You are here . on the pale blue dot


Blog notes

'Anonymous' comments for publication must include a pseudonym.

They should be on topic and not involve third parties.
If pseudonyms are linked to commercial sites comments will be removed as spam.


Wednesday 15 January 2020

Victims


Neil Todd met the Bishop of Gloucester (pictured) in 1993 at 16 years old while acting as his trainee
and was the first victim to tell senior clergy about Ball's sex crimes. Source: MailOnline


Yet again, child sex abuse has been dominating the news headlines. Another harrowing report Commissioned by Greater Manchester mayor Andy Burnham found that "A paedophile grooming gang was left to roam the streets of Manchester - and police knew who they were and exactly what they were doing:

- Social workers knew that one 15-year-old girl, Victoria Agoglia, was being forcibly injected with heroin, but failed to act. She died two months later.

- Abusers were allowed to freely pick up and have sex with Victoria and other children from city care homes, ‘in plain sight’ of officials.

- Greater Manchester Police dropped an operation that identified up to 97 potential suspects and at least 57 potential victims. Eight of the men went on to later assault or rape girls.

- As recently as August 2018, the Chief Constable refused to reopen the dropped operation.

Greater Manchester Police's Operation Augusta was set up to tackle "the sexual exploitation throughout a wide area of a significant number of children in the care system by predominantly Asian men".

From The Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Exploitation in Rotherham (1997 – 2013):
"By far the majority of perpetrators were described as 'Asian' by victims, yet throughout the entire
period, councillors did not engage directly with the Pakistani-heritage community to discuss how
best they could jointly address the issue. Some councillors seemed to think it was a one-off problem,
which they hoped would go away. Several staff described their nervousness about identifying the
ethnic origins of perpetrators for fear of being thought racist; others remembered clear direction
from their managers not to do so."

Not so reticent was former home secretary Jack Straw who was accused of stereotyping Pakistani men in Britain after he accused some of them as regarding white girls as "easy meat" for sexual abuse. "We need to get the Pakistani community to think much more clearly about why this is going on and to be more open about the problems that are leading to a number of Pakistani heritage men thinking it is OK to target white girls in this way."

Leading the attack against Jack Straw, Keith Vaz, chairman of the Commons home affairs select committee said it was wrong to "stereotype a whole community". Vaz was suspended from the Commons for six months after he was found to have "expressed willingness" to purchase cocaine for male prostitutes. He stood down before the General Election.

Many of the gangs' victims lived in child care homes, often miles away from their families but their plight was ignored for fear of being accused of racism.

Also ignored but in more comfortable surroundings were the victims of Anglican bishop Peter Ball and his accomplices. His friendship with Prince Charles made the paedophile bishop 'impregnable' while establishment figures rallied round to support.

There was a presumption of innocence, as there was in the case of Carl Beech who accused senior politicians, army and security chiefs of sadistic sexual abuse and claimed to have witnessed boys being murdered in the 1970s and 1980s. He was jailed for 18 years for perverting the course of justice, fraud and child sexual offences. The Metropolitan Police spent £2m looking into Beech's allegations, all of which proved to be false.

Bishop Peter Ball escaped such scrutiny. When charged with improper conduct towards Neil Todd a young novice monk he was given a caution and released after pressure from establishment figures. It was made clear that many bishops of the Church of England from the top down knew of the allegations. When Ball was cautioned other victims came forward, writing to Lambeth Palace detailing similar behaviour. The letters were not handed to the police.

 The story unfolds in the BBC documentary Exposed: The Church's Darkest Secret. Had it involved one apparently holy man manipulating victims and supporters alike, the deception would have been understandable. What is not is the blatant disregard for Ball's victims by bishops who knew of the abuse, withholding evidence, and the establishment campaign to discredit victims and avoid further investigation.

Another of Ball's victims, the Rev Graham Sawyer, had been introduced to him under a scheme Ball had started in 1980 called Give a Year to God, where teenagers and young men would go to live with him to 'learn the ways of a holy man'. After Sawyer rejected his advances, Ball said he would make sure he would never be ordained. He was true to his word. Sawyer was rejected for ordination. He moved to New Zealand where he was ordained three years later.

At The Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (IICSA), a solicitor for five survivors of abuse by Peter Ball told panel members:

"But what is now very clear is that in the Church of England, Peter Ball found the perfect cover for his offending. If a charlatan with an insatiable appetite for abuse wanted to secure a continuous supply of vulnerable young victims, there was no better way of achieving this than by founding a religious order not subject to any external supervision, and by making his victims' participation in the abuse a religious duty obligated by their oath of absolute obedience. Not for the first time, theology and religious ritual provided the ideal mask for abuse, with the evil of what Peter Ball did being compounded by his nauseating claim that the abuse was spiritually uplifting.

