Chichester child abuse: How did one small Church of England diocese produce so many paedophile reverends?

Evidence at the inquiry concluded that the abuse was 'normalised' because it was practised by so many. Worse still, one member of the clergy believed that God had forgiven him and therefore 'his slate was wiped clean'


Top, from left: Michael Walsh, Christopher Howarth, Gordon Rideout and Michael Mytton. Bottom, from left: Jonathan Graves, Vickery House, Terence Banks and Peter Ball

For a long time, I have wanted to understand why one small area of the Church of England has had a large number of the clergy sent to gaol for sexually abusing young people and children. The place is Sussex, particularly East Sussex, part of the diocese of Chichester.

I have not been alone in wanting this question answered. For the Government has set up an Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse in England and Wales and this body has turned its attention to the diocese of Chichester. The hearings have been going on for some weeks now. I shall make extensive use of what the inquiry has been told.

Let me start with something truly shocking. Here is the list of the main perpetrators:

Peter Ball was the Bishop of Lewes between 1977 and 1992 (later Bishop of Gloucester). In September 2015, Bishop Ball pleaded guilty to counts of misconduct in public office concerning sexual activity with young adults and two counts of indecent assaults against adults. He was sentenced to 32 months’ imprisonment.

The Reverend Vickery House was a vicar within East Sussex and a close associate of Peter Ball. He was convicted of five counts of indecent assault and was sentenced to six-and-a-half years’ imprisonment in October 2015.

The Reverend Roy Cotton was convicted in 1954 of gross indecency while a child was present as he exposed himself in the organ loft.

Reverend Pritchard pleaded guilty in 2008 to seven counts of sexual assault against two boys and was jailed for five years.

Reverend Robert Coles pleaded guilty to counts of indecent assault and two of attempted buggery and was sentenced in February 2013 to eight years’ imprisonment.

Reverend Jonathan Graves was convicted in 2017 of 12 offences, including indecent assault and cruelty to a child, and was sentenced to 12 years’ imprisonment.

Reverend Gordon Rideout was convicted of 34 counts of indecent assault and two counts of attempted rape against a total of 16 victims from May 2013. He was sentenced to 10 years’ imprisonment. He also pleaded guilty in December 2016 to a further count of indecent assault against someone under the age of 16 and was sentenced to nine months’ imprisonment.

Reverend Keith Denford was convicted of three counts of indecent assault in April 2013 and sentenced to 18 months’ imprisonment.

Reverend Christopher Howarth was convicted of 26 counts of sexual activity with a child and causing a child to engage in sexual activity and received 16 years’ imprisonment in total.

Peter Pannett was a deacon in the Brighton area. He pleaded guilty to two counts of making indecent images of children, one count of attempting incitement of a child to engage in sexual activity, and two counts of inciting a child under 16 to engage in sexual activity. He also pleaded guilty to two counts of causing a child to watch a sexual act. He was sentenced to 32 months of imprisonment.

So, why? John Hind, who was Bishop of Chichester 2001 to 2012, provided the answer when he told the inquiry that “abuse is not simply the act of some individual perpetrators, but actually it can involve collusion between different people, and that a climate can develop in certain areas in which people’s normal inhibitions against bad behaviour can get reduced. What is it that lowers those inhibitions? Well, one of them is clearly when you are in an environment in which a number of other people are abusing as well, and there can be a tendency to normalise what’s happening.” Another bishop in the diocese, Wallace Benn, said there was clearly a paedophile ring.

It can be small things as well as large that have a normalising effect. Janet Hind, the bishop’s wife, described how one of the complaints made by the victims and survivors of one of the abusers was that during his trial a member of the clergy came and sat in court every day to provide support to the accused. Also, when a new case of abuse came to light, senior clergy members would give more weight to their pastoral concerns for the “perpetrator” than for the victim or try to manage the whole thing pastorally instead of following the correct safeguarding procedure, according to testimony by Shirley Hosgood, a former diocesan safeguarding adviser.

Another normalising procedure was, paradoxically, displaying the Christian virtue of forgiveness, forgetting that it’s not for the perpetrator’s friends and colleagues to forgive but the perpetrator’s victims, if at all. Thus, despite Roy Cotton’s conviction, an earlier bishop of Chichester, Eric Kemp told a fellow bishop: “In my opinion, it is all right. He’s been badly handled by the police. You can give him permission to take church services again.”

To take another example – the Reverend Pritchard was granted permission to conduct services in February 2007 upon his retirement, despite having been rearrested at that time for child sexual offending. More significantly, forgiveness can be seen as “wiping the slate clean”. In his testimony to the inquiry, Archdeacon Philip Jones gave an interesting exposition.

