|
Post by jonjel on Dec 13, 2010 17:01:12 GMT 1
I am sure you will like this.
The flower arrangers in Gloucester Cathedral have walked out en-masse, 8 of them.
And the reason? Some lunatic has decided that since they are sometimes in the same building as the choir-boys they will all have to have CRB checks!
I personally think that the choir boys might be more at risk from other sections of the Cathedral community than from ladies some of whom are in their 80's, but I could be wrong.....
|
|
|
Post by Progenitor A on Dec 13, 2010 17:28:07 GMT 1
They could have at least waited until the service was over.
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Dec 14, 2010 14:40:45 GMT 1
Well, reports I could find say that more than 8, and some are objecting to the checks.
But quotes such as:
look a bit sad when you think of the nursey nurse that abused children -- she was a mother, and I'm sure most people who had known her for a while trusted her, they trusted her enough to look after their children after all.
Just because someone is a grandparent and trusted doesn't mean they're not a child-abuser.
So, the real issue is whether it is necessary, whether these flower-arrangers really have extensive contact with the choir-boys, to the level that a potential abuser could exploit it. I doubt it, in which case the checks do seem a little over the top.
But we really have to get away from the idea that it COULDN'T happen here, that that nice lady in the nursery, or that nice scout-leader, or that nice parish priest, could NEVER do something like that, because the sad truth is, sometimes they do. It's not some chap in a dirty mac hiding in the bushes, its someone that people have come to trust.
Which is what makes it so sad, and what are we to do apart from run at least cursory checks, to at least make sure that someone with previous convictions isn't given the chance to get close to children.
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Dec 14, 2010 14:53:15 GMT 1
Just to make the point -- we have a chap of 70, who attempted to rape a 92 year-old woman. www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-11982051Only indication that he might present a risk was a previous conviction from 1946. But I'm sure that no one who knew him would have viewed him as any sort of a risk, just that nice chap who did odd-jobs for the elderly. I'm not saying what we should do is simple, but just saying -- how silly, flower-arranging ladies of 80 pose no possible risk misses the point.
|
|
|
Post by jonjel on Dec 14, 2010 15:02:42 GMT 1
I don't buy that STA.
What did we do before CRB checks? We looked out for each oterh and I question whether the abuse of children was any higher then than it is now with the so called safety net in place.
You said
and what are we to do apart from run at least cursory checks, to at least make sure that someone with previous convictions isn't given the chance to get close to children.
Well, if you follow that argument to it's logical conclusion you perhaps tattoo each and every person who has had a conviction so we can make sure they are not stood at a bus stop where children might be, or in a paper-shop where children buy sweets.
I just find the whole ethos of TV being unable to show children's faces and many other similar 'safeguards' both absurd and also very damaging. To the children.
As for the ladies of Gloucester, what is forgotten is that a Cathedral (and I know this one pretty well) is usually quite a hub of activity. You would never have a situation where one flower arranger was alone with choirboys. There are cleaners, artists and visitors as well as many other people around most of the time.
I saw the interview with the Deacon. I have never met her, but for her to spout on about 'making the Cathedral safe for everyone' was quite laughable. Perhaps her next move will be to insist everyone who attends service will have to be CRB checked. After all the choirboys will be there.
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Dec 14, 2010 17:54:16 GMT 1
Rubbish. We didn't appreciate that there was as much child-abuse, and those that complained were often ignored. I refer you to the case of the catholic church in ireland.
Some weren't looked out for, that was the problem.
Well, to follow your pseudo-logic, why bother doing anything, let's just give all convicted child sex-offenders jobs as school caretakers..................
Not the same thing.
I think there is a valid point to make about the difference between the general public, and those people in the cathedral who might be seen as 'official' in some sense.
As I said, I don;t know how much contact choiristers have with flower-arrangers, but that doesn't remove the fact that we need to have some checks for those that work with children, and rather than draw an arbitrary line (cleaners need checks, flower-arrangers don't), perhaps fairer if ALL have the same checks.
|
|
|
Post by carnyx on Dec 16, 2010 11:55:55 GMT 1
And there we have it. A superb example of irrationality by STA. A triumph of sensibility over intellect? Do the sums, girl, and Get Real!