"Most of all, however, Peter Ball found in his fellow bishops in the Church of England the perfect accomplices, prepared to turn a blind eye to his abuse over many decades, to collude in the lie that the abuse of Neil Todd was an uncharacteristic aberration, to cast doubt on Ball's guilt, to smear his victims, and to rehabilitate him.

"It is now clear that for many years before the 1992 investigation, there were many in the Church of England who knew of or must have suspected his offending, and decided to turn a blind eye to it, and later tried to evade their own culpability by claiming that Ball had never really offended at all. Eric Kemp, the Bishop of Chichester, was aware of serious concerns about Ball well before 1992, yet in 2006 he repeated the lie that Ball's resignation had been the 'work of mischief makers'."

One would have thought that such a damning indictment would have seen many heads roll but this is the Church of England. Instead they continue as they wish. So there are more cover ups, this time in the evangelical wing, again going right to the top. Video HERE.

In no way comparable to the suffering inflicted by abusers on innocent children and young men, those who have looked for guidance to bishops now shown to be guilty of duplicity may be classed as spiritual victims of bishops who have been shown to care only for themselves and the establishment, not for those supposedly in their care.

Postscript [16.01.2020]

From Church Times:

Belated apologies from bishops and church leaders, praising survivors of the serial abuser Peter Ball for their bravery, after their testimonies appeared in a new BBC documentary on the case, broadcast this week. The church leaders also condemned the “cover-up” of abuse by the Church. Full report HERE.

21 comments:

  1. I watched with interest both episodes of the Peter Ball story. The attitude and response from all levels of clergy within a certain dioceses in Wales, to the reporting of incidents of clerical abuse known to me, mirrors that afforded to the victims of Peter Ball.
    The hierarchy were totally absorbed in the spiritual needs of the offender with minimal regard for the ruination of the lives of victims. The sole aim of fellow priests was to close ranks to avoid a public scandal.
    By reason of the attitude of brother priests, parishioners sided with the abuser,resulting in the family being driven out.
    It appears that once a man dons a cassock and dog collar,then he is presumed to be incapable of lying.
    The problem embodied within the approach of fellow priests arises because the church hierarchy fails the accept that the formal view of forensic psychiatrists is that pedophiles cannot be ‘cured’; the risk is abiding, and a sentimental approach to forgiveness is ineffectual.

    ReplyDelete
  2. PP. The two programmes were very stark and showed a horrid picture of pedophile clergy. What I found so hard to stomach was the way a former AB, behaved.
    The current safeguarding procedures hopefully will not see a repeat of this as all forms of abuse are wrong.
    My prayers are for the victims and those who have the unenviable role of counsel and protection.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Current safeguarding procedures???? I rang the CiW safeguarding phone line to report the bullying of a female ordinand. Response was "not a child then? Nothing to do with us. Contact the diocese I suppose"

      Delete
    2. Even better than that, Evangelical Ed, the Safeguarding Officer in our parish rang headquarters concerned that some of the DBS checks had gone five years without being rechecked. The response she got was: "Don't worry about it. We'll get round to it eventually. We have some who haven't been rechecked since 2008." A paedophile's charter if ever there was one. Nevertheless, the Peter Ball case is deeply troubling and upsetting. It beggars belief that the Establishment closed ranks to protect him, and to allow him to continue with his sordid practices.
      Seymour

      Delete
  3. I recall an article in the 'Church Times' in the early 1960s which reported on the religious body - the Community of the Glorious Ascension - which the Ball twins had established. I was in my mid teens back then, and. coming from an entirely secular home background, was then merely 'dipping my feet' in Christian spirituality and trying to find my way to faith via Anglicanism, which, as with so many English folk, was the Christian 'brand' with which my family nominally identified.

    The 'Church Times' article mentioned that neither of the Ball brothers had any previous experience of the monastic life. Ignorant as I was of Christian things at that point in my life, it even then struck me as odd that a couple of priests without any experience whatsoever of the religious life in community would venture to set up a totally new religious order with themselves at its head. How could anyone successfully and fruitfully do such a thing 'cold', as it were? Surely you need to have lived that life in some other and longer-established context before you can strike out to develop something new and different.

    At the time I wondered if there possibly might be some other motive behind such a bold and unlikely venture. Decades afterwards, it became clear that indeed there was.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Glad I'm not the only one who thought that Ball's "monastic" background was questionable. He made good use of the monk's habit by making it part of his image. It marked him out from other bishops and gave him an air of holiness that was entirely spurious.

      Delete
    2. Only too true, I think. The late John Smyth, a one time Queen's Counsel who delighted in beating young men until their buttocks bled under the guise of mortification, seems to have been another such, this time at the evangelical end of the Anglican spectrum.