He said that Rideout, who was sentenced to 10 years’ imprisonment, absolutely resisted any suggestion that he was guilty and “I believe he took the view that he had been forgiven by God, his slate was therefore wiped clean. More than that, in terms of his mental approach to it, indeed his psychological approach from a very conservative viewpoint, was that it would be almost as though the events for which he was under investigation and then convicted for hadn’t happened. So, the mental approach is that forgiveness in those circumstances means (the sin has) gone.” Mr Jones felt that was a fairly prevalent view.

However, there was also one large development that had an immense normalising impact. This was the presence of Peter Ball as Bishop of Lewes in East Sussex. A review carried out by Dame Moira Gibb gives his history and I quote from it.

In 1960 Peter Ball and his brother founded a monastic religious community. In 1968 an old barn was purchased in Somerset and renovated, with five members of the community moving to live there. Bishop Ball has said, in the course of a psychological assessment conducted in 2009, that it was here, believing that the Church had “gone soft”, that he began inflicting hardships on himself. These practices included sitting on a cold stone floor, praying naked in a cold chapel, fasting and self-flagellation. He also reported hitting other members of the community and being hit by them. He said that it was here that “things began to go wrong”.

Bishop Ball carried on in the same vein. When he first became a bishop, he announced that he would “continue to live as a religious with some of his brethren” – an unusual way of life for a bishop. In 1980, Ball launched an appeal to young people in East Sussex to join new residential communities which would give them a time-limited experience of monastic discipline, spiritual development and practical Christian service.

This initiative is variously referred to as the “Year for Christ” scheme, or the “Give a Year to God” scheme, and participants were often referred to as “schemers”. Separate male and female communities were envisaged, the former based at Ball’s own residence. From this time onwards, Ball regularly had a number of boys and young men living with him. Significantly, he usually employed no other staff to assist with housekeeping or domestic duties. No wonder; in effect he was trying to create “abuse” communities.

Bishop Ball also seems to have used his powers of appointment to find posts for a group of individuals within the East Sussex area, the majority of whom have now been accused of child sexual offending. Using Bishop Hind’s terms, this was “normalising” on a grand scale.

At his trial for misconduct in public office between 1977 and 1992, for indecent assault on a boy, aged 12 or 13, in 1978 and indecent assault on a man, aged 19 or 20, between 1980 and 1982, Bobbie Cheema QC for the prosecution summed up Bishop Ball. “He was highly regarded as a godly man who had a special affinity with young people. The truth was that he used those 15 years in the position of bishop to identify, groom and exploit sensitive and vulnerable young men who came within his orbit. For him, religion was a cloak behind which he hid in order to satisfy his sexual interest in those who trusted him.” Bishop Ball was sentenced to 32 months in prison.

Now it falls to Bishop Marin Warner, who succeeded Bishop Hind in 2012, to “clean up” Chichester diocese. In his evidence to the inquiry last week, Bishop Warner concluded with an apology to survivors. “While apologies can begin to sound formulaic, I do want to register my sorrow and apology for the sexual abuse of children that has taken place in the diocese of Chichester, and for the ways in which it has been mishandled in the past.

“This comes from the bottom of my heart as a human being, but also more formally from me as the bishop of this diocese. I also grieve for the loss of access to faith that this has often resulted in: a terrible realisation, and it is that which has sustained my efforts in ensuring that the diocese of Chichester reforms.” It is a daunting task.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/long_reads/chichester-paedophile-child-abuse-reverends-church-of-england-diocese-sex-offenders-a8270601.html



They are in all walks of life. It is horrendous.

Bloody nonces, they hide in all walks of life.

I'm sick to death of them getting away with this and when caught not severe enough sentences. Life should be the only fair sentence.

sassy wrote:Evidence at the inquiry concluded that the abuse was 'normalised' because it was practised by so many. Worse still, one member of the clergy believed that God had forgiven him and therefore 'his slate was wiped clean'


Top, from left: Michael Walsh, Christopher Howarth, Gordon Rideout and Michael Mytton. Bottom, from left: Jonathan Graves, Vickery House, Terence Banks and Peter Ball

For a long time, I have wanted to understand why one small area of the Church of England has had a large number of the clergy sent to gaol for sexually abusing young people and children. The place is Sussex, particularly East Sussex, part of the diocese of Chichester.

I have not been alone in wanting this question answered. For the Government has set up an Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse in England and Wales and this body has turned its attention to the diocese of Chichester. The hearings have been going on for some weeks now. I shall make extensive use of what the inquiry has been told.

Let me start with something truly shocking. Here is the list of the main perpetrators:

Peter Ball was the Bishop of Lewes between 1977 and 1992 (later Bishop of Gloucester). In September 2015, Bishop Ball pleaded guilty to counts of misconduct in public office concerning sexual activity with young adults and two counts of indecent assaults against adults. He was sentenced to 32 months’ imprisonment.

The Reverend Vickery House was a vicar within East Sussex and a close associate of Peter Ball. He was convicted of five counts of indecent assault and was sentenced to six-and-a-half years’ imprisonment in October 2015.

The Reverend Roy Cotton was convicted in 1954 of gross indecency while a child was present as he exposed himself in the organ loft.

