nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Ongoing religious scandals

PeterIanStaker

MODS NOTE:

Post any stories or commentary on church scandals in this thread only. This is primarily in order to stop the antics of the catholic church clogging up the forum. Any new threads will be closed or moved here.

No suprises here really:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article7060406.ece

Find more posts tagged with

religious leader scandals

Quick Links

Child Item

Comments

Peregrinus

The religious angle is that (a) the incident occurred at a mosque, and (b) part of the story the defendant initially offered to the girl's mother was that he had been instructing the child about the wudu ritual. But he doesn't seem to have pursued this line with the guards, or at the trial.

Peregrinus

recedite wrote: »

Its clearly mentioned in my original post. So its obvious that you didn't even fully read through the post.
Yet you still felt obliged to attack me while jumping to the defence of the guy mentioned in it, or at least wanting it censored out of the debate. An interesting response.

Equally interesting that you read Seamus as defending the guy mentioned in the story. He doesn't defend him at all.

ancapailldorcha

TomSweeney wrote: »

Defends it
:rolleyes:

What have I defended?

seamus

recedite wrote: »

Its clearly mentioned in my original post. So its obvious that you didn't even fully read through the post.

That's fair. I skipped over your post looking for a question or a statement that connected the link you had posted to the topic of the thread. But I didn't see any.

Yet you still felt obliged to attack me while jumping to the defence of the guy mentioned in it, or at least wanting it censored out of the debate. An interesting response.

I didn't defend anyone, simply asking what your point is.

Scumbag gets caught molesting a child and makes lame excuses for his behaviour.

It's terrible (Joe) but what relevance does it have to the topic?

ohnonotgmail

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

What have I defended?

You are either condemning something or defending it. That is the false dichotomy some persist with.

TomSweeney

Odhinn wrote: »

scary scary scary Muslims!!!! scary scary scary

Says the guy that will piss all over christianity - and fair enough btw, just be consistent in slagging off fairytale nonsense.

Odhinn

TomSweeney wrote: »

Says the guy that will piss all over christianity - and fair enough btw, just be consistent in slagging off fairytale nonsense.

Where have I done so? Links and quotes please.

robindch

TomSweeney wrote: »

^^ from looking at this thread and the humour thread, don't think this will get quite the outrage and condemnation that a molesting priest would get.

If you have a look at the "ongoing religious scandals" thread which is for reports of this type regardless of religion (as the title suggests), most reports of abuse by catholic or christian prelates and religious workers pass without comment.

That thread is here and recedite's thread-relevant post has been moved, together with the responses, into that thread.

robindch

seamus wrote: »

What's the religious angle here?

Well, it's a story about a religious worker, this time an islamic one, albeit possibly a man with issues related to his mental health, who's been successfully prosecuted for what appears to be child molestation.

The libertarian/alt-right/neofascist angle seems to be the false allegation that nobody seems very worried about this owing to the fact that the molester is islamic. Though I'd have thought that a successful prosecution and coverage in national media would indicate the contrary, not to mention coverage here in A+A.

oconnol1

Hi all, anyone here of any issues in the parish of Mooncoin co. Kilkenny.

Peregrinus

robindch wrote: »

Well, it's a story about a religious worker, this time an islamic one, albeit possibly a man with issues related to his mental health, who's been successfully prosecuted for what appears to be child molestation.

Worth noting, maybe, that there seems to be no suggestion that the mosque leadership were complicit in the offence, attempted to cover it up, failed to co-operate with the investigation, etc, etc.

Other denominations, taken note.

smacl

Peregrinus wrote: »

Worth noting, maybe, that there seems to be no suggestion that the mosque leadership were complicit in the offence, attempted to cover it up, failed to co-operate with the investigation, etc, etc.

Other denominations, taken note.

No mention that they were aware of it one way or another. I wonder had this person gone through the mandatory Garda vetting that is required of teachers, sports coaches and anyone else working with children and whether the previous schizophrenia diagnosis would raise any flags? While I'm not suggesting that this was the case here, it's worth noting that complicity in instances such as this can be largely passive, i.e. what wasn't done that should have been.

Peregrinus

smacl wrote: »

No mention that they were aware of it one way or another. I wonder had this person gone through the mandatory Garda vetting that is required of teachers, sports coaches and anyone else working with children and whether the previous schizophrenia diagnosis would raise any flags? While I'm not suggesting that this was the case here, it's worth noting that complicity in instances such as this can be largely passive, i.e. what wasn't done that should have been.

These are good questions.

He's described in the news reports as a "teacher" but the impression I'm getting is not that he was, e.g. a qualified teacher in a national school, but had a probably voluntary role as an instructor in a mosque-based "Sunday school". He should still have been vetted, of course, but this would depend on the organisation which organised whatever activities he was involved in having registered with the National Vetting Bureau. The reports of the criminal trial are simply silent about what organisation that was, whether they were registered and whether he was vetted.

