actions on this blog.
ReplyDeleteIf anybody doubts the true purpose of this blog, they should read the early posts from Spring 2009 as these will provide you with more information on the background of the mysterious Mr. West than he is prepared to provide despite repeated requests.
Are these really Catholics? They sound more like angry Scientologists.
ReplyDeleteAll this stuff about how "professionals" are now looking at this, the amateur West should butt out and so on. I've followed this saga (and thus this blog also) for some time, and I have no doubt at all that without West's dogged determination, the Carlile inquiry, whether it achieves good or not, simply would not have come about. Anyone who thinks it would it madly deluded.
ReplyDeleteFor the record, I was at the school for about 10 years, mainly in the 70s (and yes, I've submitted data to the inquiry). The place was a violent and sexually abusive place then, and many of the key players from those days are still in place, from Rossiter down.
I applaud West and spit on my memories of the school and Ealing abbey.
Is 'moving on' so impossible?
ReplyDeleteUp with West! Down with West! Up, Down, Down, Up....! The middle way seems quite lost on many contributors to this blog and when it is expressed, it's immediately savaged by the West-supporters' Club as clap-trap pandering to paedophiles or God knows what! For goodness sake, grow up and let go of some of your grudges, gripes, chips, prejudices, resentments, etc. etc. etc....!! I can assure you to a casual reader they are much more in evidence than any of your supposedly rational arguments!
I suspect the Abbeyvista poster thinks there is no more bad news to come, which is why he reappeared from the swamp with his usual banalities’ and unswerving belief or is it denial?
ReplyDeleteI am unsure which, but parents will be observing his comments and can make up their own minds.
And, my friend, they will also be reading your inevitable reply; couched each time in exactly the same dismissive terms!
ReplyDeleteCan you not take any criticism? Your unbending assurance is, in truth, a glaring sign of innate weakness.
For 10:18 and his fellow believers:
ReplyDeleteAs to 'unswerving belief' I believe that there are no 'good' or 'bad' human beings per se. Goodness and Badness (Evil) is distributed throughout the human species. They are in you as surely as they are in me. A balance, which this blog almost completely lacks, has to be found. This search, for integration, is a challenge for each one of us. Sometimes, it becomes clear that we have got the balance wrong and we need to do something to correct it. Too many people writing on this blog, e.g. 10:08, are modern versions of the old 'hell-fire' preachers - everyone is either a 'goat' or a 'sheep', damned or saved and that is that! This fundamentalist view of life is, I believe, one of the greatest dangers facing humanity which is why I contribute to this site from time to time, not because I blindly follow or believe in anyone or support any particular institution.
"This blog" has been largely concerned with ensuring that sexual abuse of children at St. Benedict's school is brought to an end, and the circumstances under which it could continue are eliminated.
ReplyDeleteDo please enlighten me as to what balance ought to be introduced. For instance do you think I ought to have an article or two extolling the virtues of buggering choirboys?
And the Abbeyvista and the gentleman at 10.59 continue to question nothing, which is why an unquantifiable number of children have been affected by sexual abuse at the hands of adult staff at St Benedict's. Where were the monks who were allegedly 'policing' Pearce?
ReplyDeleteUnswerving belief in those you are instructed are your betters is for the sheep, except sheep do at least bleat which is more than the staff at the school did when they knew or suspected child abuse.
Humanity - oh yes - a surfeit of which has been present at St Benedict’s especially when the administration knowingly failed to report child sexual abuse to the authorities as detailed in the ISI report. The humanity was I suppose; permitting the perpetrators to leave the school quietly for the benefit of the fee paying institution perhaps. This permitted one perpetrator to continue teaching and abusing children elsewhere completely un-notified to the safeguarding authority run by the DfSS at the time. Humanity was clearly present when the Trust permitted Pearce as a known abuser to remain on site, once more unreported to the authorities. The Trust’s actions also permitted Pearce to continue abusing.
Where was the duty of care to parents and their children enrolling at the school?
And what has been done by the Trust for the known victims of abuse at the hands of St Benedict's paedophiles?
Nothing.
Mind you all these actions are entirely in keeping with headquarters in Rome which still fails to acknowledge responsibility for its abusive priests but nonetheless pays for their accommodation, and buys annuities to keep them in comfort in old age whilst ignoring their victims.
Now where where we - ah yes humanity. You were saying?
