Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I am certainly not a christian. Having been a long time church goer in the past (15+ years) I came to realise that the church, be it CoE or RC, is not in any way attached to reality. I am not putting down anyones choice to believe in what or who they want, it's just my personal choice and thoughts. It is very rare for me to post serious comments on this forum but I stand by what I say.


The man, regardless of whether he has a family or not, preyed on children simply by being in possession of the images. The church is complicit in condoning his actions by covering it up. As je-suis-concerned says, why do people still feel the need to protect him? Savile also did much good for charities etc. raising millions of pounds and you don't hear anyone protecting him.



Loz Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Well, there doesn't seem to be much in the way of

> Christianity on show around here, is there?

Loz, you talk about Christianity. What was Christian about this hypocrite? What on God's earth can be worse than perpetrating the torture of children? Getting off on the torture of children? Are we to love him? Are you nuts? Are you unable to understand the harm done to these kids? Or what. And what can be worse than doing what he did while masquerading as a man of God.


And Mr Ben, yes, some child abusers say they were abused themselves. A nice defence. But those who were do not go on to abuse. In fact, most, if not all, as adults, go on to abuse only themselves, via alcohol, drugs or self harm. Surely, if you were hurt in this way, you would not then want to do the same to others. A spurious argument. What is it with you apologists?

I think Loz's point was (though I don't want to appear presumptuous, so please correct me if I'm incorrect Loz) that Christians advocate 'forgiveness' and 'understanding' and there was little evidence of it on this occasion, or does Christianity have a high-water mark above which it's a free for all ? That's my impression of what was said and it was a reasonable comment IMO.


I think Mr Ben's point was (though I don't want to appear presumptuous, so please correct me if I'm incorrect Mr Ben) purely an observation that it's not uncommon for an abuser to have been abused and (if I may again be so bold) that in some cases therein lies a contributory factor to the behaviour. I did not see an 'apologist' or an excuse for what happened. You may see the remark that was made as unwarranted but that's the worst you could hurl at it surely.


It's easy, and lazy (and common on this forum) to draw the worst connotation from what someone has written, but in these cases IMO such challenges were obtuse and over-emotional.


If the Reverend looked at such images then he contributed to exploitation of children.

If he did not physically abuse children himself but did extract excitement from the images he viewed then presumably he had made a conscious decision to either limit his interest or maintain the care of those he came into contact with.

I don't know all the facts, as most of us surely don't. Of course there is potential for more to come to light, as in any such case, but let's hope for no physical abuse of individuals before listing the damage done to them.

Now it's being suggested we're to congratulate this guy for 'limiting' his perversions to only watching the abuse of children, perhaps what, in a bid to make sure he didn't act out his fantasies on any real children? You seem to be missing the point KidKruger that the children in the films he had been accessing are real children, sexually abused and filmed for the pleasure of people like him. For goodness sake what on earth is wrong with you all? Would his defence have been 'oh but I didn't touch anyone, I just watched.' I know it can seem that many of the comments here are over emotional but it is an emotive subject when someone so central to a community and loved by so many is discovered to have had a dark side which most would be repulsed and devastated by. It's not a subject most will just shrug their shoulders over. Those of you who feel the need to bring measure, I understand where you're coming from but it is maddening when you try to defend the indefensible.

KidKruger Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I think Loz's point was (though I don't want to

> appear presumptuous, so please correct me if I'm

> incorrect Loz) that Christians advocate

> 'forgiveness' and 'understanding' and there was

> little evidence of it on this occasion, or does

> Christianity have a high-water mark above which

> it's a free for all ? That's my impression of

> what was said and it was a reasonable comment

> IMO.

>

> I think Mr Ben's point was (though I don't want to

> appear presumptuous, so please correct me if I'm

> incorrect Mr Ben) purely an observation that it's

> not uncommon for an abuser to have been abused and

> (if I may again be so bold) that in some cases

> therein lies a contributory factor to the

> behaviour. I did not see an 'apologist' or an

> excuse for what happened. You may see the remark

> that was made as unwarranted but that's the worst

> you could hurl at it surely.

>

> It's easy, and lazy (and common on this forum) to

> draw the worst connotation from what someone has

> written, but in these cases IMO such challenges

> were obtuse and over-emotional.

>

> If the Reverend looked at such images then he

> contributed to exploitation of children.

> If he did not physically abuse children himself

> but did extract excitement from the images he

> viewed then presumably he had made a conscious

> decision to either limit his interest or maintain

> the care of those he came into contact with.

