Rev Canon Charles Richardson

[KidKruger]

"I can't really agree with that KK. Buying this stuff is not a victimless crime. If you're paying for it, then you're supporting the creation of more material. This is not my idea of self-restraint."

No-one is saying it is a victimless crime, I've stated earlier in this thread that watching this junk is participating in child abuse. By not repeating that comment ad nauseum it's not an automatic reversal of what I've already said.

If credit is binary then of course RosieH is correct.

Perhaps my use of the word credit is too generous, but I don't think those people who struggle and successfully overcome such desires are entirely without 'merit', when compared to those who follow-through and harm children.

In this I include those with desires who've perhaps not even watched the films.

But, reading above, the challenges are saying that a 'viewer' of abuse films with no intention to physically abuse children = an abuser who physically abuses children.

Morally you may have a case, but in magnitude of children harmed I think that's inaccurate.

Sorry, I don't see it that way.

[buddug]

Without the demand from people like Charles Richardson there would not be abuse on such an industrial scale. The internet, wonderful though it is, has a lot to answer for in this case. The torture of children for viewing is a multi-billion pound industry. So how can anyone here say it's not the same as an abuser who physically tortures the children.

Think of it this way, how is what Richardson did any different from the men who log in to a site - and there are many of these vile horrors, unbelievably - where they are able after paying to watch a child being tortured live and not only that, but to dictate in what way he or she is abused, in real time. Is that any better than the actual torturer?

And it's a bit rum, isn't it, for people to be baying for Christians to be showing compassion towards him when he himself hid behind the mask of being a man of God. For me, and I only met him twice, very briefly, this is the ultimate betrayal. The opposite of everything that Christ stood for in that his actions were truly evil, and truly hypocritical. How on earth could anyone watch this stuff and not be anguished and chilled to the bone. Yet he, like far too many others, watched it for pleasure. Pure sadism. And yes, the pleasure these creatures get is sexual, again, unbelievably, but the acts themselves are only of torture and abuse.

And please don't regurgitate the old "well, we're all flawed" nonsense, as the Church of England did as part of their usual cover-up. Yes, we're all a mixture of good and bad, and sometimes downright wicked. But most people, thank God, are never evil.

This thread has become rather nauseating, so I'm bowing out.

[Jeremy]

KK - I do agree of course that "watching" is not as serious as "doing". As with most crimes there is a sliding scale of guilt. But surely however stong one's urges, their morals should stop them from going as far as funding abuse.

[Salsaboy]

Especially as a man of the church and supposedly a pillar of the community.

[KidKruger]

Jeremy agreed, I don't think the 'watching' behaviour is OK. At all.

[concerned-stjohns]

Jeremy you wrote:

I won't say "I'm glad he jumped". Rarely does death make the world a better place. But my personal view is that he doesn't deserve your forgiveness or - for what it's worth - your prayers.

I agree about forgiveness and prayers. The church congregation at St John's had been praying for Charles for many months before he died. We were told he had stood back from ministry and many people were deeply concerned about his welfare. It's now difficult to digest that in fact he'd been suspended and arrested on such awful charges. We weren't aware of this, and I think anger is natural in this situation. For me forgiveness feels a way off. I'm angry with Charles for what he did and how he died, and I'm angry with how it's been dealt with by the church. The constant call on this thread for instant forgiveness would require you to be either a saint or in my opinion to be lacking in mental faculty.

[Concerned Parish 2]

Thanks concerned St John's for describing exactly how I feel about this.

You are right, we worried and prayed for him for 9 months. We were never formally told of the circumstances of his death and I'm sure we were only told of his arrest once they knew the story was going to press, even then it was merely a "safeguarding issue" which could be interpreted in so many ways.

I think it was cruel to leave us to find out the details from the daily mail of all places - I just can't understand this.

[Mick Mac]

I'm afraid that this reaction is typical of a religious institution.

Its all about protecting the brand. And little thought about the congregation (customer).

[Salsaboy]

What Mick Mac said.