      Delete
  4. The opportunity for abuse is much worse because of the internet. A clergyman in a parish a few miles from where I live has recently been sentenced to a paltry few months in prison. He had five devices. On one device there were thousands of videos of babies and toddlers being raped. He refused to give the passwords to the other devices so they were destroyed! Why not lock him up indefinitely until he divulges the passwords. As to the victims, none are to be identified as the images came from the internet. It all feels half hearted. I am uneasy that the patterns of offending will continue post-prison because it is a sickeningly addictive habit.
    Concerned.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Alas light sentences seem to be the order of the day for these kinds of clerical misdemeanours. Even when Peter Ball actually received a prison sentence in 2015, he only served 16 out of 32 months. Previously he got away with a caution in 1992, much to the disgust of his victims. And the prison sentence was for serious offences going back to the 1970s.

      When Ball was Bishop of Lewes in the Diocese of Chichester, there was a network of abusive priests operating with his connivance. Bearing in mind it all happened before the internet, such networks would now be more extensive and easier to set up. The clergyman you refer to is likely part of a much bigger group, and the exploitation of children is a major activity of organised crime.

      Delete
  5. May they burn in Hell for eternity. Bastards.

    ReplyDelete
  6. A quarter of a century ago I changed career and trained to become a social worker. I intended to work with older people, but during the first half of the two-year course the training was generic and we shared teaching with other students who intended to work with children and families.

    Which meant that I got at least some perspective on the particular problems around children in the care system. Two come particularly to mind. The first is that a children's residential care home doesn't involve loss of liberty, as prison does! It's simply an alternative home for children who for a variety of reasons can't live in their original home.

    Which means that the staff in children's homes have to walk a delicate legal line. The law has given natural parents quite a lot of latitude in bringing up their children - you only have to think of 'reasonable chastisement', for instance, which is only now starting to be called into question. Residential care workers are in law afforded no such leeway: to physically restrain a child can be construed as assault and to prevent a child coming and going as s/he wishes might be viewed, legally, as false imprisonment.

    I remember a residential children's home worker coming to share with us the quandaries of his job. One story which he told matches the current controversies: a girl in her mid-teens had been living in the home where he worked, and the staff believed that she was being sexually exploited by one or more older men. As best they could they took every care to try to obstruct her attempts to leave the home in the evening, because on more than one occasion when she'd done so she'd stayed out all night. As locking her in or physically restraining her were both prohibited, the guy described how he'd just stood in the doorway and obstructed her, while she screamed and scratched and beat at him with her fists. As he was an exceptionally large bloke the tactic was successful. But when slighter staff were on duty it couldn't be employed! And even then he worried that he might be subsequently disciplined - though actually he hadn't been.

    The second issue was the question of race, and what was termed 'race awareness'. I found - to my surprise, given that I was doing my social work training in the mid-'90s after a decade and a half of Thatcherism! - that social work training was dominated by the political ideologies of the hard left. That focused especially on race and cultural awareness and on 'anti-discriminatory and anti-oppressive practice' and we spent what I think was an entirely disproportionate amount of time on these issues.

    If it's indeed the case that social workers did back apprehensively away from even acknowledging the possibility that sexual exploitation of teenagers in care was in certain instances being carried out by semi-organized bands of south Asian men I wouldn't be surprised. Their training could readily have suggested to them that merely acknowledging the possibility of such a thing, let alone urging that it be explored and investigated, might well lay them open to allegations that they were racist in their attitudes, because the doctrine is that it's quite possible to be an unconscious racist lacking proper introspection as to your unrecognized prejudice, cultural arrogance and insensitivity.

    And, on some social work team where senior staff shared the outlook of my social work trainers, that could well be career suicide, ending up with your own work coming under scrutiny and the possibility of disciplinry proceedings. If this way of looking at things exists in social work, it strikes me as quite conceivable that to a greater or lesser extent it might be present in other parts of the public service as well - at least to the extent of 'Whoah, hot topic; best not even go there!'

    ReplyDelete
  7. The Social Services lost their way decades ago - if they ever knew it.
    Bob

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sorry to be slightly irrelevant to the foregoing discussion but I read elsewhere in this blog that the Archbishop of Wales thinks that the C in W has a brilliant future. In the course of recent research into a completely separate topic I found a brief article (dated 2006 I think) which stated that "a report from the Church in Wales into dwindling attendances shows that fewer that 180,000 people in Wales now go regularly to church. Barry Morgan said - society is changing rapidly and it seems self-evident that churches in Wales need to keep thinking afresh of new ideas in which the Gospel message can be communicated" I believe that the current eqivalent attendance figure is 21,000. It seems self-evident therefore that the new ways adopted by the former archbishop and the current bench are, unsurprisingly, an utter and complete failure. At this rate, anyone predicting a brilliant future must be living in a parallel universe!
      Nemesis

      Delete
    2. Nemesis, no less a personage than Professor Norman Doe, Chancellor of the Diocese of Bangor, has reached a similar conclusion to yourself. This appears in the latest edition of the Ecclesiastical Law Journal, Vol 22, No.1 Jan 2020. As it's unlikely to have a wide circulation, I'll quote it here.