> I don't know all the facts, as most of us surely

> don't. Of course there is potential for more to

> come to light, as in any such case, but let's hope

> for no physical abuse of individuals before

> listing the damage done to them.



These are videos of children. They are non consensual and NOT porn. Someone has to have suffered to make these and that is why it is a crime.

I hope that he has had no physical contact with any local children but what makes children of ED special? Children somewhere have suffered. Probably vulnerable children with no hope of the support that could be provided here.

I wonder if the police have looked into his "holidays" to the far east?

Sally81 thanks for backing-up exactly my point, and demonstrating what I was trying to explain....


"It's easy, and lazy (and common on this forum) to draw the worst connotation from what someone has written"


"If the Reverend looked at such images then he contributed to exploitation of children"


Do you ever read posts before responding to them or do you sincerely believe that the louder you shout, the more valid your twisted viewpoint becomes ?!

I'm not going to argue with you KidKruger because it's pointless. I have no idea how my view is twisted and yours, in which you appear to be trying to put into some sort of perspective, the actions of a man with a sexual interest in children, is not.

> If the Reverend looked at such images then he

> contributed to exploitation of children.

> If he did not physically abuse children himself

> but did extract excitement from the images he

> viewed then presumably he had made a conscious

> decision to either limit his interest or maintain

> the care of those he came into contact with.

> I don't know all the facts, as most of us surely

> don't. Of course there is potential for more to

> come to light, as in any such case, but let's hope

> for no physical abuse of individuals before

> listing the damage done to them.

The connotation I took from your comments above is that him viewing child abuse is somehow not as bad as him physically abusing children. I am sure you will tell me that that is not what you're saying but it does come across strongly that way and I happen to disagree.

Sally81 surely perspective in ALL realms is valid ?

Why would perspective only be applicable to non-contentious circumstances ?

Is this a Christian trait ?


If you're trying to repeat your previous argument using 'perspective' as code for 'excuse', please, don't - you're accusing posters of something they haven't said, just because it fits what you want to believe they are saying.

You're troubled by reason aren't you ?

Is this a Christian trait ?


I really hope not. But it does all sound a bit "he who's not for me, must be against me".

Concerned Parish 2


Now you.


"These are videos of children. They are non consensual and NOT porn. Someone has to have suffered to make these and that is why it is a crime"

The 'point' being what ? You reckon everyone else thinks it's legal to abuse children on video ? Please.


"I hope that he has had no physical contact with any local children but what makes children of ED special?"

Why don't you tell us, seeing as you are raising the point about locality yourself - surely if you raise your own view you can answer your own questions on it ?

The problem is that it's such an emotive issue that some aren't open to looking past their own pitchforks.


Child abuse in all its forms is a despicable act recognised to be wholly wrong. Nobody on this thread is suggesting otherwise.


But without perspective and analysis we'll never understand why people do it or how to help those affected. People are asking and reacting to " How could he have been like this when he did so much good and helped lots of others" . They can't reconcile that and so look for answers. The reality is that 99.5% of humans aren't "good" or "evil". People are complex and a product of their own back ground and upbringing. They are capable of enormous duality. This guy was clearly tormented enough to kill himself and whilst his interests might disgust me, as a human being I can feel sympathy for him and his family. As I feel for the kids in those images.


Worth pausing to think about perhaps?


And I think you need to distance the views of posters talking about root cause analysis and asking to stick to the facts to date from the accusation of a church cover up.


The hysterical near theatrical posts above will not help this discussion.

buddug Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Mr Ben, he was not tormented enough to kill

> himself. He killed himself only when he was found

> out. And yes, we've all done bad things and are a

> complex mix in this way, but not to the extent of

> committing what surely most people see as the

> greatest evil.


Only one source at present (unless someone can find another).

This whole investigation the Mail is reporting (Project Spade) appears very hush hush.


All I find is there was another man of similar name who some might call evil.

KidKruger Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Concerned Parish 2

>

> Now you.

>

> "These are videos of children. They are non

> consensual and NOT porn. Someone has to have

> suffered to make these and that is why it is a

> crime"

> The 'point' being what ? You reckon everyone else

> thinks it's legal to abuse children on video ?

> Please.

>

> "I hope that he has had no physical contact with

> any local children but what makes children of ED

> special?"

> Why don't you tell us, seeing as you are raising

> the point about locality yourself - surely if you

> raise your own view you can answer your own

> questions on it ?