Reverend Pritchard pleaded guilty in 2008 to seven counts of sexual assault against two boys and was jailed for five years.

Reverend Robert Coles pleaded guilty to counts of indecent assault and two of attempted buggery and was sentenced in February 2013 to eight years’ imprisonment.

Reverend Jonathan Graves was convicted in 2017 of 12 offences, including indecent assault and cruelty to a child, and was sentenced to 12 years’ imprisonment.

Reverend Gordon Rideout was convicted of 34 counts of indecent assault and two counts of attempted rape against a total of 16 victims from May 2013. He was sentenced to 10 years’ imprisonment. He also pleaded guilty in December 2016 to a further count of indecent assault against someone under the age of 16 and was sentenced to nine months’ imprisonment.

Reverend Keith Denford was convicted of three counts of indecent assault in April 2013 and sentenced to 18 months’ imprisonment.

Reverend Christopher Howarth was convicted of 26 counts of sexual activity with a child and causing a child to engage in sexual activity and received 16 years’ imprisonment in total.

Peter Pannett was a deacon in the Brighton area. He pleaded guilty to two counts of making indecent images of children, one count of attempting incitement of a child to engage in sexual activity, and two counts of inciting a child under 16 to engage in sexual activity. He also pleaded guilty to two counts of causing a child to watch a sexual act. He was sentenced to 32 months of imprisonment.

So, why? John Hind, who was Bishop of Chichester 2001 to 2012, provided the answer when he told the inquiry that “abuse is not simply the act of some individual perpetrators, but actually it can involve collusion between different people, and that a climate can develop in certain areas in which people’s normal inhibitions against bad behaviour can get reduced. What is it that lowers those inhibitions? Well, one of them is clearly when you are in an environment in which a number of other people are abusing as well, and there can be a tendency to normalise what’s happening.” Another bishop in the diocese, Wallace Benn, said there was clearly a paedophile ring.

It can be small things as well as large that have a normalising effect. Janet Hind, the bishop’s wife, described how one of the complaints made by the victims and survivors of one of the abusers was that during his trial a member of the clergy came and sat in court every day to provide support to the accused. Also, when a new case of abuse came to light, senior clergy members would give more weight to their pastoral concerns for the “perpetrator” than for the victim or try to manage the whole thing pastorally instead of following the correct safeguarding procedure, according to testimony by Shirley Hosgood, a former diocesan safeguarding adviser.

Another normalising procedure was, paradoxically, displaying the Christian virtue of forgiveness, forgetting that it’s not for the perpetrator’s friends and colleagues to forgive but the perpetrator’s victims, if at all. Thus, despite Roy Cotton’s conviction, an earlier bishop of Chichester, Eric Kemp told a fellow bishop: “In my opinion, it is all right. He’s been badly handled by the police. You can give him permission to take church services again.”

To take another example – the Reverend Pritchard was granted permission to conduct services in February 2007 upon his retirement, despite having been rearrested at that time for child sexual offending. More significantly, forgiveness can be seen as “wiping the slate clean”. In his testimony to the inquiry, Archdeacon Philip Jones gave an interesting exposition.  

He said that Rideout, who was sentenced to 10 years’ imprisonment, absolutely resisted any suggestion that he was guilty and “I believe he took the view that he had been forgiven by God, his slate was therefore wiped clean. More than that, in terms of his mental approach to it, indeed his psychological approach from a very conservative viewpoint, was that it would be almost as though the events for which he was under investigation and then convicted for hadn’t happened. So, the mental approach is that forgiveness in those circumstances means (the sin has) gone.” Mr Jones felt that was a fairly prevalent view.

However, there was also one large development that had an immense normalising impact. This was the presence of Peter Ball as Bishop of Lewes in East Sussex. A review carried out by Dame Moira Gibb gives his history and I quote from it.  

In 1960 Peter Ball and his brother founded a monastic religious community. In 1968 an old barn was purchased in Somerset and renovated, with five members of the community moving to live there. Bishop Ball has said, in the course of a psychological assessment conducted in 2009, that it was here, believing that the Church had “gone soft”, that he began inflicting hardships on himself. These practices included sitting on a cold stone floor, praying naked in a cold chapel, fasting and self-flagellation. He also reported hitting other members of the community and being hit by them. He said that it was here that “things began to go wrong”.

Bishop Ball carried on in the same vein. When he first became a bishop, he announced that he would “continue to live as a religious with some of his brethren” – an unusual way of life for a bishop. In 1980, Ball launched an appeal to young people in East Sussex to join new residential communities which would give them a time-limited experience of monastic discipline, spiritual development and practical Christian service.

This initiative is variously referred to as the “Year for Christ” scheme, or the “Give a Year to God” scheme, and participants were often referred to as “schemers”. Separate male and female communities were envisaged, the former based at Ball’s own residence. From this time onwards, Ball regularly had a number of boys and young men living with him. Significantly, he usually employed no other staff to assist with housekeeping or domestic duties. No wonder; in effect he was trying to create “abuse” communities.