You’re actually making my point - humanity isn't all good! Often, as you say, it can be dark and devious. The kind of anger exhibited here, however, comes largely from those who have believed – or were led to believe - in a perfectly good humanity! They now clearly feel bitterly betrayed. Well, it's never too late to 'smell the coffee' - but please don't be so simple minded as to believe that what you once believed in is all bad and, given that you’re no longer taken in by it, that you are all good. It's this site’s 'demonization' of people that I object to - a 'trick' of the old, 'wicked' institution that lingers on, it seems.
ReplyDeleteYou continue to argue and criticise posters on this site for finding their voices whilst ignoring crucible of the problem for which you bleat no criticism.
ReplyDeleteYou are making the age old mistake.
What, as you so elegantly put it, is the ‘crucible’ of your own constant 'criticism'? Something which is socially and morally wrong does not stand in need of endless criticism. That it is, to most people, morally repugnant can, at some point, surely, simply be taken for granted?
ReplyDeleteSecondly, as I have said, the 'demonization' of others is also repugnant. It is an attempt to strip them of their humanity and depict them as less than human. This to many, if not most, people is repugnant for it is the antithesis of how civilized, i.e. civilizing, human beings try to behave. Sadly, demonization is the overriding tenor of most of the pro-West posts to this blog. Are you incapable of criticising people without seeking to destroy them?
To be 'on the side of the angels' does not mean one is an angel. Mr West and his supporters might well take to heart Pascal’s words of warning: 'Man is neither angel nor beast and the unfortunate thing is that he who would become an angel becomes a beast'. Trying, simplistically, to depict others as demonic, Mr West, while making cheap copy, is, in its own right, a demonic act.
Still waiting for the Sodomite Pearce to be defrocked.
ReplyDelete16:50 writes:
ReplyDeleteAre you incapable of criticising people without seeking to destroy them?
But that's exactly how the priests at the school operated in my time, and the lay teachers followed their lead. They made you feel like utter rubbish - and I wasn't even sexually abused. My whole life experience since I left St Benedict's has shown me just how deficient those people were, morally, intellectually, in terms of their life experience - everything. Parents who are thinking of sending their children to St Benedict's today should be aware that St Benedict's is an autocracy that does everything possible to limit and close the minds of the children in its care. Is that what you want to pay for?
St Benedict's destroyed my Catholic faith, which previously in my childhood had been strong and joyous. I am only now after thirty years becoming reconciled to any kind of faith again.
Parents, is THAT really what you want to pay for?
And still only criticism from 16.50 for those who have managed to speak. To speak on these matters is hugely challenging - few ever do and now you criticise what they say - because some of it is not nice.
ReplyDeletePlease go and read a few books on child abuse. One is not terribly well written, I am sure you will complain about this but we will attempt to cope with your criticisms:
'A Boy Called It.'
'Ugly' by Constance Briscoe - very well written but I feel certain you'll find something wrong that isn't.
'Behind Closed Doors' Jenny Tomlin
and one I feel that may be far too close to home for you as it is about abuse at the Salesian College in Chertsey.
Conspiracy of Faith Graham Wilmer
Who knows what you will make of this book - the website alone is riveting reading and unsurprisingly you will notice significant cultural similarities in so many areas to the modus operandi of St Benedict's.
TO 17:13 and the contributors that follow on:
ReplyDeleteMy friend/s, I understand exactly what you say. Every form of human abuse is ugly, terrifying and alienating. Of that there can be no doubt and its tragic nature cannot be minimised. But it stems from our own untamed humanity and is as ubiquitous as it is persistent. Just take a look at our world today, let alone its long, complex and often brutal history!
Similarly, your experience at your Catholic School is, unfortunately, replicable a million times over. Few, it seems, are as apt at destroying faith as those who claim to be its guardians. These guys - monks, nuns or what-have-you - are more often than not quite ignorant about the nature of faith. They hide, therefore, behind something called 'the faith' an edifice which, as far as possible, has reduced Spirit to Letter. Such people, and you offer real, heartfelt criticism of them, can only 'limit and close the minds of children'.
You say you are only now, thirty years on, 'becoming reconciled to any kind of faith'. Great! Perhaps now you can begin to see how distorted the Church’s use of that word 'catholic' is - faith, genuine faith shows one both what the word really means and involves. Not some narrow catechetic or neo-Imperial institution but universality! Faith begins to open up what it is we, human beings, indeed all things, have in common not only in terms of our superficial needs, though they are important, but in terms of depth - a depth which for each of us, religious or secularist opens onto mystery, onto what the Chinese philosopher, Lao Tzu, calls ‘the deep within the deep’. These depths are eternally fore-given and out of them alone comes genuine forgiveness. On the basis of this forgiveness, self-forgiveness and forgiveness of others, we must being to allow what is deepest within us to shine more and more in our daily lives. And remember names are not really important, they are merely re-minders. Our common depth is 'nameless'!
