Canon Andrew Hindley

Quote Marydoll Wed 14-Aug-24 10:39:09
Under no circumstances, am I condoning this behaviour. However, I keep repeating, for every bad apple there are some very decent and good clergymen.
It is unfortunate that they are tainted by the behaviour of these vile people.

So true Marydoll , priests and nuns are easy targets

Under no circumstances, am I condoning this behaviour. However, I keep repeating, for every bad apple there are some very decent and good clergymen.
It is unfortunate that they are tainted by the behaviour of these vile people.

A few years ago I read in the news that a church minister (not C of E) befriended a family "with problems" and used that "friendship" to spend time with the troubled teenage lad.

Initially the lads single mother was grateful of the "support". I don't know how long the abuse went on before the troubled teen spoke out, but as soon as it was reported to the police he went back to prison because he had done this previously.

His church knew he had been in prison before for abusing teens and they believed he had repented. I googled the man and he had lived all over the country and been inside two previous times. Hope he does not get let out again!

Abusers seek vulnerable kids and people who won't be considered credible. These are the worst snakes in society and belong in prison, not masquerading as a good guy.

20 years ago, a local woman told me that her first experience was with a local vicar (in the pulpit) when she was a school girl. She said there were others. Nothing was done until he retired. His church is still empty for some reason.

I was at college with a boy who had been taken into temporary care with his slightly older brother when his parents separated.

The boys were sent to a Catholic children's home run by nuns and both were sexually abused by the same visiting priest. The priest visited frequently and liked to have one to one private talks with the children.

It was well known among the children what went on in these 'talks' but it was also well known that, if it was reported to the nuns, the child would be severely punished for lying and being dirty minded.

This took place during the 1960s but it would appear that 60 years on children are still not adequately protected.

The difficulty of sacking people the employer recognises pose a risk to children isn’t confined to the CofE
The headteacher at my children’s primary school was accused of two historical offences against 7-8 year old girls at his previous school, about 5 years earlier. One complaint from 5 years ago was resurrected after a 2nd girl told her teacher after a stranger danger class that Mr x had indecently assaulted her when she was in primary school. This girl had not told anyone about this until promoted by the lesson

He was suspended. Parents split into 80% supporting Mr X who was indeed a good head teacher. 20% saying we have to accept what the children allege because he is suspended and the 2 children knew nothing about each other. Some parents told their children Mr X was away from school because two naughty girls said bad things about him, (they really did say this )

He was reinstated after the CPS decided girl 1 wouldn’t be seen as a reliable witness because she’d had support fromCAMHS.
He was appointed to a bigger school soon after this.

Two years later, a child at that school made allegations. Local press reports led to other allegations being made - 3 by girls who’d attended our school.

CPS again said not enough evidence from reliable witnesses to prosecute. They said a well respected middle class head teacher with a wife who believed his denials and a child doing well etc would be more likely to be believed than the children. They couldn’t link the earlier allegations and one of the current victims was from a very disturbed background. The education department responded by moving him out of schools into an administrative position

Sorry for the long post. Prosecutions of sex offenders are rare. Successful prosecutions even rarer.

Iam64

Prince Charles told Ball in a letter in February 1995, two years after the bishop had accepted a police caution , which was read to the inquiry “I wish I could do more. I feel so desperately strongly about the monstrous wrongs that have been done to you and the way you have been treated”. Charles later arranged for the Duchy of Cornwall to buy a house to be rented by Ball and his twin, also a Bishop”. Guardian 23.06.18)

Ball was first arrested in 1993 and cautioned for gross indecency against a 17 year old boy. At the time police had letters of support from political and education institutions. His lawyers told police he had a letter of support from a member of the royal family, never seen by authorities. (Christian News 27.01.17).

I think this goes back to the point I made in a previous post, that for a long time, 'Normal' people did not realise how ingrained and relentless paedophilia is in many of its perpetrators and saw it as someone doing something wrong in a fit of mental illness or doing a breakdown and willing to hate the crime but love the sinner.