      Commenting on the Church in Wales's unwieldy legal system, Professor Doe declares "The Church in Wales has certainly used its freedom under the 1914 Act to create an elaborate domestic legal system for itself - some might say too zealously" (p9)

      He then lists the many types of canons and constitutional instruments of the C in W, from diocesan to cathedral to PCC level, plus codes of practice, guidelines and policy documents. Following from this profusion of laws that seems to expand yearly, Professor Doe makes a pithy observation:

      "For a church that would fill just over half the seats in the Principality Stadium, this battery of formal and informal instruments may be thought a touch excessive. In 1927 it had 187,000 Easter communicants; in 1999, 85,000; in 2917, 48,500." (p10)

      Comparing the total C in W attendance to a single sports stadium highlights its rapid decline. If the current figure of 21,000 is roughly correct, this is the capacity of the Liberty Stadium in Swansea. Perhaps the C in W should save money by centralising all its congregants there instead of spreading them over the whole of Wales!

      Joking aside, the C in W needs to rationalise its operations: halve the dioceses to three and focus its efforts in urban areas. Maybe some last-minute evangelising would save it from total extinction? But that would mean making an effort!

      Delete
    3. PS I typed 2917 instead of 2017! The C in W will be no more than a historical footnote in 900 years' time, considering it lost three quarters of its membership in less than a century.

      Delete
    4. The problem is SS that come Saturday, 25 January 2020, the Church in Wales will be considered heretical by the majority of Anglicans, ie. those bishops and congregations who look to GAFCON. The Welsh Bishops have played their liberal game for so long that the CiW is now irrelevant. Just look at the number of bishops who have stuck two fingers up to Carey with regard to Lambeth 2020. The only bishops going to Lambeth are the like-minded. Instead of being centres of unity, the Welsh Bishops are figures for disunity. They are pleading with people to take up tickets for this Saturday's consecration, and no-one wants to be there.
      Seymour

      Delete
    5. I will be busy on Saturday next.
      I have an appointment with my hairdresser.

      Delete
    6. @SimonStylites
      The pace of the decline is such that the entire Church in Wales membership will soon be able to fit into the top floor £500k per annum Penthouse suite in Callaghan Square, with room to spare.

      Delete
  8. PP. Interesting about the consecration tickets. I am reliably informed by clergy friends in Manchester and Chester that they have been declined further tickets as they are at capacity! There are already 2 coaches and several cars from that area. Perhaps Ms Vann is better thought of than we may think. But time will tell. I have no view either way.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. PP, if this Saturday's service is anything like the "Desecrating Synod" of 5 January, then there will be plenty of seats available. On 5 January, the Cathedral had set chairs out in the side aisles to accommodate the vast numbers who would attend. If it wasn't that the choir were sitting in the choir stalls, you could have put the entire congregation to sit there: and I have that on good authority from someone who was present. So, @Ruth, cancel that hair appointment, you will probably get a front row seat, if you hurry.
      It is not a reflection on Cherry Vann, and I am not suggesting that for one moment. I don't know her, and I have never met her. Unfortunately, we have come to a place where the Bench of Charlatans have foisted their agenda onto the people of Wales for too long, and the people see it all too clearly. They hold consultations on this, that and the other; and then they don't listen to what they are being told. The consultations are a fruitless exercise.
      St David's Diocese was the most strident in its opposition to same-sex marriage, and Bishop Wyn Evans kept faith with his diocese, and its opinion. The current Charlatan of St David's keeps pushing the LGBT+ agenda, whilst insisting that her diocese needs to get over itself and move on.
      If Cherry Vann only knew why she was elected she would run a mile. She is nothing more and nothing less than a pawn in the game of the Charlatans - and they are Charlatans. Having watched the demise of Episcopal Church of the USA and other once great provinces, they think nothing of bringing the Church in Wales to point of heresy and isolation. The most important thing is to prove their LGBT+ credentials. And lets not forget another archdeacon who came from England to be a dean in Llandaff; and soon realised the deception of another Charlatan before disappearing back to England after only two months in the post. What Cherry Vann will discover all to quickly is that the other Bench sitters are using her; but if she is as adept at deceit and trickery as her counterparts; then she will be an ideal candidate for joining the other charlatans on the Bench.
      Seymour

      Delete
    2. No thank you Seymour.
      My hairdresser is far more interesting, far more intelligent and far more relevant to me than Cherry Vann, her girlfriend and the other intellectual pygmies on the bench in Wales.

      Delete