Bishop Ball also seems to have used his powers of appointment to find posts for a group of individuals within the East Sussex area, the majority of whom have now been accused of child sexual offending. Using Bishop Hind’s terms, this was “normalising” on a grand scale.

At his trial for misconduct in public office between 1977 and 1992, for indecent assault on a boy, aged 12 or 13, in 1978 and indecent assault on a man, aged 19 or 20, between 1980 and 1982, Bobbie Cheema QC for the prosecution summed up Bishop Ball. “He was highly regarded as a godly man who had a special affinity with young people. The truth was that he used those 15 years in the position of bishop to identify, groom and exploit sensitive and vulnerable young men who came within his orbit. For him, religion was a cloak behind which he hid in order to satisfy his sexual interest in those who trusted him.” Bishop Ball was sentenced to 32 months in prison.

Now it falls to Bishop Marin Warner, who succeeded Bishop Hind in 2012, to “clean up” Chichester diocese. In his evidence to the inquiry last week, Bishop Warner concluded with an apology to survivors. “While apologies can begin to sound formulaic, I do want to register my sorrow and apology for the sexual abuse of children that has taken place in the diocese of Chichester, and for the ways in which it has been mishandled in the past.

“This comes from the bottom of my heart as a human being, but also more formally from me as the bishop of this diocese. I also grieve for the loss of access to faith that this has often resulted in: a terrible realisation, and it is that which has sustained my efforts in ensuring that the diocese of Chichester reforms.” It is a daunting task.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/long_reads/chichester-paedophile-child-abuse-reverends-church-of-england-diocese-sex-offenders-a8270601.html



They are in all walks of life.  It is horrendous.

Absolutely true, but this appalling list of paedophiliac Anglican clerics is no more representative of the predilections of Christian priests than is the notorious Labour25 catalogue of Leftist politicians representative of the predilections of Labour ministers, MPs and councillors.

So, while in no way disputing your suggestion that this is horrendous, may I ask...just what is your point?

And yes, I do have a perfectly valid reason for asking.

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

sassy wrote:Evidence at the inquiry concluded that the abuse was 'normalised' because it was practised by so many. Worse still, one member of the clergy believed that God had forgiven him and therefore 'his slate was wiped clean'


Top, from left: Michael Walsh, Christopher Howarth, Gordon Rideout and Michael Mytton. Bottom, from left: Jonathan Graves, Vickery House, Terence Banks and Peter Ball

For a long time, I have wanted to understand why one small area of the Church of England has had a large number of the clergy sent to gaol for sexually abusing young people and children. The place is Sussex, particularly East Sussex, part of the diocese of Chichester.

I have not been alone in wanting this question answered. For the Government has set up an Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse in England and Wales and this body has turned its attention to the diocese of Chichester. The hearings have been going on for some weeks now. I shall make extensive use of what the inquiry has been told.

Let me start with something truly shocking. Here is the list of the main perpetrators:

Peter Ball was the Bishop of Lewes between 1977 and 1992 (later Bishop of Gloucester). In September 2015, Bishop Ball pleaded guilty to counts of misconduct in public office concerning sexual activity with young adults and two counts of indecent assaults against adults. He was sentenced to 32 months’ imprisonment.

The Reverend Vickery House was a vicar within East Sussex and a close associate of Peter Ball. He was convicted of five counts of indecent assault and was sentenced to six-and-a-half years’ imprisonment in October 2015.

The Reverend Roy Cotton was convicted in 1954 of gross indecency while a child was present as he exposed himself in the organ loft.

Reverend Pritchard pleaded guilty in 2008 to seven counts of sexual assault against two boys and was jailed for five years.

Reverend Robert Coles pleaded guilty to counts of indecent assault and two of attempted buggery and was sentenced in February 2013 to eight years’ imprisonment.

Reverend Jonathan Graves was convicted in 2017 of 12 offences, including indecent assault and cruelty to a child, and was sentenced to 12 years’ imprisonment.

Reverend Gordon Rideout was convicted of 34 counts of indecent assault and two counts of attempted rape against a total of 16 victims from May 2013. He was sentenced to 10 years’ imprisonment. He also pleaded guilty in December 2016 to a further count of indecent assault against someone under the age of 16 and was sentenced to nine months’ imprisonment.

Reverend Keith Denford was convicted of three counts of indecent assault in April 2013 and sentenced to 18 months’ imprisonment.

Reverend Christopher Howarth was convicted of 26 counts of sexual activity with a child and causing a child to engage in sexual activity and received 16 years’ imprisonment in total.

Peter Pannett was a deacon in the Brighton area. He pleaded guilty to two counts of making indecent images of children, one count of attempting incitement of a child to engage in sexual activity, and two counts of inciting a child under 16 to engage in sexual activity. He also pleaded guilty to two counts of causing a child to watch a sexual act. He was sentenced to 32 months of imprisonment.