I find it interesting that the church effectively lied to the parishioners of St Johns about the whole situation. Not very christian is it?

[KidKruger]

Not as if the Church is unique among religions, in that respect.

No different than corporations / shareholders, just comes in a different wrapper.

[Robert Poste's Child]

There's an interesting article on the BBC website today. It says that 1-2% of men are believed to be paedophiles, yet 10% of men at some time in their lives have sexual feelings about children. Not sure if child is defined as 16 and under - I'm sure there are plenty of men who have some kind of passing sexual response on occasion looking at younger teenagers but recognise it for what it is and don't act on it.

http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-31114106

[????]

KidKruger Wrote:

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

> Not as if the Church is unique among religions, in

> that respect.

> No different than corporations / shareholders,

> just comes in a different wrapper.

Yeah horrible businesses......now where's that report on Rotherham Council?

[KidKruger]

KidKruger Wrote:

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

> Not as if the Church is unique among religions, in

> that respect.

> No different than corporations / shareholders,

> just comes in a different wrapper.

??????: "Yeah horrible businesses......now where's that report on Rotherham Council?"

Also charities, Govts, Health, Aged Care, Education, Royal families, families, anything that involves people and a hierarchy basically.

[david_carnell]

???? Wrote:

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

> KidKruger Wrote:

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

> -----

> > Not as if the Church is unique among religions,

> in

> > that respect.

> > No different than corporations / shareholders,

> > just comes in a different wrapper.

>

>

> Yeah horrible businesses......now where's that

> report on Rotherham Council?

Out today. Here:

https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/inspection-into-the-governance-of-rotherham-council

Pretty grim reading.

[Mrs TP]

At the risk of a severe trolling, it was known locally that Father Charles had come to St Johns 'under a cloud' with that 'cloud' rumoured to be 'adult massage parlour related' - not illegal but not sitting well with the church. Now I wonder was that the real cloud, how naive have we all been, how long the church has been lying / covering things up?

[Mick Mac]

Robert Poste's Child Wrote:

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

> There's an interesting article on the BBC website

> today. It says that 1-2% of men are believed to be

> paedophiles, yet 10% of men at some time in their

> lives have sexual feelings about children. Not

> sure if child is defined as 16 and under - I'm

> sure there are plenty of men who have some kind of

> passing sexual response on occasion looking at

> younger teenagers but recognise it for what it is

> and don't act on it.

>

> http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-31114106

And woman are at it too, dare I say. "Oooh young man....."

I think this debate was serious for long enough.

[Robert Poste's Child]

If you read the article, women - as with all violent crimes - are a tiny minority.

Personally when I see a good-looking young guy in low-slung jeans I just think he's got a full nappy.

[Mick Mac]

And you go for the nappy valley? I didn't read the article. You probably guessed.

[Robert Poste's Child]

Was your previous post a roundabout admission of inappropriate thoughts then?

[Mick Mac]

The first one was a Harry Enfield reference to lighten the mood. The next one, I was watching my favourite film Sideways (about wine and best viewed drinking wine) and the napa valley got a mention. Hope that clears that one up for you RPC.

[Robert Poste's Child]

Indeed it does.

[JohnL]

Robert Poste's Child Wrote:

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

> If you read the article, women - as with all

> violent crimes - are a tiny minority.

You'd think so from common sense.

but never 100% sure about these stats since Thatchers time

when the law didn't accept lesbianism existed - when in the

universities it obviously did.

[Zebedee Tring]

I know that Queen Victoria didn't believe that lesbianism existed, but I don't think that things were quite that primitive in the 80s. I say this as someone who was and is deeply opposed to everything that Thatcherism stood for.

[Loz]

Up until 2001 (!) there was no age of consent for lesbians in the UK, and so lesbian paedophilia was actually legal up until then.

[Zebedee Tring]

Are you really saying that before 2001 a adult woman could sexually assault any girl under 16 (including baby girl) with impunity and that a five old girl could theoretically give consent to a sexual act by an adult woman? That's not how I remember the legal position. I'd like further and better particulars of this (as the lawyers would put it).