We have a far greater understanding now and the King would not do now what he did then, not just because of the weight of public opinion, but because like som many of us, he has a far greater understanding of the relentless nature of serial paedophiles.

the programme was the one i advertised earlier, was on bbc radio 4 at 8pm 13th aug.
he had freehold because that was the position he held as sacrist canon of the cathedral, similar to the incumbent of a parish.

Yes I read that they were willing to close the cathedral after his suspension. I don't know which program?
I can't imagine why he had freehold.

The C of E need to change the way they employ people so no one in future is ever in a position where they are safe from being sacked if they need sacking.

but if it was the only way to get rid of him, what else could they do?
did you listen to the programme ?
the legal position was complicated, esp as he had freehold.
the bishop wrote to him, stating he wanted it on record that if there was any way for him to dismiss him, he would have done so.
and that if necessary the church would cease its ministry at the cathedral if that was the only way to stop him operating there.

I’m afraid the Church has sunk to a new low.
Words fail me.

Yes, I agree that the RC is more transparent and accountable, perhaps years of experience have given them this? Though, I do feel that this can affect any faith leader of any religion, if they have certain "leanings".

The only people who should have got a payout are the victims as compensation.

Marydoll

Not all priests are paedophiles.

I work in Safeguarding in the Catholic Church, and do acknowledge that there have been predators. However, in the twenty plus years, I have been doing this, I have never come across one instance. Any cases have been historic.
That is not to say that it could happen, despite the rigorous procedures in place.

I have just been involved in this training in my own parish. I think the RC acknowledges more openly the horrific wrongs that have been done, and is making earnest attempts to ensure the safety of all who are involved in church and wider activities.

However, we still need much greater transparency at diocesan level as rumours of cover-ups and moving around still abound.
Great stides have been made, but there is still a great deal more to be done.

One difference is the RC church doesn't provide pay-offs in this way, and this particular case appalls me as it does many others, for this reason.

winterwhite

It seems the familiar story that the boys withdrew their allegations. Why has no way round this difficulty been found? Adults must speak up for themselves, children need others to speak for them, these were in-between, young teenagers, probably embarrassed or ashamed to talk. That's may be partly why it dragged on for so long if AH denied everything.

What if they were paid off "on the quiet"? We will never know how much this face saving exercise has cost the C of E.

I sincerely hope they got something and are being helped to find a way forwards by the church, otherwise I could understand them not wanting to set foot in a church in future.

Being a kid and knowing it's your word against "theirs" if they are "in authority" must be really awful, especially if you're low in confidence. And, let's face it, these abusers select their victims carefully, choosing those who are less likely to be believed, through their social class or education, or even those with a learning difficulty. It's horrifying.

Smileless2012

There were 5 police investigations sandelf but he was never charged.

I wonder why the clergyman you refer too was dismissed Nannarose but despite the C of E holding an internal enquiry into Cannon Hindley and concluding he was unsafe around children and young adults, they were unable to dismiss him, so paid him to leave .

I understand why you wonder - I have to say that I didn't enquire too deeply, being on the periphery. My friend was very indignant, but I thought that maybe the C of E had said they would go to the police if he didn't accept dismissal.
I also think that I have repeated what my friend said, without giving too much thought to the exact meaning of 'dismissal'. I was answering really about how families can be in denial.
I think that maybe Canon Hindley was prepared to push things to the limit - possibly aware of how little hard evidence there was to stand up in court.
I suspect that my friend's BiL knew what might be found if the police became involved, so accepted dismissal, which also enabled him to rant about how unfair it all was.
I am not a member of any church, but have dealt with a lot of clergy in communities I worked. Fortunately I have never had any concerns about any of them, and indeed, have appreciated their kindness on many occasions.

Prince Charles told Ball in a letter in February 1995, two years after the bishop had accepted a police caution , which was read to the inquiry “I wish I could do more. I feel so desperately strongly about the monstrous wrongs that have been done to you and the way you have been treated”. Charles later arranged for the Duchy of Cornwall to buy a house to be rented by Ball and his twin, also a Bishop”. Guardian 23.06.18)

Ball was first arrested in 1993 and cautioned for gross indecency against a 17 year old boy. At the time police had letters of support from political and education institutions. His lawyers told police he had a letter of support from a member of the royal family, never seen by authorities. (Christian News 27.01.17).

