Jump to content

Recommended Posts

"..do not assume that everyone who has been abused as a child, goes on to commit abuse as an adult.."

I don't think anyone has said this is what happens. They've said it's not uncommon.

I personally know people who've been abused but have not abused others / are great parents.


I don't think anyone has said compassion should be shown to the Rev, but instead remarked on how the Christians didn't appear to be obliging their advertised traits of 'compassion' is all.

"I think it's pretty crap that a couple of posters have chosen this thread to point out how duplicitous Christians/the church/their teachings can be."


Surely if someone is 'waiting in the wings' to make such comments about Christians, a thread where such contradiction is evident is the place to raise it.

However I don't think there was a concerted need on anyone's part to do so - it was obviously observations based on comments from churchgoers.


There's a big need from posters here to assume things that are not occurring.

Maybe a few catholic priests might have jumped off a cliff on reflecting on their gross actions towards children in their care.


I have little sympathy for anyone in a position of trust with children, who chooses to act inappropriately on whatever level. Especially if they have religion in their favour such that parents and guardians place outright trust in them by reason of their position.

Thank you for that Miga.

Personally I didn't sleep last night. This is a man I have known and trusted for many years. Both my adult daughters are devastated by this news having only met him a few times. I wept at his memorial, thinking that he was a troubled man and now I know why. Before anyone yells at me, I am a psychotherapist in the NHS and have worked with both the victims and the perpetrators. I have seen the pain caused by abuse sitting with me so I have no liberal view of child abuse and its consequences.

This does not alter the shock that those of us who knew him feel as we try to come to terms with this revelation and sit it alongside the person we spent time and conversations with. What his family must feel cannot be imagined. For them and for those from St Johns this is a time of great sorrow and grief. The fact that we are experiencing these feelings in no way detracts from the feelings that we might have about the trauma inflicted on the children involved in the downloads.

You are right Miga, this is not an abstract discussion for us.

I think if people are accused of supporting child abusers or excusing them or of apologising for them, they are going to correct the accusers. It's a cheap, horrid and unnecessary accusation and inevitably will provoke a response.

Hardly grandstanding.

I am in the very unfashionable position today of seeing both sides of the argument on this thread. I know that the internet "community" generally favours people taking up black and white stances, but too bad.


On the one hand, there are some deeply vindictive comments about Canon Richardson which would be quite at home in the world of the witches of Salem or "The Wicker Man". Way, way OTT


On the other hand, one poster said "People are entitled to download whatever they wish and enjoy whatever they want", which has elements of the view of some people in the late 60s that it was OK (and indeed "cool") to put a picture of a naked pubescent girl on the cover of the Blind Faith album and acceptable for the Paedophile Information Exchange to be affiliated to the NCCL.


My view is that Canon Richardson should be very heavily criticised for apparently downloading child porn. However, unless evidence emerges that he engaged in sexual activity with children (and as yet there is no such evidence), criticism of him should not be on the level of that hurled at the likes of Gary Glitter, Jimmy Savile etc.

Why?


Sorrow and grief at the death of a human being, whatever the circumstances or for his victims, victims although not directly touched by him but by his actions in viewing videos?


Kalamiphile Wrote:

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

For them and for those from St Johns this is a time of great sorrow

> and grief.

@zt - the man was a paedophile, the definition of which is a person sexually attracted to children, the same as Glitter and Savile. Maybe he didn't do the same things as they did but he is one.


If he had been in possession of say 1 video, maybe just maybe it could have been explained away as trying to understand the subject in connection with his work but to be in possession of over 30. No way. That is a sexual thing.

Salsaboy, of course it's a sexual thing; that goes without saying. However, there is a difference between (a) a paedophile who just looks at child porn and (b) a paedophile who actively abuses children. I'm not defending those people in category (a), but they are not in the same league as people in category (b), particularly paedophiles who abuse children who are in their care or with whom they are in close contact for family, work or other reasons.

Loz Wrote:

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

> The man is dead. I'd have

> hoped a Christian would forgive his sins of this

> life and pray his soul finds some sort of peace

> and redemption in the next. As in "and forgive us

> our sins, as we forgive those who sin against us ..."


Maybe it's because I'm not a Christian, but I don't see why somebody deserves forgiveness just because they're dead. Forgiveness needs to be earned - and no, jumping off a cliff does not count in my book. History is littered with nasty characters not worthy of our forgiveness.


It's also wrong to view him as a passive consumer of this material. I would assume that much of this content wouldn't be made if there were no paying customers. He was a paying customer.

Zebedee Tring Wrote:

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

> Salsaboy, of course it's a sexual thing; that goes

> without saying. However, there is a difference

> between (a) a paedophile who just looks at child

> porn and (b) a paedophile who actively abuses

> children.


Surely they can be one that doesn't do (a) or (b)

There is obviously a huge difference between an adult with interest enough in children to watch footage of their abuse versus an adult who (also) acts-out that interest by physically abusing children (whether under his/her care or not).

Although the proposition may sound bizarre, credit would surely be due to a paedophile who's never acted-out his/her desires due to concerns for the welfare of the little ones.

I say this from an assumption that such a person does not 'decide' to have such tendencies, but has to manage the desires he/she's been dealt.

I wonder if an adult with such desires who never looks at, discusses or acts-out those desires is still called a paedophile. If not, then what ?

Quite often you hear of abusers progressing on their levels of interest or activity. I.e what starts with curiosity, then leads to downloading images, then on to videos, and so on. If he's downloaded these videos, there is a possibility he may have one day taken it further and physically acted upon his apparent interests. For that reason although I feel sorry for his family, I'm glad he jumped. One less peodophile on this planet can only be a good thing in my opinion.

KidKruger Wrote:

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

> There is obviously a huge difference between an

> adult with interest enough in children to watch

> footage of their abuse versus an adult who (also)

> acts-out that interest by physically abusing

> children (whether under his/her care or not).

> Although the proposition may sound bizarre, credit

> would surely be due to a paedophile who's never

> acted-out his/her desires due to concerns for the

> welfare of the little ones.

>


Credit? as in credit for having been less awful than he could have been - I don't think so.


In this particular case the breach of trust is significant. He could easily have resigned from his post and taken himself out of a position of trust if he feared he was attracted to child abuse images before being approached by police but (according to earlier posts) he only did it when police became involved.

> KidKruger Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > There is obviously a huge difference between an

> > adult with interest enough in children to watch

> > footage of their abuse versus an adult who

> (also)

> > acts-out that interest by physically abusing

> > children (whether under his/her care or not).

> > Although the proposition may sound bizarre,

> credit

> > would surely be due to a paedophile who's never

> > acted-out his/her desires due to concerns for

> the

> > welfare of the little ones.



Credit, sure. But a paedophile who doesn't act on his desires is not what we're talking about.


You don't get credit for not raping a child when a child is raped by someone else for your pleasure.


It takes strong cognitive dissonance to paint yourself as worthy of any credit in that scenario.


The paedophiles who deserve credit are those who know that their impulses are wrong, never act on them and seek help.

KK is not congratulating his behaviour. He is simply looking beyond the pyre to suggest (as only one of several possibilities ) that perhaps paedophiles are born with a condition that they then struggle to manage. We don't have enough research. That might be abhorrent or impossible to contemplate for some, particularly many Christians. But without perspective and analysis to understand root cause we'll never work out how to fix things. Personally I think if you fast forward a century we'll be dealing with it differently.


That said, Miga's point is probably sound..that given the hurt and shock many are suffering locally...this may not be the thread to have that "abstract" discussion.


It doesn't mean it's not a valid discussion to have though.

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...