Anonymous 17.13, you said, amongst other things, "Parents who are thinking of sending their children to St Benedict's today should be aware that St Benedict's is an autocracy that does everything possible to limit and close the minds of the children in its care."
ReplyDeleteI'm afraid you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. I am not accusing you of being completely deluded, for you may well be correct about the inadequacy that you (and others) faced. However, in current times, the school is fortunately not at all as you describe. You cannot merely use your own past experiences to make huge, incorrect assumptions about the present.
St. Benedict's is a thriving school and community, and is providing a fantastic Benedictine education to all of its boys and girls; I am a fairly recent leaver and it certainly did that for me. As a bright student, the school stretched my abilities accordingly and opened my mind. As for my faith, I could not have hoped for a stronger Catholic education. In these times, those who leave the school with criticisms like yours have merely not taken advantage of the great opportunities presented to them.
I realise I am now probably going to be condemned for my thoughts, considering the position of this blog and many of the people who read it, but I assure you that the school is not at all as you imagine it to be. Of course, I do not deny that horrific things have happened and dreadful mistakes have been made, and things have to be put right, but one can no longer attack the school (or, indeed, the monks) for making children unhappy, for destroying their faith or for limiting/closing their minds.
-
ReplyDelete-
Forgiveness must be about truth and a commitment to justice for all, it requires willingness to change.
-
-
Whose truth, whose commitment, whose willingness?
ReplyDeleteI think 22:41 misunderstood what s/he had just read - forgivness, as spoken of there, is essentially 'nameless' and so essentially unconditional.
ReplyDeleteI have just come across this blog and find it quite astonishing that so many respond to and lay bare their souls to a blogger who has set himself up as a self styled expert in safeguarding and child abuse. How dangerous. He has never declared his qualifications in regard to this and yet has gained the trust of many, does this not in itself raise concerns that a middle aged man should do this? I am one of the unfortunate people who knew Mr West when he lived in Ealing in the early to mid 90's in Harrow View Road. His partner was a 'piano teacher' a term I use loosely, who touted for business amongst the well heeled of the independent schools. There was no mention of safeguarding when they refused to allow parents to sit with their very young children whilst they had their lessons and despite employing his partner many parents turned up to find Mr West teaching them with his partner no where to be seen. Without going into detail many of my own anxieties returned when I saw West's name in the Ealing Gazette and my failure to act on my child's concerns. I viewed them as petty, but if I were to believe West and his understanding of abuse then I should have acted. Mr West why did you leave so quickly for France? When you removed your son from St Benedict's your next school of choice was St Gregory's a strange choice for an atheist or was this when you were still in a state of confusion. Soon after your family disappeared quite suddenly from Ealing. I would urge all those who have suffered abuse at Ealing Abbey, St Benedict's or elsewhere to seek help from bona fide organisations. Please do not put your trust in a stranger, question his motives,are you 100% sure he will not abuse your trust and use the information he has gained for his own purposes. He is not bound by any professional code of conduct and he is certainly not qualified to advise and counsel the vulnerable victims of abuse.When I knew him he was something in IT not really a reference for acting as an expert on abuse. Just be aware, what advice would you give to a child about responding to such a blog and would you be happy with your child contacting a stranger on the internet? He has invited people to contact him personally what if that person was a vulnerable child? Think before you contribute, seek out the real professionals.
ReplyDeleteAhhh, the Abbeyvista is busy tonight (22.48/57 and now at 23.34 after he's had some refreshment)- don't you love him! He leaves his usual footprint.
ReplyDeleteDon't know who wrote the stuff @ 18:23 but for me it rings true and the last entry, 23:34, is both very interesting and very revealing.
ReplyDeleteHowever, for me 18:23 clearly shows why many entries on this blog (though not wrong in everything they say) are still not doing much good and probably doing a lot of harm. Mr West certainly seems to be exploiting anger, mostly that of other people, of course. To encourage repressed anger to surface is, on the whole, a healthy thing but for someone to exploit or manipulate another person's anger is, to my mind, downright sinister. However, slowly but surely we seem to be learning rther more about our Mr West!
I wonder who Mr West imagines he's impressing or winning over with his boringly predicable attacks on so-called 'abbeyvistas'? As far as I can see, it's a term of abuse he wheels out whenever he feels threatened or under attack. It's all rather childish of course for every time any of us read the word 'abbeyvista' we know for sure Mr West’s in trouble.