So, why? John Hind, who was Bishop of Chichester 2001 to 2012, provided the answer when he told the inquiry that “abuse is not simply the act of some individual perpetrators, but actually it can involve collusion between different people, and that a climate can develop in certain areas in which people’s normal inhibitions against bad behaviour can get reduced. What is it that lowers those inhibitions? Well, one of them is clearly when you are in an environment in which a number of other people are abusing as well, and there can be a tendency to normalise what’s happening.” Another bishop in the diocese, Wallace Benn, said there was clearly a paedophile ring.

It can be small things as well as large that have a normalising effect. Janet Hind, the bishop’s wife, described how one of the complaints made by the victims and survivors of one of the abusers was that during his trial a member of the clergy came and sat in court every day to provide support to the accused. Also, when a new case of abuse came to light, senior clergy members would give more weight to their pastoral concerns for the “perpetrator” than for the victim or try to manage the whole thing pastorally instead of following the correct safeguarding procedure, according to testimony by Shirley Hosgood, a former diocesan safeguarding adviser.

Another normalising procedure was, paradoxically, displaying the Christian virtue of forgiveness, forgetting that it’s not for the perpetrator’s friends and colleagues to forgive but the perpetrator’s victims, if at all. Thus, despite Roy Cotton’s conviction, an earlier bishop of Chichester, Eric Kemp told a fellow bishop: “In my opinion, it is all right. He’s been badly handled by the police. You can give him permission to take church services again.”

To take another example – the Reverend Pritchard was granted permission to conduct services in February 2007 upon his retirement, despite having been rearrested at that time for child sexual offending. More significantly, forgiveness can be seen as “wiping the slate clean”. In his testimony to the inquiry, Archdeacon Philip Jones gave an interesting exposition.  

He said that Rideout, who was sentenced to 10 years’ imprisonment, absolutely resisted any suggestion that he was guilty and “I believe he took the view that he had been forgiven by God, his slate was therefore wiped clean. More than that, in terms of his mental approach to it, indeed his psychological approach from a very conservative viewpoint, was that it would be almost as though the events for which he was under investigation and then convicted for hadn’t happened. So, the mental approach is that forgiveness in those circumstances means (the sin has) gone.” Mr Jones felt that was a fairly prevalent view.

However, there was also one large development that had an immense normalising impact. This was the presence of Peter Ball as Bishop of Lewes in East Sussex. A review carried out by Dame Moira Gibb gives his history and I quote from it.  

In 1960 Peter Ball and his brother founded a monastic religious community. In 1968 an old barn was purchased in Somerset and renovated, with five members of the community moving to live there. Bishop Ball has said, in the course of a psychological assessment conducted in 2009, that it was here, believing that the Church had “gone soft”, that he began inflicting hardships on himself. These practices included sitting on a cold stone floor, praying naked in a cold chapel, fasting and self-flagellation. He also reported hitting other members of the community and being hit by them. He said that it was here that “things began to go wrong”.

Bishop Ball carried on in the same vein. When he first became a bishop, he announced that he would “continue to live as a religious with some of his brethren” – an unusual way of life for a bishop. In 1980, Ball launched an appeal to young people in East Sussex to join new residential communities which would give them a time-limited experience of monastic discipline, spiritual development and practical Christian service.

This initiative is variously referred to as the “Year for Christ” scheme, or the “Give a Year to God” scheme, and participants were often referred to as “schemers”. Separate male and female communities were envisaged, the former based at Ball’s own residence. From this time onwards, Ball regularly had a number of boys and young men living with him. Significantly, he usually employed no other staff to assist with housekeeping or domestic duties. No wonder; in effect he was trying to create “abuse” communities.

Bishop Ball also seems to have used his powers of appointment to find posts for a group of individuals within the East Sussex area, the majority of whom have now been accused of child sexual offending. Using Bishop Hind’s terms, this was “normalising” on a grand scale.

At his trial for misconduct in public office between 1977 and 1992, for indecent assault on a boy, aged 12 or 13, in 1978 and indecent assault on a man, aged 19 or 20, between 1980 and 1982, Bobbie Cheema QC for the prosecution summed up Bishop Ball. “He was highly regarded as a godly man who had a special affinity with young people. The truth was that he used those 15 years in the position of bishop to identify, groom and exploit sensitive and vulnerable young men who came within his orbit. For him, religion was a cloak behind which he hid in order to satisfy his sexual interest in those who trusted him.” Bishop Ball was sentenced to 32 months in prison.

Now it falls to Bishop Marin Warner, who succeeded Bishop Hind in 2012, to “clean up” Chichester diocese. In his evidence to the inquiry last week, Bishop Warner concluded with an apology to survivors. “While apologies can begin to sound formulaic, I do want to register my sorrow and apology for the sexual abuse of children that has taken place in the diocese of Chichester, and for the ways in which it has been mishandled in the past.