(This doesn't point to a conspiracy of silence or a cover up - none of these points would relevant to a criminal prosecution of the individual, so there is no reason why they would have featured at the trial.)

With regard to the schizophrenia diagnosis, we don't know when this was given. It may have been given when he was assessed after having been accused of this particular crime, in which case obviously its not something that could have been detected in any vetting process beforehand.

But, even it predating his work at the mosque, it likely wouldn't have turned up in a vetting process. The vetting process focusses on the subject's convictions, and on any "specified information" in the Garda system that suggests that the subject may present a risk to children. If this bloke had never come to garda attention before, there would be no information about him on the system. Even if he had come to their attention, his medical records would be most unlikely to be known to the guards. Even if you've had a mental health assessment, or mental health treatment, that's generally between you and your doctors; it won't normally show up in a garda vetting process because there is no reason why they should know about it.

You're right to say that we don't know that the mosque authorities did everything they should have done both before and after the incident; all we can say is that there has been no reports of any claim that they didn't, and nothing emerged in the criminal trial to suggest that they might not have. Whcih still puts them well ahead of Some Other Denominations We Could Mention.

smacl

Peregrinus wrote: »

The vetting process focusses on the subject's convictions, and on any "specified information" in the Garda system that suggests that the subject may present a risk to children. If this bloke had never come to garda attention before, there would be no information about him on the system. Even if he had come to their attention, his medical records would be most unlikely to be known to the guards. Even if you've had a mental health assessment, or mental health treatment, that's generally between you and your doctors; it won't normally show up in a garda vetting process because there is no reason why they should know about it.

Which does raise questions on how the vetting process should deal with individuals who are relatively recent immigrants who simply aren't in the system. I'd guess it would be something like a minimum time period as resident followed by some kind of interview, but honestly don't know. Having been involved in teaching martial arts in UCD a few years ago, I remember they were very strict, even though quite a small minority of the class would be under 18. I'm pretty sure the same is true for most schools and sports clubs.

You're right to say that we don't know that the mosque authorities did everything they should have done both before and after the incident; all we can say is that there has been no reports of any claim that they didn't, and nothing emerged in the criminal trial to suggest that they might not have. Whcih still puts them well ahead of Some Other Denominations We Could Mention.

Indeed, no argument there.

Peregrinus

As regards recent immigrants, depending on the nature of their visa, the visa process may have included police checks from the countries in which they have previously lived, in which case I think that information will be in the Garda PULSE system. Or, you could amend the vetting process so that it involves taking up police checks from other countries. (For all I know, the vetting process already involves this.)

But one point: Overseas checks wouldn't be relevant only to "recent immigrants". They'd be relevant to anyone who had lived abroad, regardless of citizenship or where they were born.

While checks are important, you can't place too much reliance on them, if only because they only catch people who have previosly come to police attention, and there's a first time for everything, even child molestation. Plus, as regards people who have lived in other countries, teh information you're going to get is limited by the effectiveness and comprehensiveness of those countries record-keeping and retrieval system, which will vary a lot from country to country. So you'd also wanting to be asking questions like, how were things set up in the mosque? For example, are adults ever alone with children, one-to-one? Does the mosque have a safeguarding officer? Etc, etc.

seamus

Realistically, vetting is a just a rough mesh, not a fine filter, as Peregrinus says.

The vast majority of sex offenders have no previous convictions, so in Garda vetting (or INIS background checks), they will be as clear as you and I.

It would be a mistake to assume that there was something "missed" about this guy by the state authorities, or the mosque governance. But it's possible that some processes/procedures may have been lacking that would have limited his ability to have this kind of access to kids.

All that said, 100% protection is virtually impossible. We send kids into classrooms every day where it's just them and the teacher. While children need protection from predators, we also can't have teachers working under the assumption that they're all potential predators.
The aim should not be to ensure that schools are places where we catch predators, but that they are places that predators feel so unsafe that they don't even go there.

recedite

Peregrinus wrote: »

As regards recent immigrants, depending on the nature of their visa, the visa process may have included police checks from the countries in which they have previously lived..

May? <cough>

Peregrinus

recedite wrote: »

May? <cough>

Depends on (a) whether they need a visa at all, and (b) if so, what class of visa.

recedite

Well, this guy is out again already. It seems like only a few days ago that he got 18 months.
Oh wait... it was only a few days ago. But with all the backdating, part suspended, remission.. ya de ya...
Anyone need a teacher?

ohnonotgmail

recedite wrote: »

Well, this guy is out again already. It seems like only a few days ago that he got 18 months.
Oh wait... it was only a few days ago. But with all the backdating, part suspended, remission.. ya de ya...
Anyone need a teacher?

he has been in custody since january and had the last 4 months suspended. but you knew that already. Are there no white paedophiles you are outraged about?