ReplyDeleteIt's possible that 23:34 has a point, in so much as perhaps Mr West should be encouraging victims of abuse by the monks and employees of Ealing Abbey to contact a reputable organisation for the survivors of sexual abuse by Catholic priests rather than himself. But then, Mr West is not a professional but a private citizen responding in a public spirited way to evidence of violent crime. No doubt 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, but I'm sure it would be better than walking on by. On the whole Mr West strikes me as honest and decent, and prepared to take criticism and discuss his views, unlike the Abbey, which sheltered abusers for many years.
ReplyDeleteJust to add to my post above at 00:13 - there seems to be a concerted campaign against this blog taking place now. Don't the site stats provide some evidence for where this is coming from?
ReplyDeleteDid he not go to france, and leave his family?
ReplyDeleteMr West the Music Man?
Re: assertion by 22.48 and 57
ReplyDelete22.41 misunderstood? I don't think so. S/he is a realist.
ATT: 22.57
ReplyDelete-
-
You are referring to the blank forgiveness cheque to which the Church is so addicted.
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.
Forgiveness, when neither the perpetrators nor their supporters or the administrators of the school admit to any abuse inflicted on the children in their care?
No misunderstanding from me contrary to your assertion.
22.41
-
-
10:10 No 'supporter' has ever claimed that Pearce was innocent. His actions have been condemned by the abbot who has apologized and has never denied that the abbey failed in his case. Comments like this just attack the credibility of those sincere posts on this blog. Criticize, yes, but be accurate.
ReplyDeletePlease check this link to a posting
ReplyDeleteAn extract from the posting :
However, I have to remind you and other readers of this blog that, accusations on this blog notwithstanding, no serious assault, sexual or otherwise, was committed against any boy at St Benedict's.
Whilst disagreeing strongly with the analysis of that posting - certainly in most peoples opinion, any sexual assault is serious, you quote selectively in order to mislead. Such comments are unhelpful - if you completed the quote, you would have put the comment, albeit in my opinion, seriously misguided, into context. This is not helping.
ReplyDeleteWhat is constantly being wrongly asserted by this blog's champions is that David Pearce was culpable of buggery/sodomy – a very serious charge indeed - and that this behaviour was and is condoned by the Abbey! One only has to look back to the posting at 00.13 for a taste of this sort of thing! I quote:
ReplyDelete"Mr West is not a professional but a private citizen responding in a public spirited way to evidence of violent crime. No doubt 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, but I'm sure it would be better than walking on by. On the whole Mr West strikes me as honest and decent, and prepared to take criticism and discuss his views, unlike the Abbey, which sheltered abusers for many years."
-
ReplyDelete11.38 I provided the link to the posting from which I quoted, so no one has to go in search the material. It demonstrates your claim at 10.27 is mistaken but no apology of course just a continuing stream of complaint about everything on this site.
The real problem here lies with the presence of abusers at St Benedict's and the law breaking way the incidents of abuse have been handled by the Trust - all confirmed in the ISI follow up report.
Perhaps you need to reflect more about these matters by spending less time mistakenly and repeatedly screaming foul.
Surely, any balanced view of this matter has to conclude that, in contrast to 'rape' and 'buggery', the charges brought against D. P. were indeed 'relatively minor'. Nevertheless, as the post above says, many contriutors to this blog insist on telliing the darkest story they can 'imagine'. This, to say the least, is being very disingenuous.
ReplyDeleteWho on earth does not already know, and acknowledge, the facts you outline 12:12? There is really no dispute about them. 'Screaming foul' has nothing whatsoever to do with these sad and sorry facts but rather the many, to my mind quite appalling, statements such as the one quoted @ 11:57!
ReplyDeleteThe charges against Pearce were not minor in any way and particularly not to the child/ren - be assured. Perhaps this is what is forgotten or misunderstood by some of those commenting on this site.
ReplyDeleteWhen finally the ability to talk about the abuse arrives, the knot of rage surfaces and lasts for a very long-time.
So quite naturally, on any site that discusses child abuse there is often a heightened level of anger expressed.
Live with it, and be relieved you were not abused.
I dont think anyone wants to minimize what DP did, but what was pointed out was the distinction made by the appeal judges that his offending was at the lower end of the scale of sexual assault, and therefore had to be punished accordingly. The punishment has to fit the crime. Had his offenses been higher up the scale, he would doubtless have been jailed for longer. Nothing is the be gained by distorting the facts whichever side of this argument you are on.
