Unofficial Christ's Hospital Forum

Shrewsbury suspended him immediately.

Some months later he was listed as having retired as a priest in the diocese.

AMP wrote: Tue Jun 04, 2019 7:37 pm Shrewsbury suspended him immediately.

Some months later he was listed as having retired as a priest in the diocese.

You are right, my mistake.

I think I am right in saying that there had been rumblings of investigations for some time by then, so he may have had the opportunity to dispose of anything illicit.

I hope this post doesn’t cause offence, it’s something I’ve been curious about for a while. Dobbie is often referred to as a paedophile, however would the term hebephile or ephebophile be more accurate considering the age of his victims? Clearly they are all offences that have rightly landed him on the sex offenders register, but are these accepted legal definitions or do the courts simple focus on whether or not the victim is a minor?

I think it would be unlikely that Dobbie had images of child abuse (I prefer this term to child pornography, as pornography implies a degree of consent) but images of younger males could be a grey area if they weren’t confirmed as under 18.

There is no legal definition of paedophile. It is a word in common usage which is readily understood.

The nearest legal term there is to describe the likes of Dobbie is sex offender.

Makes sense, thanks Richard. I was going by this definition, which I hadn’t come across before https://simple.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ephebophilia

The only categorisation the law makes is of victims. It call them child/children.

AMP wrote: Tue Jun 04, 2019 7:37 pm Shrewsbury suspended him immediately.

Well that's not exactly how the headmaster of Shrewsbury School reported it in September 2016...

https://www.shrewsbury.org.uk/sites/def ... ep2016.pdf

"I was saddened in the holidays to hear that our Chaplain, Rev Gary Dobbie, had decided to retire and he will
not, therefore, be returning to Shrewsbury. However, we have been fortunate in welcoming, initially for one
year, Rev Alex Aldous, who has just retired as Chaplain of Oakham School, and who is already energetically
throwing himself into all aspects of Shrewsbury life."

Dobbie was arrested on 29 January 2016 and we know from this article in the Shropshire Star that he was suspended at the time so why then was the headmaster of Shrewsbury 'saddened'' to hear of Dobbie's "retirement" 8 months later. Naughty!

https://www.shropshirestar.com/news/cri ... x-charges/

"In a statement Shrewsbury School said: "Shrewsbury School has been informed that a former employee has been charged in connection with historic allegations relating to his time at a previous school.

"He was suspended from Shrewsbury School at the time of his arrest in January 2016, in accordance with the school’s disciplinary, safeguarding and child protection policies. He has not been in Shrewsbury’s School’s employment since July 2016."

I would have thought by January 2016 that safeguarding was sufficiently advanced that Dobbie would have been under a duty to report his arrest to his employer, given the nature of what were then allegations.

In any case, he was arrested during school term. I got the impression that he and Husband (in particular) got free rides in police cars to West Sussex for interview. So he would have disappeared for the better part of two days.

If he had accommodation at Shrewsbury School, it will have been searched as a matter of routine.

It will have been nigh on impossible for Shrewsbury not to have known he had been arrested. He regarded himself as a bit of a charmer so no doubt he played it all down. You would be amazed how many sex offenders tell their fellow prisoners that they have been locked up for motoring offences.

Is this another example of covering things up for the reputation of the school (in this case Shrewsbury) - and can't be deemed to be "historical" - it was only 2016! So it's still common-place for institutions to try to hide/not reveal revelations about their staff?

Seems very economical with the truth....

The offences are historic in the sense that by the time of Dobbie's arrest, they were more than 10 years old.

The attitude of Shrewsbury is typical of the public school mentality where the reputation of the school is paramount and the school will do whatever it needs to in order to cover up.

My own personal perspective is that CH brought the police in with the hope of putting an end to the allegations but I may be wrong.

Going back to Marty's quotations from Shrewesbury school:

Presumably the first "I was saddened......" was when Dobie had not yet been convicted and honoured the concept of "Innocent until proven guilty" whereas the second quote that he hd actually been suspended before (presumably) deciding to resign fo;llowed hard evidence of guilt.

If that supposition is correct then Shrewesbury seem to have acted as correctly as possible.

As for CH bringing the police in - exactly as it should be. No accusation but shutting the stable door before the horse escaped.

sejintenej wrote: Wed Jun 05, 2019 12:15 pm Going back to Marty's quotations from Shrewesbury school:

Presumably the first "I was saddened......" was when Dobie had not yet been convicted and honoured the concept of "Innocent until proven guilty" whereas the second quote that he hd actually been suspended before (presumably) deciding to resign fo;llowed hard evidence of guilt.

If that supposition is correct then Shrewesbury seem to have acted as correctly as possible.

I have to disagree.

At the time of the "I was saddened" quote the school had known for 8 months why he had been arrested. If I was a pupil (or the parent of a pupil) I would want know if a teacher had been arrested on suspicion of such serious charges. Wouldn't you?

Furthermore, surely the school would have been informed (either by the police or by Dobbie himself) at the time of that statement in September 2016 that investigations were still continuing (we certainly know that the charges weren't dropped) in which case the line about Dobbie "deciding to retire" is, at very best, disingenuous.

I am sure that there will be someone along soon who is better versed in safeguarding than me, my understanding is that once an allegation of sexual misconduct is known to have been made against a teacher, he/she should be suspended immediately.

It is not a question of awaiting the outcome. A risk has arisen which needs to be safeguarded against.

richardb wrote: Wed Jun 05, 2019 12:57 pm I am sure that there will be someone along soon who is better versed in safeguarding than me, my understanding is that once an allegation of sexual misconduct is known to have been made against a teacher, he/she should be suspended immediately.

It is not a question of awaiting the outcome. A risk has arisen which needs to be safeguarded against.

The same has been evident in the football world, forcing the F.A. to take stronger and immediate action against football 'coaches' who have abused their post of trust, as recent court cases prove.

richardb wrote: Wed Jun 05, 2019 12:57 pmmy understanding is that once an allegation of sexual misconduct is known to have been made against a teacher, he/she should be suspended immediately.

There’s a category of jobs called “notifiable occupations” to which this applies:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... ice-forces

Quote:

There will clearly be cases where notification is appropriate - for example, where someone employed to work with children or vulnerable adults is suspected of, and has been arrested for, or charged with, an offence of violence or a sexual offence. Even in cases still under investigation, if the individual is considered to pose a risk to the vulnerable it would be inappropriate to delay notifying the regulatory body or employer until the person has been dealt with through the criminal justice system.

It’s up to the police, not the suspect, to inform the employer.

The fact that he was suspended immediately would suggest the school was informed.