Christ's Hospital / The Church of England / Child Abuse
Moderator: Moderators
-
- Forum Moderator
- Posts: 886
- Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2005 2:23 pm
- Real Name: Richard Bloomfield
- Location: Tyne and Wear
Re: Christ's Hospital / The Church of England / Child Abuse
I seem to be missing the point.
Sexual abuse in whatever form has always been wrong and has long been a criminal offence.
What all five did (together with others who have died) was appalling and those who failed the victims - for whatever reason or motivation - merit condemnation.
Those in positions of responsibility should not need to be told what to do.
In 1992 a family member under the age of 16 was abused by a family friend. We all rallied round and it was reported to the police. He was charged and pleaded guilty. We were visited by social services in a supervisory role as there were well laid out procedures back then.
The offender's wife objected to me getting involved and using my professional skills and knowledge to ensure her husband got what he deserved and complained about me. I ended up on a charge of professional misconduct before a Disciplinary Tribunal. Needless to say after a two day hearing the complaint against me was dismissed.
I didn't need a document to tell me what to do. I knew what has to be done.
Sexual abuse in whatever form has always been wrong and has long been a criminal offence.
What all five did (together with others who have died) was appalling and those who failed the victims - for whatever reason or motivation - merit condemnation.
Those in positions of responsibility should not need to be told what to do.
In 1992 a family member under the age of 16 was abused by a family friend. We all rallied round and it was reported to the police. He was charged and pleaded guilty. We were visited by social services in a supervisory role as there were well laid out procedures back then.
The offender's wife objected to me getting involved and using my professional skills and knowledge to ensure her husband got what he deserved and complained about me. I ended up on a charge of professional misconduct before a Disciplinary Tribunal. Needless to say after a two day hearing the complaint against me was dismissed.
I didn't need a document to tell me what to do. I knew what has to be done.
Re: Christ's Hospital / The Church of England / Child Abuse
Aren't there two issues, both important:
1 - sexual abuse and exploitation of children (and adults) is abhorrent. It is always wrong and should always be (reported and) punished whenever it happens. There are no exceptions.
2 - there are environments, whether domestic, institutional or even national, when reporting abuse becomes much harder and people can make wrong decisions (e.g. non-reporting). There are others settings which are much more conducive to people making right decisions, for example, companies/organizations/institutions built on transparency, clear harassment policies and procedures, strong tone from the top, trust and clear whistleblower policies (etc.).
Whatever the setting however, wrong decisions are wrong. It appears clear that wrong decisions were made, by individuals and perhaps by the school's leadership (if they knew/were informed). The gravity of the acts/crimes committed means that these wrong decisions can never be justified, excused or somehow diluted in terms of their wrongness.
Yes, without doubt, CH in the 1980's and 1990's was almost certainly an environment in which it was really difficult for many members of staff to report these things. Really difficult. Bravery and an unerring commitment to doing the right thing were required, but yes, they were required in these instances. The decisions people made were wrong and the personal consequences enormous, perhaps immeasurable.
1 - sexual abuse and exploitation of children (and adults) is abhorrent. It is always wrong and should always be (reported and) punished whenever it happens. There are no exceptions.
2 - there are environments, whether domestic, institutional or even national, when reporting abuse becomes much harder and people can make wrong decisions (e.g. non-reporting). There are others settings which are much more conducive to people making right decisions, for example, companies/organizations/institutions built on transparency, clear harassment policies and procedures, strong tone from the top, trust and clear whistleblower policies (etc.).
Whatever the setting however, wrong decisions are wrong. It appears clear that wrong decisions were made, by individuals and perhaps by the school's leadership (if they knew/were informed). The gravity of the acts/crimes committed means that these wrong decisions can never be justified, excused or somehow diluted in terms of their wrongness.
Yes, without doubt, CH in the 1980's and 1990's was almost certainly an environment in which it was really difficult for many members of staff to report these things. Really difficult. Bravery and an unerring commitment to doing the right thing were required, but yes, they were required in these instances. The decisions people made were wrong and the personal consequences enormous, perhaps immeasurable.
-
- Forum Moderator
- Posts: 886
- Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2005 2:23 pm
- Real Name: Richard Bloomfield
- Location: Tyne and Wear
Re: Christ's Hospital / The Church of England / Child Abuse
Surely a member of the clergy would have a highly developed sense of right and wrong and wouldn't need to be told what to do, irrespective of the cost to them personally?
Re: Christ's Hospital / The Church of England / Child Abuse
One would hope so.
- Mid A 15
- Button Grecian
- Posts: 3174
- Joined: Thu May 19, 2005 1:38 pm
- Real Name: Claude Rains
- Location: The Patio Of England (Kent)
Re: Christ's Hospital / The Church of England / Child Abuse
Absolutely right.
The only possible exceptions might be confession or where a plea for confidentiality has been made by the confiding victim.
I am not aware that either scenario is applicable to the specific cases under discussion.
Ma A, Mid A 65 -72
Re: Christ's Hospital / The Church of England / Child Abuse
Confidentiality is not allowed when safety is at stake.
-
- GE (Great Erasmus)
- Posts: 101
- Joined: Tue Jun 19, 2018 11:56 am
- Real Name: Catherine/CJ
- Location: Devon
Re: Christ's Hospital / The Church of England / Child Abuse
We might expect it but it doesn't necessarily happen. Clergy are only human. Besides, the Diocese of Chichester was well-known for being 'flexible' about such matters with many of its priests. Bishop Kemp had Victorian ideals about child protection and preferred knowledge of abuse to go no further.