What I want to know, is where is he now, is he still able to be with young children/teenagers/ vulnerable people?

This link lists some of the complexities involved.

premierchristian.news/en/news/article/archbishops-apologise-blackburn-canon-risk-to-children

The letter was not made public

The establishment covers its tracks. Prince Charles (now the King) wrote a glowing letter of reference for the Bishop of Gloucester who was (in the 90's I believe) accused of sexual abuse against young boys. The most shameless part was that Prince Charles was damning in his description of the Bishop's accusers, who were all children. I'd like to say it beggars belief, but.......

Septimia

From reading the article he sounds (and looks) an unpleasant character.

Don't forget that such predators turn up in all walks of life. DH came across some offenders among teachers and university staff. They're also very good at compartmentalising their lives and may be very good at their job while doing unspeakable things on the quiet.

Look at that animal researcher in Australia convicted of doing unspeakably awful things to dogs and other animals.

People like this seek places where they can get access to children. They become priests, or nuns, or teachers, or youth leaders, not because they have a vocation to do those jobs but for the access they give to those they want access to.

I think for a long time those in authoritywho did not have those proclivities themselves just did not realise how hard-wired these desires are and saw those who had abused children as people who had had some sort of breakdown and fallen below acceptable standards for a period of time and who, with proper help and support would not, so to say, sin again.

Now we know better. I think also, in the past, those in authority had no idea how serious were the effects on the victims of paedophiles. I am sure most of us remember the jokes about vicars and choir boys, we just did not know or understand paedophilia.

The history recorded so far is dreadful. The concerns are long standing. As with many predatory sex offenders, cannon Hindley denied, claimed he was being victimised as a result of his homosexuality.
I don’t know which NSPCC team assessed his risk in 2007, or what triggered the assessment. There were a couple of excellent NSPCC teams in the north west during that timescale, developing good assessment models for sex offenders. A Judge in a separate case referred to the Hindley assessment (why?). The assessment concluded ‘he needs support on developing boundaries in relation to work with children …. But it would be hard to sustain an argument of predatory targeting behaviour ‘. Hindley told the bbc the Judge concluded the authors of the NSPCC report ‘failed to properly understand to understand their role and remit and appeared to “equate homosexuality with the risk of paedophile abuse” ‘.
I haven’t seen a copy of the Judgement in the unrelated case. How did Hindley get the information ? That statement sounds so like the kind of denial, minimisation heard from sex offenders so often

No doubt more information will find its way into the public domain. Meanwhile, yet another man in a position of power and influence has been sexually abusing and exploiting children in the course of their work, over many years

Prosecution of such men is very rare. Successful prosecution even more rare. As with women who have been raped, the Court will expect independent corroboration of the child’s allegations. Unlikely, unless as with the teacher accused by the pupils at school with the journalist Nicky Campbell , other boys witnessed the abuse

The extent of child sexual abuse is frighteningly high.

From reading the article he sounds (and looks) an unpleasant character.

Don't forget that such predators turn up in all walks of life. DH came across some offenders among teachers and university staff. They're also very good at compartmentalising their lives and may be very good at their job while doing unspeakable things on the quiet.

bbc radio 4 tonight, 8pm.

I converted to the Catholic faith on marriage. There were rumours about sexual abuse on small boys by a priest in a neighbouring parish. He was moved twice but continued his depravity as nothing was done to stop it or remove him from the priesthood. I am no longer a practicing Catholic because I cannot stomach the abuse some priests and nuns have got away with inflicting on children who were too scared to speak out and punished when they did. Puts a whole new meaning to 'Suffer little children'.

Luckygirl3

The idea of moving these predators to another church is utterly horrifying. It is all about saving face and nothing at all about the well-being of children. Sickening.

Absolutely sickening indeed. Churches of various faiths have been covering up abuse for generations - but that it is still going on in this day and age is beyond belief.