Rev Canon Charles Richardson

[Robert Poste's Child]

I was an adult in the 80s and that's certainly not how I remember attitudes in normal society, though I'm not familiar with the legal position then.

[Loz]

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).

The first lesbian age of consent was legislated in the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 2000 (enacted in 2001). Here's a blurb from the Beeb at the time: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1045383.stm

Well, you not allowed to 'sexually assault' anyone, age of consent or otherwise, but yes, before then a five old girl could theoretically give consent to a sexual act by an adult woman. I seem to recall in the 90s a few parents of 14 year old girls in the paper complaining about their daughters having adult girlfriends and they were not able to do anything about it.

Also, when just googling for more info about that, I also found that the age of consent (for hetro- and homo-) in Spain is 13. They tried to change it a few years ago, but failed. In fact, age of consent across Europe ranges from 13 to 18, the majority being 14-15, though with varying other caveats mostly around teachers and other abuse of responsibility. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_consent_in_Europe

[JohnL]

Robert Poste's Child Wrote:

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

> I was an adult in the 80s and that's certainly not

> how I remember attitudes in normal society, though

> I'm not familiar with the legal position then.

All I remember was the blurb from our students union when we started

(we were all 18 - and it was 1984)

Something like - if you are a gay man the age of consent is 21 - if you

are a gay woman there is no age of consent as the law doesn't recognize

you exist.

[Salsaboy]

Surely not RPC, I would say you don't look a day over 21.

Robert Poste's Child Wrote:

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

> I was an adult in the 80s

[Zebedee Tring]

Extract from Section 14 of the Sexual Offences Act 1956:

"(1) It is an offence ... for a person to make an indecent assault on a woman.

(2) A girl under the age of sixteen cannot in law give any consent which would prevent an act being an assault for the purposes of this section."

I would therefore suggest that it was clear beyond doubt at the time that the 1956 Act was passed (and almost certainly before then) that a girl under 16 could not consent to sex with anyone, whether they were male or female. Any subsequent legislative changes have simply developed and extended the concept of "invalid consent" found in the 1956 Act relating to the inability of a person (male or female) under 16 to give valid consent.

[Robert Poste's Child]

Gawd bless you, sonny, and bless the house of Lancome too.

Salsaboy Wrote:

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

> Surely not RPC, I would say you don't look a day

> over 21.

>

>

> Robert Poste's Child Wrote:

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

> -----

> > I was an adult in the 80s

[Loz]

Actually, you are right, ZT. I've just found the research paper for the earlier versions of the 2000 bill, and they make much the same point as you (though with a rather amusing bit about the history).

There are not, and never have been, specific offences relating to lesbianism in the United Kingdom. On 4 August 1921, however, Mr Macquisten moved an amendment to the Criminal Law Amendment Bill which sought to criminalise lesbian behaviour.15 The amendment was later defeated in the Lords on the grounds (first given in the Commons by Lt Col Moore-Brabazon) that it would draw attention to lesbians and 'do harm by introducing into the minds of perfectly innocent people the most revolting thoughts'.

General offences such as indecent assault could be used to convict lesbian women for sexual activities. By section 14 of the Sexual Offences Act 1956 it is an offence for a person (male or female) to make an indecent assault on a woman. Section 14(2) states that a girl under the age of 16 cannot in law give any consent which would prevent an act being an assault for these purposes. This gives an effective age of consent of 16 (the relevant age in Northern Ireland is 17). In 1984 the Criminal Law Revision Committee recommended that the age of consent for lesbian sexual acts should remain at 16.

In Scotland, the protection afforded by the common law to girls under 12 from lewd, indecent or libidinous practice or behaviour by any person, male or female, has been extended by statute to girls between the ages of 12 and 16. The girl?s consent does not provide a valid defence.

Interesting though that JohnL has the same memory I did: that lesbianism was believed not to have an age of consent until the 2000 law passed.

[Zebedee Tring]

Loz, I'm glad that we've agreed on that. Although Lord Brabazon (whom I remember seeing on TV when I was very young and who was almost a caricature of a Colonel Blimp type figure) didn't want to draw attention to lesbians and hoped that they would stay out of sight and out of mind, I'm sure that he wouldn't have been happy if it had been legally possible for lesbians to go around indecently assaulting young girls with impunity and that he would have done something about it.

[je-suis-concerned]

Getting back on topic....

A letter from the Bishop about his management of 'safeguarding-gate'.

[Huggers]

Somewhere here the truth became hostage to beauracratic ill advised pc fuelled decisions, the kind lampooned by private eyes right - on police station column.

[Loz]

Can I remind you that people are innocent until proven guilty?

It looks like the church put the necessary conditions in place to keep children safeguarded. Judging from the posts on this thread, anything else would have risked the locals waving torches and pitchforks at dawn.

[je-suis-concerned]

Loz... Are you just trying to wind people up or divert away from the issue?

You seem in complete denial and show a lack of comprehension of the moral issues up for discussion. Quite worrying that people continue to brush this under the carpet. Pretending it didn't happen and turning blind eyes can only put more kids at risk. Look at Rotherham council.

Even the Bishop acknowledges the mess in the letter.

He committed at crime at the point he viewed these films..... it doesn't need a legal system to prove this. He was caught with the evidence and the evidence was enough for the diocese to ask that he leaves the vicarage and to also seek out any victims for redress.

Pitchforks and waving torches may have been appropriate in this case. The police don't arrest unless there is substantial evidence in these cases.

It is a little strange how you seem comfortable with vicars that view abusive pictures of children in our community.