ReplyDeleteWell put 12:44. Whatever suffering has been inflicted on the children who were abused it cannot be minimised by the dishonest use of smoke and mirrors! Legitimate anger, as in these cases, has of course to be acknowledged and borne. However, no one, to my knowledge, has questioned that!
ReplyDeleteIn reply to 12.44 DISTORTING THE FACTS
ReplyDeletePosters on this site who support the abbey certainly do want to minimize what Pearce and the stream of other abusers did at St Benedict’s. Repeated postings on this blog demonstrate this to be the case and the post of 10.54 today provides evidence of one example.
In reality it is probably the only tactic in town for abbey supporters other than character assassination of West and denouncing the credibility of the abusees. Of course the pretence that there are multiple abbey posters is transparent foolishness for so many reasons – but you will keep it up I feel certain.
Furthermore 12.44, you are the same person who posted this despicable content on the 17th July.
To quote from your post:
The history of Ealing is, I can assure you, well known to all concerned - the social services, the police, the archdiocese, the Benedictine order, the parents of St Benedict's school and the parish at large.
Your claim is fiction. The ISI follow up report which did not appear until late August states perfectly clearly that the Authorities did not know about any of child abuse that occurred at the school – ever.
To quote from the ISI report:
At the time of the follow-up inspections, the school did not have a fully established policy for reporting directly to the Department for Education and Skills (later the Department for Children, Schools and Families, and currently the Department for Education) or to the Independent Safeguarding Authority, responsible for such referrals since 20 January 2009.
You then went on to say in the same posting on the 17th July:
However, I have to remind you and other readers of this blog that, accusations on this blog notwithstanding, no serious assault, sexual or otherwise, was committed against any boy at St Benedict's. All the offenses were relatively minor.
You seem unable to face the truth and therefore happily promulgate lies and disinformation throwing anything at anyone to stop the criticisms of St Benedict’s. The simple truth is that you wish to restore silence that coincidentally and for so long concealed child abuse at the school.
And how do I know, without any doubt you are the same poster?
The evidence is clear - get thinking.
Hi Jonathan
ReplyDeleteRemember 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
As are we all, I think.
ReplyDeleteOy vey, and alackaday! Not a word in response from ABBOT WEST! Nor even, on this occasion it seems, from one of his many pseudonymous ‘allies’.
ReplyDeleteGive the man a break! Jonathan's answer will, I'm convinced, come in good time. For instance, as his first posting in October. So do, please, be patient.
ReplyDeleteJK
How come?
ReplyDeleteI can see a lot more stuff about so-called attempts to 'minimise' events at Ealing Abbey, particularly with reference to D.P., but no response to the important questions posed by the guy above (28 September 2010 23:34). He seems to know Mr West a great deal better than most of us and in quite a different light.
It has certainly been suggested on a number of occasions that Mr West is in this for his own gratification........if the 28 Sept 23:34 comment is accurate it does make one think. There are a number of organisations where victims can go for advice without involving Mr West.
ReplyDeleteAs a 'safeguard', maybe Mr West would prefer to make 'a private and confidential' confession?
ReplyDeleteThe Terms of Reference for the Carlile Inquiry have been published on the School's website under the heading of "Information for Parents".
ReplyDeletehttp://www.stbenedicts.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/Lord-Carlile-Terms-of-Ref-Sept-2010.pdf
I am pleased to see that this has finally been done although I feel that it deserved to be displayed more prominently. Unfortunately Lord Carlile's contact details have been omitted.
Michael.
VISTAS OF THE ABBEY
ReplyDeleteThose labelled, on this blog, abbeyvistas or abbey supporters are accused of trying to 'cover up' or 'minimise' the well documented abuse that has taken place at St Benedict's. I can assure anyone who contributes in this absurd vein that no one is trying to 'silence' this information. Indeed, how could they? It has been well and truly broadcast throughout the British media over the past 18 months!
However, claims and/or suggestions on this blog, by the abbey's detractors, that this abuse, especially on the part of David Pearce, was, to put it politely, ‘abuse of the most serious kind' are, as far as any of us know, simply not true. This was, in fact, very clearly stated in court by the presiding judge when he sentenced D.P..
In the name of justice, if not common human decency, those who persist in claiming, via this blog, that many other - far more serious - crimes have been, or may have been, committed at the school or abbey should do the proper thing. In other words, they should report what they know, or claim to know, to the police rather than persistently trawling their accusations through the columns of this blog in the belief that 'mud sticks'!
This is a very simple and straightforward matter.
Good post 17:20. However, maybe Mr West is getting a taste of his own medicine now - maybe some mud sticking on him....not allowing parents to sit in at music lessons..........oh dear.....not very good for someone claiming to be an authority on child protection....whatever next?
