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

    • The is very low water pressure in the middle of Friern Road this morning.
    • I think mostly those are related to the same "issues". In my experience, it's difficult using the pin when reporting problems, especially if you're on a mobile... There's two obvious leaks in that stretch and has been for sometime one of them apparently being sewer flooding 😱  
    • BBC Homepage Skip to content Accessibility Help EFor you Notifications More menu Search BBC                     BBC News Menu   UK England N. Ireland Scotland Alba Wales Cymru Isle of Man Guernsey Jersey Local News Vets under corporate pressure to increase revenue, BBC told   Image source,Getty Images ByRichard Bilton, BBC Panorama and Ben Milne, BBC News Published 2 hours ago Vets have told BBC Panorama they feel under increasing pressure to make money for the big companies that employ them - and worry about the costly financial impact on pet owners. Prices charged by UK vets rose by 63% between 2016 and 2023, external, and the government's competition regulator has questioned whether the pet-care market - as it stands - is giving customers value for money. One anonymous vet, who works for the UK's largest vet care provider, IVC Evidensia, said that the company has introduced a new monitoring system that could encourage vets to offer pet owners costly tests and treatment options. A spokesperson for IVC told Panorama: "The group's vets and vet nurses never prioritise revenue or transaction value over and above the welfare of the animal in their care." More than half of all UK households are thought to own a pet, external. Over the past few months, hundreds of pet owners have contacted BBC Your Voice with concerns about vet bills. One person said they had paid £5,600 for 18 hours of vet-care for their pet: "I would have paid anything to save him but felt afterwards we had been taken advantage of." Another described how their dog had undergone numerous blood tests and scans: "At the end of the treatment we were none the wiser about her illness and we were presented with a bill of £13,000."   Image caption, UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024, according to the CMA Mounting concerns over whether pet owners are receiving a fair deal prompted a formal investigation by government watchdog, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA). In a provisional report, external at the end of last year, it identified several issues: Whether vet companies are being transparent about the ownership of individual practices and whether pet owners have enough information about pricing The concentration of vet practices and clinics in the hands of six companies - these now control 60% of the UK's pet-care market Whether this concentration has led to less market competition and allowed some vet care companies to make excess profits 'Hitting targets' A vet, who leads one of IVC's surgeries (and who does not want to be identified because they fear they could lose their job), has shared a new internal document with Panorama. The document uses a colour code to compare the company's UK-wide tests and treatment options and states that it is intended to help staff improve clinical care. It lists key performance indicators in categories that include average sales per patient, X-rays, ultrasound and lab tests. The vet is worried about the new policy: "We will have meetings every month, where one of the area teams will ask you how many blood tests, X-rays and ultrasounds you're doing." If a category is marked in green on the chart, the clinic would be judged to be among the company's top 25% of achievers in the UK. A red mark, on the other hand, would mean the clinic was in the bottom 25%. If this happens, the vet says, it might be asked to come up with a plan of action. The vet says this would create pressure to "upsell" services. Panorama: Why are vet bills so high? Are people being priced out of pet ownership by soaring bills? Watch on BBC iPlayer now or BBC One at 20:00 on Monday 12 January (22:40 in Northern Ireland) Watch on iPlayer For instance, the vet says, under the new model, IVC would prefer any animal with suspected osteoarthritis to potentially be X-rayed. With sedation, that could add £700 to a bill. While X-rays are sometimes necessary, the vet says, the signs of osteoarthritis - the thickening of joints, for instance - could be obvious to an experienced vet, who might prefer to prescribe a less expensive anti-inflammatory treatment. "Vets shouldn't have pressure to do an X-ray because it would play into whether they are getting green on the care framework for their clinic." IVC has told Panorama it is extremely proud of the work its clinical teams do and the data it collects is to "identify and close gaps in care for our patients". It says its vets have "clinical independence", and that prioritising revenue over care would be against the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons' (RCVS) code and IVC policy. Vets say they are under pressure to bring in more money per pet   Published 15 April 2025 Vets should be made to publish prices, watchdog says   Published 15 October 2025 The vet says a drive to increase revenue is undermining his profession. Panorama spoke to more than 30 vets in total who are currently working, or have worked, for some of the large veterinary groups. One recalls being told that not enough blood tests were being taken: "We were pushed to do more. I hated opening emails." Another says that when their small practice was sold to a large company, "it was crazy... It was all about hitting targets". Not all the big companies set targets or monitor staff in this way. The high cost of treatment UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024 - equal to just over £365 per pet-owning household, according to the CMA. However, most pet owners in the UK do not have insurance, and bills can leave less-well-off families feeling helpless when treatment is needed. Many vets used not to display prices and pet owners often had no clear idea of what treatment would cost, but in the past two years that has improved, according to the CMA. Rob Jones has told Panorama that when his family dog, Betty, fell ill during the autumn of 2024 they took her to an emergency treatment centre, Vets Now, and she underwent an operation that cost almost £5,000. Twelve days later, Betty was still unwell, and Rob says he was advised that she could have a serious infection. He was told a diagnosis - and another operation - would cost between £5,000-£8,000.   