“This comes from the bottom of my heart as a human being, but also more formally from me as the bishop of this diocese. I also grieve for the loss of access to faith that this has often resulted in: a terrible realisation, and it is that which has sustained my efforts in ensuring that the diocese of Chichester reforms.” It is a daunting task.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/long_reads/chichester-paedophile-child-abuse-reverends-church-of-england-diocese-sex-offenders-a8270601.html



They are in all walks of life.  It is horrendous.

Absolutely true, but this appalling list of paedophiliac  Anglican clerics is no more representative of the predilections of  Christian priests than is the notorious Labour25 catalogue of Leftist politicians representative of the predilections of Labour ministers, MPs and councillors.

So, while in no way disputing your suggestion that this is horrendous, may I ask...just what is your point?

And yes, I do have a perfectly valid reason for asking.

My point is there are pedophiles everywhere, in all walks of life, and it's horrendous. Not difficult Fred.

Its sickening the way the church often shields the paedophiles within it, and I do think birds of a feather flock together.....if there is a culture of child abuse some people may see it as acceptable.

Homosexuals...

sassy wrote:

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

Absolutely true, but this appalling list of paedophiliac  Anglican clerics is no more representative of the predilections of  Christian priests than is the notorious Labour25 catalogue of Leftist politicians representative of the predilections of Labour ministers, MPs and councillors.

So, while in no way disputing your suggestion that this is horrendous, may I ask...just what is your point?

And yes, I do have a perfectly valid reason for asking.

My point is there are pedophiles everywhere, in all walks of life, and it's horrendous.    Not difficult Fred.

The words "absolutely true" might well have been taken my most observers to indicate that I did not disagree with you, but it is interesting that you should have chosen to direct your opprobrium at Anglian priests when there is so much paedophilia taking place in this country at this time, notably among so many of those who are not followers of the Christian religion.

And -again - yes, it is horrendous.

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

sassy wrote:



My point is there are pedophiles everywhere, in all walks of life, and it's horrendous.    Not difficult Fred.

The words "absolutely true" might well have been taken my most observers to indicate that I did not disagree with you, but it is interesting that you should have chosen to direct your opprobrium at Anglian priests when there is so much paedophilia taking place in this country at this time, notably among so many of those who are not followers of the Christian religion.

And -again - yes, it is horrendous.

I'll tell you what is interesting Fred. As someone who was abused, by my paternal grandfather in my case (while my Mum was in hospital fighting TB, my Dad was working all hours so he could go and see her at weekends and said grandparents were supposed to be looking after my brother and myself, but grandmother beat us and I spent most nights fighting off my grandfather) I know full well that race, religion, colour, age have fuck all to do with definining pedophiles. The only thing that defines them is their urge to abuse young children. That just happened to be plastered over the front of the paper.

sassy wrote:

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

The words "absolutely true" might well have been taken my most observers to indicate that I did not disagree with you, but it is interesting that you should have chosen to direct your opprobrium at Anglian priests when there is so much paedophilia taking place in this country at this time, notably among so many of those who are not followers of the Christian religion.

And -again - yes, it is horrendous.

I'll tell you what is interesting Fred.   As someone who was abused, by my paternal grandfather in my case (while my Mum was in hospital fighting TB, my Dad was working all hours so he could go and see her at weekends and said grandparents were supposed to be looking after my brother and myself, but grandmother beat us and I spent most nights fighting off my grandfather) I know full well that race, religion, colour, age have fuck all to do with definining pedophiles.   The only thing that defines them is their urge to abuse young children.   That just happened to be plastered over the front of the paper.  

Those were horrific events and no right-thinking person could ever, in a million years, condone abuse like that. The fact that you have clearly overcome what must have been traumatic experiences and are able to discuss them openly and eloquently is truly a credit to you.

And - yet again - I fully agree that race, religion, colour and age have nothing to do with defining paedophiles, and I certainly do not, and never have, condoned the abuse of children by clerics.

My point remains, however, that paedophiles among the priesthood, particularly those in the Anglican, Catholic and non-conformist sects of Christianity have always attracted justifiable exposure and opprobrium while the even worse serial abusive activities of organised grooming gangs in some of our towns and cities were deliberately covered up for years by local authorities, police and even social workers for what were purely political reasons in the interests of diversity and social cohesion.

It is that sort of selectivity that I challenge.

There has  been several threads over the last couple of years...two in the last couple of weeks, about the victims of the Muslim Pakistani gangs grooming, raping even murdering   young white girls....the latest being the Telford gangs.

Sassy, have you ever spoken out against them on here?

ALL paedophiles are scum....whatever their shade.

sassy wrote:

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

The words "absolutely true" might well have been taken my most observers to indicate that I did not disagree with you, but it is interesting that you should have chosen to direct your opprobrium at Anglian priests when there is so much paedophilia taking place in this country at this time, notably among so many of those who are not followers of the Christian religion.