ReplyDeleteWhatever next? That, as they say, is what many on this blog are waiting to hear!
ReplyDeleteMaybe he has run away to France to escape investigative journalists.
ReplyDeleteWith REF to: 28 September 2010 23:34 and above.
ReplyDeleteYes, I wonder whether THE TIMFS, for instance, is aware of what Mr West's 'old friend' has had to say about him?
School is clearly - out!
ReplyDeletePity a few more aren't out! Well, come to think of it, one more would do!
ReplyDeleteThe post at 17:20 says that Mr West’s supporters often write ‘in an absurd vein’.
ReplyDeleteI took a few minutes to check out this claim. In fact, quickly read through one or two of the more obvious anti-abbey statements above. I know that extremely crude terminology is sometimes used by these guys when referring to those with whom they disagree; but, here are four of their, presumably more thoughtful, statements:
‘...do you think I ought to have an article or two extolling the virtues of buggering choirboys?’ - Mr West
‘...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, but I'm sure it would be better than walking on by.’ - Anonymous
‘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.’ - Anonymous
‘You seem unable to face the truth and therefore happily promulgate lies and disinformation throwing anything at anyone to stop the criticisms of St Benedict’s. The simple truth is that you wish to restore silence that coincidentally and for so long concealed child abuse at the school.’ – Anonymous.
Think I see what 17:20 means and, surely, I can't be alone in that!
I'm looking forward to tomorrow, the first of the month!
ReplyDeleteI'm expecting a grand linguistic firework display from Mr West, to kick off his October Postings and send his 'accusers' running for cover.
I do hope I'm not going to be disappointed. Just not sure if it'll be an ‘Apologia Pro Vita Sua’, a 'De Profundis' or, as we’re in that territory, a 'Notre-Dame-des-Fleurs' (Our Lady of the Flowers)? Let's see!
You are doing a great job - 19.25 - so many postings in so little time.
ReplyDeleteIs that Mr West, perchance?
ReplyDeleteDont think so. Wasnt he seen on Eurostar?
ReplyDeleteOk, even from France some words about ylesterdays comments'd be nice.
ReplyDeleteMaybe its Au Revoir from Monsieur W
ReplyDeleteMR/MRS 19.25
ReplyDeleteLike I said on the 29th (16.47) He has attracted others, but I for one will not be running for cover.
I will sit back and wait!
Night Jonathan.
xxx
Good to hear that 21:02!
ReplyDeleteOne or two posters from the abbey seem to be building a case against Mr West based on the following comment:
ReplyDelete"Without going into detail many of my own anxieties returned when I saw West's name in the Ealing Gazette and my failure to act on my child's concerns. I viewed them as petty, but if I were to believe West and his understanding of abuse then I should have acted. Mr West why did you leave so quickly for France?"
This is just innuendo - if the original poster has something concrete to say then they should say it.
To unpack this a little, they write: '...many of my own anxieties returned when I saw West's name...' Yet the next line says they viewed what their child said as 'petty'. So if they viewed it as 'petty' how could it have led them to have the 'many...anxieties' of the previous line?
The answer is that it didn't. This whole passage is a lie, an incoherent and awkwardly phrased lie whose own inconsistency has exposed its falsity ('many anxieties' have apparently arisen in the mind of the writer from something that they simultaneously viewed as 'petty'). I can't see why anyone would write this unless they wanted to smear Jonathan West with an allegation of the very crimes which he is writing about here.
This smear shows the depths to which the Abbey and the school will stoop. Things like this are going to look very bad after Carlile, and after more allegations emerge, when the press is again scrutinising St Benedict's. It is telling prospective parents that if your child goes to St Benedict's and is abused there, the school is capable of running a dirty tricks campaign against you.
On the other hand, it is a FACT that St Benedict's was run by paedophiles for over thirty years; it is a FACT that David Pearce is a convicted paedophile; and I can confirm it as a fact that Gregory Chillman is an alcoholic who would frequently be intoxicated in the presence of children, and that Lawrence Soper is a sadist who enjoyed inflicting violence on children - caning was fun for him, let there be no doubt about that - along with verbal and psychological violence. I suspect Pearce deliberately sent children to him to be caned - although this isn't a fact, merely my own suspicion. It is also a fact that David Pearce was openly described as a paedophile in numerous classes taught by Paul Halsall, who is currently a geography teacher at St Benedict's and he never went to the police at the time, nor did any of the other teachers, who must have known what was going on. Now lets have some facts from the poster who asks why Mr West went to France so quickly. Who knows? Were there allegations about him? Is France a place from which people cannot be extradited? Of course not. It just sounds intriguing and suggests something disreputable. But I know why Soper used to run up the middle school stairs so quickly at breaktime. He just couldn't wait to treat himself to some CP.