Whatever the moral case - Police have finite resources and need to be pragmatic.


http://www.essex.pcc.police.uk/2014/10/statement-on-project-spade-investigation/

I'm horrified by the viciously judgemental comments of some people on this subject. Of course I'm not suggesting child porn is anything other than vile and wrong, but no one appears to be suggesting he was anything more than a passive consumer of it, and in addition we don't know how long it had been going on for, or what brought him to that point. I'm not a practising Christian but I do know that love, forgiveness and not judging others are part of it.


For what it's worth I also think calling him a coward for committing suicide is short-sighted. Have you ever tried putting yourself, just for a moment, in someone else's shoes, and imagined the level of self-loathing, mental pain and sheer despair they might feel at that moment? Suicide is a cardinal sin to some Christians so hardly an easy way out for a priest.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Direct link to joint statement : https://thehaguegroup.org/meetings-bogota-en/?link_id=2&can_id=2d0a0048aad3d4915e3e761ac87ffe47&source=email-pi-briefing-no-26-the-bogota-breakthrough&email_referrer=email_2819587&email_subject=pi-briefing-no-26-the-bogot_-breakthrough&&   No. 26 | The Bogotá Breakthrough “The era of impunity is over.” That was the message from Bogotá, Colombia, where governments from across the Global South and beyond took the most ambitious coordinated action since Israel’s genocidal assault on Gaza began 21 months ago. Convened by The Hague Group and co-chaired by the governments of Colombia and South Africa, the Emergency Conference on Palestine brought together 30 states for two days of intensive deliberation — and emerged with a concrete, coordinated six-point plan to restrain Israel’s war machine and uphold international law. States took up the call from their host, Colombian President and Progressive International Council Member Gustavo Petro, who had urged them to be “protagonists together.” Twelve governments signed onto the measures immediately. The rest now have a deadline: 20 September 2025, on the eve of the United Nations General Assembly. The unprecedented six measures commit states to:     Prevent military and dual use exports to Israel.     Refuse Israeli weapons transfers at their ports.     Prevent vessels carrying weapons to Israel under their national flags.     Review all public contracts to prevent public institutions and funds from supporting Israel’s illegal occupation.     Pursue justice for international crimes.     Support universal jurisdiction to hold perpetrators accountable. “We came to Bogotá to make history — and we did,” said Colombian President Gustavo Petro. “Together, we have begun the work of ending the era of impunity. These measures show that we will no longer allow international law to be treated as optional, or Palestinian life as disposable.” The measures are not symbolic. They are grounded in binding obligations under international law — including the International Court of Justice’s July 2024 advisory opinion declaring Israel’s occupation unlawful, and September 2024’s UN General Assembly Resolution ES-10/24, which gave states a 12-month deadline to act. UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the occupied Palestinian territory Francesca Albanese called them “a momentous step forward.” “The Hague Group was born to advance international law in an era of impunity,” said South Africa’s Foreign Minister, Ronald Lamola. “The measures adopted in Bogotá show that we are serious — and that coordinated state action is possible.” The response from Washington was swift — and revealing. In a threatening statement to journalists, a US State Department spokesperson accused The Hague Group of “seeking to isolate Israel” and warned that the US would “aggressively defend our interests, our military, and our allies, including Israel, from such coordinated legal and diplomatic” actions. But instead of deterring action, the threats have only clarified the stakes. In Bogotá, states did not flinch. They acted — and they invite the world to join them. The deadline for further states to take up the measures is now two months away. And with it, the pressure is mounting for governments across the world — from Brazil to Ireland, Chile to Spain — to match words with action. As Albanese said, “the clock is now ticking for states — from Europe to the Arab world and beyond — to join them.” This is not a moment to observe. It is a moment to act. Share the Joint Statement from Bogotá and popularise the six measures. Write to your elected representative and your government and demand they sign on before 20 September. History was made in Bogotá. Now, it’s up to all of us to ensure it becomes reality, that Palestinian life is not disposable and international law is not optional. The era of impunity is coming to an end. Palestine is not alone. In solidarity, The Progressive International Secretariat  
    • Most countries charge for entry to museums and galleries, often a different rate for locals (tax payers) and foreign nationals. The National Gallery could do this, also places like the Museums in South Kensington, the British Library and other tax-funded institutions. Many cities abroad add a tourist tax to hotel bills. It means tourists help pay for public services.
    • Having just been to Co-op to redeem a 50p off Co-op members' card voucher on an item that is now 50p more than it was last week, Tesco can't come soon enough
    • Surely that depends on the amount.  It can be quite piffling.  
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...