And -again - yes, it is horrendous.

I'll tell you what is interesting Fred.   As someone who was abused, by my paternal grandfather in my case (while my Mum was in hospital fighting TB, my Dad was working all hours so he could go and see her at weekends and said grandparents were supposed to be looking after my brother and myself, but grandmother beat us and I spent most nights fighting off my grandfather) I know full well that race, religion, colour, age have fuck all to do with definining pedophiles.   The only thing that defines them is their urge to abuse young children.   That just happened to be plastered over the front of the paper.  

My previous post wasn't a confrontational one, just an observation.

I'm so sorry you went through physical and sexual abuse yourself when you were a child, I sincerely hope you managed to get over it.
I know many people don't, they bury it within themselves but it's always there.

Syl wrote:There has  been several threads over the last couple of years...two in the last couple of weeks, about the victims of the Muslim Pakistani gangs grooming, raping even murdering   young white girls....the latest being the Telford gangs.

Sassy, have you ever spoken out against them on here?

ALL paedophiles are scum....whatever their shade.

I agree Syl, I don't care what colour they are, they're all scum

Syl wrote:There has  been several threads over the last couple of years...two in the last couple of weeks, about the victims of the Muslim Pakistani gangs grooming, raping even murdering   young white girls....the latest being the Telford gangs.

Sassy, have you ever spoken out against them on here?

ALL paedophiles are scum....whatever their shade.

It’s a wing thing.

If you’re left wing you will never directly post on anything that disturbs the balancing act of all things left.
If youre right wing, you will only post stuff about Muslims and black people being horrid.


See? It’s a wing-thing.

eddie wrote:

Syl wrote:There has  been several threads over the last couple of years...two in the last couple of weeks, about the victims of the Muslim Pakistani gangs grooming, raping even murdering   young white girls....the latest being the Telford gangs.

Sassy, have you ever spoken out against them on here?

ALL paedophiles are scum....whatever their shade.

It’s a wing thing.

If you’re left wing you will never directly post on anything that disturbs the balancing act of all things left.
If youre right wing, you will only post stuff about Muslims and black people being horrid.


See? It’s a wing-thing.

Well it shouldn't be.
Child abuse should be brought out into the open, condemned and discussed no matter who is doing it.
Savilles lot, the Church brigade, Muslim Pakistanis, Uncle Tom Cobley an all.

Not true Eddie...


It is about pointing out the truth about some groups of people, in the face of the heavy pc positive spin propaganda that said groups constantly get in portraying them as all being lovely law abiding paragons of virtue and somehow more special than anyone else etc...


The crime rates among said groups is massive compared to white Brits... and not something that should be covered up!!!

Fred Moletrousers wrote:


Absolutely true, but this appalling list of paedophiliac  Anglican clerics is no more representative of the predilections of  Christian priests than is the notorious Labour25 catalogue of Leftist politicians representative of the predilections of Labour ministers, MPs and councillors.

So, while in no way disputing your suggestion that this is horrendous, may I ask...just what is your point?

And yes, I do have a perfectly valid reason for asking.

Her point seems dead obvious. She is referring to a cluster in a small corner of the country! All those predatory paedo's packed into one tiny spot. It's perfectly valid to highlight a strange cluster and try to find the reason behind it- what's the problem???

Firstly... she is ignoring the fact that they are homosexuals...!


Secondly... she has never posted anything against the huge number of muslem gangs of child rapists, who have been carrying on all over the country for years, and who have been helped to carry on by lefty councils and other lefty run authorities by them actively covering up their crimes...!


Thirdly... she has never posted anything against any labour councillors or other leftys who are up to no good with child sex offences... and there has been many of them caught doing such things over the years too!!!

Launching STRAIGHT into whataboutery as the first line of attack seems an exceeding poor way to start a debate.

A cluster is a cluster and should always be probed, notwithstanding owt else.

Tommy Monk wrote:Firstly... she is ignoring the fact that they are homosexuals...!

Secondly... she has never posted anything against the huge number of muslem gangs of child rapists, who have been carrying on all over the country for years, and who have been helped to carry on by lefty councils and other lefty run authorities by them actively covering up their crimes...!

Thirdly... she has never posted anything against any labour councillors or other leftys who are up to no good with child sex offences... and there has been many of them caught doing such things over the years too!!!

They are not all homosexuals,  Tommy...
The common connection is that they are all predatory and sociopathic paedophiles..

Some will be gays, some will be hetero', some will be bi'  --  the common denominator is that they are all preying on underage victims, for either their own perverted pleasures and/or as a show of power over another and more vulnerable person.

Talk by bishops over bullshit psycho-babble such as "normalisation" and unexplained clusters, only seems to show that many of those in positions of authority and responsibility simply still don't want to face up to some basic 'home truths'.