Image caption, Betty's owners were told an operation on her would cost £12,000 However, on the morning of the operation, Rob was told this price had risen to £12,000. When he complained, he was quoted a new figure - £10,000. "That was the absolute point where I lost faith in them," he says. "It was like, I don't believe that you've got our interests or Betty's interests at heart." The family decided to put Betty to sleep. Rob did not know at the time that both his local vet, and the emergency centre, branded Vets Now, where Betty was treated, were both owned by the same company - IVC. He was happy with the treatment but complained about the sudden price increase and later received an apology from Vets Now. It offered him £3,755.59 as a "goodwill gesture".   Image caption, Rob Jones says he lost faith in the vets treating his pet dog Betty Vets Now told us its staff care passionately for the animals they treat: "In complex cases, prices can vary depending on what the vet discovers during a consultation, during the treatment, and depending on how the patient responds. "We have reviewed our processes and implemented a number of changes to ensure that conversations about pricing are as clear as possible." Value for money? Independent vet practices have been a popular acquisition for corporate investors in recent years, according to Dr David Reader from the University of Glasgow. He has made a detailed study of the industry. Pet care has been seen as attractive, he says, because of the opportunities "to find efficiencies, to consolidate, set up regional hubs, but also to maximise profits". Six large veterinary groups (sometimes referred to as LVGs) now control 60% of the UK pet care market - up from 10% a decade ago, according to the CMA, external. They are: Linnaeus, which owns 180 practices Medivet, which has 363 Vet Partners with 375 practices CVS Group, which has 387 practices Pets at Home, which has 445 practices under the name Vets for Pets IVC Evidensia, which has 900 practices When the CMA announced its provisional findings last autumn, it said there was not enough competition or informed choice in the market. It estimated the combined cost of this to UK pet owners amounted to £900m between 2020-2024. Corporate vets dispute the £900m figure. They say their prices are competitive and made freely available, and reflect their huge investment in the industry, not to mention rising costs, particularly of drugs. The corporate vets also say customers value their services highly and that they comply with the RCVS guidelines.   Image caption, A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with the service they receive from vets A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with their vets - both corporate and independent - when it comes to quality of service. But, with the exception of Pets at Home, customer satisfaction on cost is much lower for the big companies. "I think that large veterinary corporations, particularly where they're owned by private equity companies, are more concerned about profits than professionals who own veterinary businesses," says Suzy Hudson-Cooke from the British Veterinary Union, which is part of Unite. Proposals for change The CMA's final report on the vet industry is expected by the spring but no date has been set for publication. In its provisional report, it proposed improved transparency on pricing and vet ownership. Companies would have to reveal if vet practices were part of a chain, and whether they had business connections with hospitals, out-of-hours surgeries, online pharmacies and even crematoria. IVC, CVS and Vet Partners all have connected businesses and would have to be more transparent about their services in the future. Pets at Home does not buy practices - it works in partnership with individual vets, as does Medivet. These companies have consistently made clear in their branding who owns their practices. The big companies say they support moves to make the industry more transparent so long as they don't put too high a burden on vets. David Reader says the CMA proposals could have gone further. "There's good reason to think that once this investigation is concluded, some of the larger veterinary groups will continue with their acquisition strategies." The CMA says its proposals would "improve competition by helping pet owners choose the right vet, the right treatment, and the right way to buy medicine - without confusion or unnecessary cost". For Rob Jones, however, it is probably too late. "I honestly wouldn't get another pet," he says. "I think it's so expensive now and the risk financially is so great.             Food Terms of Use About the BBC Privacy Policy Cookies Accessibility Help Parental Guidance Contact the BBC Make an editorial complaint BBC emails for you Copyright © 2026 BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read about our approach to external linking.
    • What does the area with the blue dotted lines and the crossed out water drop mean? No water in this area? So many leaks in the area.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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