Rev Canon Charles Richardson

[Loz]

Well, there doesn't seem to be much in the way of Christianity on show around here, is there?

[MrBen]

Compassion. Abhorrent as it is many of those drawn to child abuse images were themselves abused as children.

[je-suis-concerned]

He certainly wasn't practising what he preached. I can't understand why people feel they still need to protect him.

[edcam]

Loz Wrote:

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

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

> Christianity on show around here, is there?

Well he was hardly a shining example, was he?

[Salsaboy]

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?

[loobylou]

At the risk of being shot down....innocent until proven guilty?

[concerned-stjohns]

Optimistic

Computer evidence is forensic. Police had enough to charge him and would have done had he not died. Why the need to defend?

[speedbird]

Agreed - who in hell comes to the defence of a 'man of the cloth' that downloads films of child torture for his own pleasure? He jumped before he was pushed. Shame on him. A coward too.

[je-suis-concerned]

By Loobylou's logic, Jimmy Savile is also innocent.

I'm amazed by the way this vicar has blinded his congregation and how they are still defending him.

[buddug]

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?

[KidKruger]

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.

[Sally81]

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.

[Concerned Parish 2]

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?

[KidKruger]

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 ?!

[Sally81]

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.

[KidKruger]

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".

[KidKruger]

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 ?

[MrBen]

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.

[indya]

Well said Mr Ben

[Zebedee Tring]

Agreed. Too much hysteria in many (by no means all) of these posts. And I'm not defending what Canon Richardson is alleged to have done.

[buddug]

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.

[MrBen]

Buddug, how do you know that? You don't. It might conveniently fit with your way of rationalising and wrapping up events. But you also might be completely wrong. So why make assumption based judgements. It's shallow thinking.

[JohnL]

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.

[JohnL]

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/

[Robert Poste's Child]

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.