One of the defining characteristics of these types of predatory offenders --  whether found as "clusters" among clergy, scout and gude leaders, PCYC, teachers/police/judiciary;  or Tommy's targetted ethnic-based "rape gangs"  --  is how they love to seek out others with the same predilections..

"Birds of a feather flock together  !!!"

All homosexuals... as victims were all adolescent males...

Rape is power as well as sexually motivated....so it doesn't follow that every man who rapes a male, be it a child or an adult is homosexual.

The church does seem to attract and cover up for a lot of paedo's.....whether gay, straight or bisexual.

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:Firstly... she is ignoring the fact that they are homosexuals...!

Secondly... she has never posted anything against the huge number of muslem gangs of child rapists, who have been carrying on all over the country for years, and who have been helped to carry on by lefty councils and other lefty run authorities by them actively covering up their crimes...!

Thirdly... she has never posted anything against any labour councillors or other leftys who are up to no good with child sex offences... and there has been many of them caught doing such things over the years too!!!

They are not all homosexuals,  Tommy...
The common connection is that they are all predatory and sociopathic paedophiles..

Some will be gays, some will be hetero', some will be bi'  --  the common denominator is that they are all preying on underage victims, for either their own perverted pleasures and/or as a show of power over another and more vulnerable person.

Talk by bishops over bullshit psycho-babble such as "normalisation" and unexplained clusters, only seems to show that many of those in positions of authority and responsibility simply still don't want to face up to some basic 'home truths'.

One of the defining characteristics of these types of predatory offenders --  whether found as "clusters" among clergy, scout and gude leaders, PCYC, teachers/police/judiciary;  or Tommy's targetted ethnic-based "rape gangs"  --  is how they love to seek out others with the same predilections..

"Birds of a feather flock together  !!!"

Totally agree.

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

sassy wrote:



My point is there are pedophiles everywhere, in all walks of life, and it's horrendous.    Not difficult Fred.

The words "absolutely true" might well have been taken my most observers to indicate that I did not disagree with you, but it is interesting that you should have chosen to direct your opprobrium at Anglian priests when there is so much paedophilia taking place in this country at this time, notably among so many of those who are not followers of the Christian religion.

And -again - yes, it is horrendous.

to be fair, Fred, there are so many court cases involving Muslim rape gangs that it would be hard to keep up. Besides which there are I'm sure threads on here concerning such cases. They have their own brand of excuses that it is allowed because they are dirty white slags etc.

this one is different and throws up a completely different but no less dangerous mindset, especially in these paragraphs


It can be small things as well as large that have a normalising effect. Janet Hind, the bishop’s wife, described how one of the complaints made by the victims and survivors of one of the abusers was that during his trial a member of the clergy came and sat in court every day to provide support to the accused. Also, when a new case of abuse came to light, senior clergy members would give more weight to their pastoral concerns for the “perpetrator” than for the victim or try to manage the whole thing pastorally instead of following the correct safeguarding procedure, according to testimony by Shirley Hosgood, a former diocesan safeguarding adviser.

Another normalising procedure was, paradoxically, displaying the Christian virtue of forgiveness, forgetting that it’s not for the perpetrator’s friends and colleagues to forgive but the perpetrator’s victims, if at all. Thus, despite Roy Cotton’s conviction, an earlier bishop of Chichester, Eric Kemp told a fellow bishop: “In my opinion, it is all right. He’s been badly handled by the police. You can give him permission to take church services again.”

To take another example – the Reverend Pritchard was granted permission to conduct services in February 2007 upon his retirement, despite having been rearrested at that time for child sexual offending. More significantly, forgiveness can be seen as “wiping the slate clean”. In his testimony to the inquiry, Archdeacon Philip Jones gave an interesting exposition.

He said that Rideout, who was sentenced to 10 years’ imprisonment, absolutely resisted any suggestion that he was guilty and “I believe he took the view that he had been forgiven by God, his slate was therefore wiped clean. More than that, in terms of his mental approach to it, indeed his psychological approach from a very conservative viewpoint, was that it would be almost as though the events for which he was under investigation and then convicted for hadn’t happened. So, the mental approach is that forgiveness in those circumstances means (the sin has) gone.” Mr Jones felt that was a fairly prevalent view.



The two cases are different but as vile and dangerous as each other and both with ''group'' connections supporting each other in court cases etc

If sassy hadn't posted this article would anyone else have bothered.?

sassy, you are an incredibly strong woman

kudos

Syl wrote:Rape is power as well as sexually motivated....so it doesn't follow that every man who rapes a male, be it a child or an adult is homosexual.

The church does seem to attract and cover up for a lot of paedo's.....whether gay, straight or bisexual.

You got it the wrong way round Syl...


I would say that rape is completely sexually motivated, first and foremost factor in 99.9% or more of the cases of the scenario types that are generally thought of as 'rape'... eg, attack by stranger or attack by someone known to victim (but not in any sort of sexual relationship with attacker etc) or attack on child/underage adolescent by stranger/known/grooming etc...