[MrBen]

je-suis-concerned Wrote:

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

> It is a little strange how you seem comfortable

> with vicars that view abusive pictures of children in our community.

Don't be a knob. You know full well Loz didn't mean that. Next up...anyone not frothing mad with hysteria whilst looking to add some sensible angles to this discussion...will get called paedophiles themselves.

[Loz]

je-suis-concerned Wrote:

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

> It is a little strange how you seem comfortable with vicars that view abusive pictures of children in our community.

No, I'm uncomfortable with self-appointed pseudo-vigilantes traipsing around thinking they are judge, jury and, quite possibly, executioner.

> He committed at crime at the point he viewed these films..... it doesn't need a legal system to prove this. [...] Pitchforks and waving torches may have been appropriate in this case.

My case rests, m'lud. People like you are pretty much the exact reason why this sort of stuff is kept quiet until trials begin.

Frankly, I fear for any paediatricians working in the area.

[je-suis-concerned]

Ack... more diversion... pitchforks etc... and public intimidation by bullying people into silence by branding them as vigilantes....

It was the police that arrested him and the CoE that suspended him. Not me or any medieval pseudo-vigilantes group with pitch forks.

Attitudes like this are exactly why this sort of thing goes unnoticed for years and partly why rotherham council are in the predicament they are in.

[Loz]

In your own words, "Pitchforks and waving torches may have been appropriate in this case", so don't blame me for you sounding like a vigilante.

You also wrote:

He was caught with the evidence and the evidence was enough for the diocese to ask that he leaves the vicarage and to also seek out any victims for redress.

... and ...

It was the police that arrested him and the CoE that suspended him.

What more, exactly, do you want? And why?

[je-suis-concerned]

You mentioned the pitch forks first.... and now you are jamming it down my throat because i felt frustrated by an miscomprehension of my points.

Putting that aside....

I want the institution of the CoE to be more accountable about this. It's been handled badly and many people have been hurt (directly or indirectly) by this man or by the way it has been dealt with. I feel embarrassed to discover via a tabloid that a man, who has been allowed into my family home and near my kids, had a hidden and abhorrent side to his life.

His legacy needs dealing with in a holistic way and people should be allowed to show their pain and discomfort with this subject without fear of being branded or bullied. Nothing has been done to help the community re-group. Everything has been dealt with in a damage limiting way for the benefit of the CoE's reputation. (which has backfired).

Is that so shocking?

[Kalamiphile]

I doubt that the Bishop reads the forum so am not sure how that will come about j-s-c. I think we will find our own way of processing this shocking experience. I would usually choose to share this processing with others who have been involved but having read some of the posts I doubt I could do that. I don't want to get into gossip, debate or discussion about the wider aspects of this including the church and I would be afraid that is what might occur. I am using my friends, both religious and non religious, they are able to listen and allow my pain without judgement and opinion, only expressing sorrow at what has occured for all of those that this has impacted

[Loz]

By your own words quoted in my last post, the police and the church seem to have dealt with this very efficiently, albeit quietly. You haven't actually said the church did anything amiss so far (apart from hiring him, which seems to be without knowledge of this issue), only that you (and others) were not kept fully informed along the way. Given the way some people react (and have reacted) I really don't blame the church for quietly moving him away from anywhere he could do harm whilst the wheels of justice sprang into action.

I think if the congregation did get together to try and regroup and move forward that would be a good thing, but only if it was done positively. But so far I have seen very little positiveness. If you can change that, more power to your elbow.

[je-suis-concerned]

Loz - the police sat on this for almost 2 years. That isn't efficient.

The church had a memorial service to celebrate his life 2 weeks ago. Are you suggesting that it was the best thing to do given they were aware of the circumstances surrounding him? They also left a tabloid to break the story to us all.

It's clueless, misguided and a patronising way to treat people. I'm surprised it needs spelling out.

Sometimes before regrouping is an option, you have to allow for peoples anger.

[Salsaboy]

To me this says that the church is as guilty as he was by continuing to cover it up.

je-suis-concerned Wrote:

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

> The church had a memorial service to celebrate his

> life 2 weeks ago. Are you suggesting that it was

> the best thing to do given they were aware of the

> circumstances surrounding him? They also left a

> tabloid to break the story to us all.

[JDR]

My children attend the school and I agree with several comments on both sides. Unfortunately any person viewing these images is going to keep it well hidden and we were always going to feel our trust had been violated. As it happens, along with many others I found Father Charles personable and charming when I met him. Obviously his alleged crime is one aspect of his life and in others friends report he was hugely helpful and highly regarded. Obviously we are all trying to marry up these conflicted feelings.

I agree that the church handled this badly, which they seem to be reflecting on. However, if you feel strongly I guess take up the offer of giving feedback to the diocese and/or police about information. I know I have spoken to school and they had their hands tied figuratively by the police and diocese regarding disclosure of information, again due to the fact the due process was not completed making it very tricky. I only hope the congregation and community at large get a new vicar in whom they can trust. Whoever takes that post will have some tough times ahead.

[Robert Poste's Child]

Didn't the letter say the Bishop is going to St John's this Sunday to speak with the congregation? Perhaps it would be best to tell him how you feel in person before publishing it on social media.

[loobyloobyloo]

At this point the situation can surely only benefit from greater openness to create a healthier environment for discussion. Like exposing a wound to the air perhaps? Lack of information has only exacerbated the situation so far.

[Robert Poste's Child]

I would agree about openness, but I'm uneasy about the extremely judgemental venting and that it may be increasing the suffering of others, both in the congregation and in his family. Whipping up hatred and distrust will make it even harder for the church to work through this and a lot of good may be lost in the process.