That poster should put up or shut up.
Just to add to my previous post at 22:01, my thanks to Dennis Johnson, one of the few decent teachers at St Benedict's, who first taught me Practical Criticism... although he was as culpable as anyone for Pearce's crimes, because he knew what was going too, but did nothing about it. Perhaps this demonstrates how the institution itself is flawed - it corrupts even good people.
ReplyDeleteOh, the western empire has hit back - with oh so many words...but, as someone succinctly said, let's 'sit back and wait'.
ReplyDelete'Oh, the western empire has hit back - with oh so many words...but, as someone succinctly said, let's 'sit back and wait'.'
ReplyDeleteThis must be what passes for erudition inside the Abbey.
It's noble of 22:01 to step in and defend Mr West. But, doesn't he realize that 'petty' things can gnaw away at the mind though one isn't quite able to bring oneself to act on them. I see no contradiction in what Mr West's ex-friend has said.
ReplyDeleteWhat on earth has that posting got to do with 'erudion', inside or outside of 'the abbey'?
ReplyDeleteBut 22:23, the poster attributes the very idea of suspecting sexual abuse to Mr West, and suggests that their anxieties have the remarkable property of being able to travel backwards in time - 'I viewed them as petty, but if I were to believe West and his understanding of abuse then I should have acted.' In other words, after reading this blog in the present they developed 'many...anxieties' in the past - presumably not long after dismissing their childs concerns as 'petty'.
ReplyDelete22:01, might or might not be out to defend Mr West but he's obviously out to rehearse the usual accusations against Ealing abbey. However, what strike me are his own contradictions. For example, from some of the things he writes he appears to be firmly in favour of FACTS rather than INNUENDO, what are we then to make of the following: 'This smear... [by Mr West's old ‘friend’]... shows the depths to which the Abbey and the school will stoop.' That certainly doesn't meem like an innuendo.... but what makes it a FACT? Would you please explain 22:01?
ReplyDeleteI don't think 22:01 has understood what he read. Mr West's accuser is saying that what he once dismissed as 'petty' actually form the basis of Mr West's published criteria for discerning child sex abuse. So, had he, in the past, employed West's present standards he would most certainly have raised the alarm.
ReplyDeleteIt isn't a fact that the abbey and school are stooping to 'depths' but it certainly seems to be the case based on a balance of probabilities. To prove it you would have to analyse all the posts critical of Mr West that have appeared in the past week using software and then compare it to samples of writing composed by, for example, members of Ealing abbey or the school. I imagine that would show that most of the posts come from one or two individuals, and even reveal their identities.
ReplyDeleteWhen not contributing anonymously himself West must be sitting back smugly as this blog feeds his ego. Who really knows this man? Has the blogger of 21.07 morphed into West, it's certainly his style to take things out of context. Look back to West's blog of 23rd April and see what happens when you take some of his comments to victims of abuse out of context, it might make you shudder - even the DS supports West's methods of encouraging victims and 'his door is always open'. He is certainly aiming to build himself up as a person victims of abuse can trust. Meanwhile West is gleefully rubbing his hands as he envisions a book deal and film on abuse at the Abbey. Why else would he just focus on the Abbey and not champion the cause of every victim of abuse in the UK and worldwide?
ReplyDelete23:03 - West's accuser has tried to have it both ways - accusing him indirectly of sexual abuse while belittling the detection of sexual abuse. By not getting their story straight in their own mind before committing it to print they've ended up contradicting themselves.
ReplyDeleteJust a couple of observations. Over the period of this blog, various people well versed in child protection have offered advice to JW. He has always argued with sound advice; he always knows best. The second point, even in the 1980s it would have been most unusual for a music teacher to exclude a parent and be alone with a child. IF that is true I can understand the doubts being expressed about JW.
ReplyDeleteSorry, 23:13, I don't get the point! Actually the number of people contributing to this bog with its ongoing dialogue is very small - be they pro or contra the abbey. But really this is not about being either for or against the Abbey. The facts about its abuse and lax supervision are well known, certainly to everyone on this blog. There are, however, constant attempts to stretch, magnify, exaggerate, distort and multiply these well known facts....apparently in the hope that a bad situation will appear very much worse. This is silly and dishonest and has to be counter balanced. These attempts to refute what are more often than not wild and crude distortions is not intended to minimize the known facts or to whitewash the abbey. Of course, everyone realises that no statement or printed critique can mollify the pain and anger of some who have suffered at St Benedict's. However why, presumably intelligent and decent people should go on trying to pour petrol onto already quite vagarious fire, beats me!