-
- GE (Great Erasmus)
- Posts: 101
- Joined: Tue Jun 19, 2018 11:56 am
- Real Name: Catherine/CJ
- Location: Devon
Re: Christ's Hospital / The Church of England / Child Abuse
Thinking about this idea that children's welfare was different back in the 80s and 90s. 'Safeguarding' as a word wasn't used but the understanding of the damage that sexual abuse did was understood. Childline was set up in 1986, the Cleveland case of child removal was 1987, an updated Children's Act in 1989.
Some thoughts:
Would the CH Chaplaincy have come under C of E regulations, CH regulations, both or neither?
Would the local authority have had any power over the school regarding children in need or identified as at risk?
Who in the school hierarchy would have had knowledge or access to records of pupils' backgrounds?
School were in loco parentis during term-time. Does that equate to a legal guardianship of sorts?
Some thoughts:
Would the CH Chaplaincy have come under C of E regulations, CH regulations, both or neither?
Would the local authority have had any power over the school regarding children in need or identified as at risk?
Who in the school hierarchy would have had knowledge or access to records of pupils' backgrounds?
School were in loco parentis during term-time. Does that equate to a legal guardianship of sorts?
-
- Forum Moderator
- Posts: 886
- Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2005 2:23 pm
- Real Name: Richard Bloomfield
- Location: Tyne and Wear
Re: Christ's Hospital / The Church of England / Child Abuse
Yes it does. Effectively the school stood in the shoes of parents, which is why teachers were able to administer corporal punishment. It cloaked them with lawful authority.Janey Jam-Jar wrote: ↑Tue Jul 10, 2018 11:51 pm School were in loco parentis during term-time. Does that equate to a legal guardianship of sorts?
In an emergency the school could make all the decisions necessary for the child.
Plus the school owed a duty to take reasonable care to keep pupils safe from foreseeable harm.
In addition to the matters that you have set out, the Sexual Offences Act 1956 created a whole range of criminal offences against children, the Indecency With Children Act 1960 created the offence of indecent conduct towards a child and the Protection of Children Act 1978 criminalised the making, possession and distribution of indecent images of children (long before the arrival of the Internet).
All those offences remained on the statute book until the law was codified by the Sexual Offences Act 2003.
As should be obvious, society's awareness of the need to protect children in sexual matters was fully developed long before Husband and Dobbie.
The 2003 Act created very few new offences, although it attempted to clarify a number. Curiously sections 16-19 of the 2003 Act created offences in relation to sexual activity with a child in breach of trust. The definition specifically refers to educational establishments, which would have meant that Husband's consensual sexual relationships with 17 year old pupils would have been criminal offences if they had occurred when the 2003 Act was in force.
Re: Christ's Hospital / The Church of England / Child Abuse
Thanks for your very thoughtful post. One quibble. I personally don't recognise such an extreme characterisation of CH. Of course it is also true that churches and schools are better than they once were, and it is important that all staff - young, old & non-teaching staff - are confident safeguarders.
Re: Christ's Hospital / The Church of England / Child Abuse
It looks like there were two levels of negligence.
One, where a victim was sent back for further exposure to harm without any action being taken.
The other, where action was taken to protect pupils at CH but nothing was done to protect future victims at other locations or bring the criminals to justice.
I cannot understand why such negligence is not criminal.
One, where a victim was sent back for further exposure to harm without any action being taken.
The other, where action was taken to protect pupils at CH but nothing was done to protect future victims at other locations or bring the criminals to justice.
I cannot understand why such negligence is not criminal.
-
- Forum Moderator
- Posts: 886
- Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2005 2:23 pm
- Real Name: Richard Bloomfield
- Location: Tyne and Wear
Re: Christ's Hospital / The Church of England / Child Abuse
And simply moving staff on led to a culture where staff at CH thought that abusing the pupils would merit no more than dismissal, rather than prosecution and incarceration.yamaha wrote: ↑Wed Jul 11, 2018 9:14 am It looks like there were two levels of negligence.
One, where a victim was sent back for further exposure to harm without any action being taken.
The other, where action was taken to protect pupils at CH but nothing was done to protect future victims at other locations or bring the criminals to justice.
I cannot understand why such negligence is not criminal.
Re: Christ's Hospital / The Church of England / Child Abuse
We know that there have been a number of staff members who were moved on from the school as a result of abuse allegations (some were even sent on their way with the sound of pink floyd’s lyiric “hey, teacher, leave those kids alone”, played and sung by pupils across the back ash as the paedo in question scurried away to new pastures)
We know that the police were not always informed of the circumstances. This leads to the potential that abuse continues elsewhere and may still be occuring elsewhere, as stated by others on this forum.
Whilst the letter from CH has stressed how times have changed and it couldnt happen again, there is still a significant gap to close. I would therefore like to see assurance from the school that police have been informed of all of those incidents where staff were removed and why in order for suitable enquiries to take place.
The current headmaster was in the teaching staff during some of these events, whilst that doesnt implicate him in any way, the generational difference is not as significant as implied.
Thoughts and admiration with the brave victims.
We know that the police were not always informed of the circumstances. This leads to the potential that abuse continues elsewhere and may still be occuring elsewhere, as stated by others on this forum.
Whilst the letter from CH has stressed how times have changed and it couldnt happen again, there is still a significant gap to close. I would therefore like to see assurance from the school that police have been informed of all of those incidents where staff were removed and why in order for suitable enquiries to take place.
The current headmaster was in the teaching staff during some of these events, whilst that doesnt implicate him in any way, the generational difference is not as significant as implied.
Thoughts and admiration with the brave victims.