If the human lifespan was 8000 instead of 80-or-so years, nobody would even dare cross the road, because we would all have known of such things directly, and so the actual risks of accident over such a lifespan would be 100 times higher.
But because we are ever-avid for sensational news, we now live a kind of surrogate global village of hundreds of millions, where our perceptions of actual risk are distorted by this virtual experience which would ordinarily require the equlvalent of living for 100000 years or more, to experience in reality. So, here we see the effect of this media-induced meta-experience on old maids like STA who have their perceptions of the risk of sexual abuse to a choirboy from a flower-arranger to be set atr a far higher level than it actually is.
So, STA, this kind of precautionary meta-think, especially from a scientist, gives democracy a bad name.
|
|
|
Post by jonjel on Dec 16, 2010 13:36:41 GMT 1
The only point I would like to make is that a CRB check tells you that the person checked has not committed an offence, or has not been caught, up until the time the check is made
There is absolutely no way of knowing if said person will commit an offence in the future. I think it is unlikely that an 80 year old flower arranger is any more risk to a choirboy than the chances of the bells falling out of the tower on him.
If of course someone has evidence of flower arrangers having lewd acts with choirboys then I will stand corrected.
I just think this whole stupid episode is yet another exaple of the necessary boxes having been ticked, so that they can say 'nothing to do with me guv, I am not responsible', but what the hell happened to common sense along this path?
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Dec 16, 2010 15:08:05 GMT 1
And I'm sure just as many people thought it equally unlikely when it came to the parish priest, or that nice lady at nursery...........
I think there are two different points here which should not be conflated.
1) Do CRB checks work?
2) Should flower-arrangers be exempt?
I see possible fact-based discussion when it comes to 1), but just irrational prejudice when it comes to 2). And using 2) to try and argue 1) isn't valid.
O, and resorting to commonsense and it is obvious that, loose you the argument before you've even started.....................
|
|
|
Post by jonjel on Dec 16, 2010 15:50:48 GMT 1
And I'm sure just as many people thought it equally unlikely when it came to the parish priest, or that nice lady at nursery...........
As I remember the lady in the nursery would have passed her CRB check, and indeed had done so, which confirms my point that they are only valid as history, not intent.
I doubt any parish priest could continue as a priest if he failed a CRB check, which again rather proves my point.
|
|
|
Post by carnyx on Dec 16, 2010 15:52:58 GMT 1
And why should they be wrong in their estimation of the risks to those for whom they were responsible?
Take a mother and a child. Do an estimation of the risk to her child from attendance over the 2-year period of nursery school ..... of sexual assault by a member of the staff.
Your skill with cosmological numbers ought to come in useful.
Then, estimate the annual cost involved in CRB-checking of nursery staff, on a national basis.
|
|
|
Post by jonjel on Dec 16, 2010 17:22:46 GMT 1
Quite by co-incidence a lady I have known for many years is singing in Gloucester Cathedral tonight.
I know for a fact she has not been CRB checked.
|
|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Dec 17, 2010 10:37:43 GMT 1
There is a need to be more vigilant about child abuse than we once were, certainly, but it seems that the high profile cases of child abuse we have seen in the recent past has caused an overreaction among those in authority to the extent that they have become paranoid and reacted out of all proportion to the reality of the situation. It is the perception among the public about the dangers of child abuse that has been stirred up by the sensationalization of such cases on the part of the media.
|
|
|
Post by jonjel on Dec 17, 2010 12:04:34 GMT 1
I agree with you Abacus.
I recently saw a father close the bathroom door when he was bathing an 8 month old daughter, because builders were in the house.
|
|
|
Post by carnyx on Dec 17, 2010 13:18:54 GMT 1
Abacus, could you explain a bit more?
Is it because of our education system?
|
|