Peregrinus

This bloke, who we have previously discussed, has just had his conviction for failing to report child abuse overturned on appeal.

Xzavier Loud Steam wrote: »

A former Australian archbishop convicted of concealing abuse by a notorious paedophile priest in the 1970s was confronted by enraged victims outside a courthouse after a judge 'spared him jail' and ordered he serve his sentence at home (likely with his feet up and a nice leisurely cup of tea)

https://www.rte.ie/news/2018/0814/984922-philip_wilson/

Between this, and that cricketer lad (that bashed a few lads in the uk), both getting off scot free, reckon there is something slightly wrong with concept of crime deterrence.

recedite

Peregrinus wrote: »

This bloke, who we have previously discussed, has just had his conviction for failing to report child abuse overturned on appeal.

(Judge) Ellis repeatedly stated during the appeal that Wilson was an intelligent, articulate man who appeared to be doing his best to answer questions put to him during the trial. He said he wasn’t bound by the magistrate’s conclusion that many of Wilson’s answers were “dissembling and contrived”.

Seems like Alzheimers is now considered a good defence against these kind of charges.

Peregrinus

recedite wrote: »

Seems like Alzheimers is now considered a good defence against these kind of charges.

He has early-stage Alzheimers, but I don't think that featured in his defence; he did not have it at the time of the alleged offence. And the acquittal now has nothing to do with Alzheimers.

Hotblack Desiato

Worked out pretty well for Ernest Saunders.

Peregrinus

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Worked out pretty well for Ernest Saunders.

Saunders wasn't acquitted on the grounds of (alleged) Alzheimers; he had his sentence reduced on appeal on those grounds. But he remains a convict.

recedite

Peregrinus wrote: »

He has early-stage Alzheimers, but I don't think that featured in his defence; he did not have it at the time of the alleged offence. And the acquittal now has nothing to do with Alzheimers.

My reading of it is that the case came down to one person's word against another's.

And whereas the original trial judge felt that the accused's account was devious "dissembling and contrived", the appeal judge seemed to think he was doing his best but just could not remember anything.
It would not be fair to convict a guy with Altzheimers who could not remember whether or not he ever had the incriminating conversation.
Mind you, if he had just lied and said "no, it never happened" then he probably still should not have been convicted, because there is no solid evidence.

Hotblack Desiato

Peregrinus wrote: »

Saunders wasn't acquitted on the grounds of (alleged) Alzheimers; he had his sentence reduced on appeal on those grounds. But he remains a convict.

Who cares, he doesn't. He walked, and walked into a number of quite lucrative jobs. A mockery of justice.

Odhinn

Kev "the bollocks" Doran strikes again.

"A leading bishop has called on doctors, nurses, teachers and pharmaceutical workers to “resist” the new abortion regime.
He urged such professionals to “stick together” in their resistance to the new law.
Bishop Kevin Doran said the Regulation of Termination of Pregnancy Bill, which is before the Seanad this week, has no moral force and must be resisted. “Catholics have no obligation whatsoever to obey this law,” he told the Irish Independent.
He said the bishops “absolutely support the right of doctors and nurses and midwives, not only not to perform abortions, but not to be required under the law to refer their patients”, even though this will bring them into conflict with the law as framed. "

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/bishop-urges-professionals-to-resist-abortion-laws-37609932.html

uptherebels

Odhinn wrote: »

Kev "the bollocks" Doran strikes again.

"A leading bishop has called on doctors, nurses, teachers and pharmaceutical workers to “resist” the new abortion regime.
He urged such professionals to “stick together” in their resistance to the new law.
Bishop Kevin Doran said the Regulation of Termination of Pregnancy Bill, which is before the Seanad this week, has no moral force and must be resisted. “Catholics have no obligation whatsoever to obey this law,” he told the Irish Independent.
He said the bishops “absolutely support the right of doctors and nurses and midwives, not only not to perform abortions, but not to be required under the law to refer their patients”, even though this will bring them into conflict with the law as framed. "

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/bishop-urges-professionals-to-resist-abortion-laws-37609932.html

The sad thing is, his ignorance might lead to legal repercussions to health workers who might actually listen to him.
Aside from that, the more publicity he can get with those head in clouds comments the better. The church likes to sit on a moral and ethical high horse but its actions and inactions and the waffle that comes from the likes of the good bishop is slowly hammering the nails into their own coffin.

robindch

Over a period of many years, two catholic nuns spent around half a million dollars of school funds on travel to, and gambling in, Las Vegas. The school's pastor, a Monsignor Michael Meyers, said that the school will not be prosecuting the nuns.

https://www.rte.ie/news/world/2018/1211/1016444-nuns-theft-gambling/

Child Item