ReplyDeleteYes, why do so many people hate the abbey so much? Are all those people misguided or wicked? It couldn't possibly be anything to do with the abbey and the school, could it?
ReplyDeleteHave I missed something since when has a child's concern constitute sex abuse? It could be a multitude of things, let's not start a hatchet job on Mr West, it just shows how dangerous the internet can be. Perhaps it's time to let this blog rest in peace
ReplyDelete23:43 - come off it.
ReplyDelete'Why should...people go on trying to pour petrol onto an already vagarious (vigorous?) fire, beats me!'
ReplyDelete-BECAUSE THAT SEEMS TO BE THE VERY REASON FOR THIS BLOG'S EXISTANCE! I'D SAY THE 23:41 POST DEMONSTATES THE POINT RATHER BEAUTIFULLY.
48 hours and no reply...
ReplyDelete23:56 - don't you have a mass to get to...?
ReplyDeleteDO NOT LOSE FAITH...TOMORROW YOU’LL SEE A NEW DAWN
ReplyDeleteWell, I'll look forward to it. Goodnight paedophiles.
ReplyDeleteExtraordinary postings.
ReplyDeleteI got things to do including a submission to Carlile. It's the only game in town but the process looks flawed.
Senior management have all been having their say to try to put JW off. Load of creeps. he is having a well earned rest, but probably speaking to Carlisle.
ReplyDeleteYou think that the more extreme posts about perpetrators being made by Old Priorians?
ReplyDeleteDon't be fatuous.
It's all part of the management's effort to undermine the complainants and West who according to the ISI brought all this to the attention of the DfE.
As the posting at 15.11 demonstrates, there is clear evidence of lies and disinformation being used by Abbey supporters.
But this is a public site and presently unmoderated - even you are allowed here to post your bile and your pronounced defence of decades of unreported child sexual abuse by career paedophiles at St Benedict's.
I just hope parents now have a better understanding of the place they may be considering for their children.
17.00 - 17.30 Marker.
ReplyDelete"It isn't a fact that the abbey and school are stooping to 'depths' but it certainly seems to be the case based on a balance of probabilities."
ReplyDeleteWell, you do win the most circular argument of the year award; that's for sure.
"To prove it you would have to analyse all the posts critical of Mr West that have appeared in the past week using software and then compare it to samples of writing composed by, for example, members of Ealing abbey or the school. I imagine that would show that most of the posts come from one or two individuals, and even reveal their identities."
Blooming heck! On what planet are you currently living? We're not in an episode of CSI. And what a way to formulate complete guesswork!
PS I've never commented on this blog before, and I'm not going to bother trying to fully immerse myself into this debate; the post on which I'm commenting was just too insane for me to ignore.
In response to 30 Sept 21.07 - why don't YOU get your FACTS straight. Some staff DID report suspected abuse to the police. Hopefully, the Carlile report will be able to lay to rest some of the FACTS you seem to know so well!
ReplyDeleteOnly once 14.51 - but then this same incident was never 'Notified' to the DCSF (as it was at the time) as it should have been by the school, and neither were any of the other incidents cited in the ISI report as that report clearly explains. And as a result of these failures by the schools Trustees primary legislation was broken and in the case of one man, a known perpetrator was permitted to leave St Benedict's and as a result of being unnotified to the authroities was permitted to return to teaching children without so much as a hiccup.
ReplyDeleteThe St Benedict's Way.
@ 30 September 2010 23:18
ReplyDelete"..even in the 1980s it would have been most unusual for a music teacher to exclude a parent and be alone with a child. "
What utter rubbish. I had music lessons around the corner from St.B's throughout the '80s - completely un-conntected with West, and parents were *never* welcome during lessons.
Halsall did go to the police about Pearce, and he kicked up a mega fuss within the school. He had kids in the junior school....why wouldn't he. I'm an ex pupil and kicked knew Halsall very well during my time there and after leaving. I also recall there being an incident where he insinuated to Pearce he would physically hurt Pearce if he went anywhere near his two children who were in the junior school under Pearce, or any of the other children for that matter. Heard about the b**shit being said about some of our BETTER teachers via a facebook campaign to stop the smearing of their names just now and felt obliged to come on and say something to the idiots who don't even know his name is PETER not PAUL.
ReplyDelete