Bishop Ball documentary BBC2 2100 TONIGHT

[J.R.]

A very good, if somewhat disturbing Part 11.

It just shows how much influence the Church has in covering up it's abuse of juniors.

I'm surprised there hasn't been more comment on here, given Bishop Ball's connections with CH during his tenure as Bishop of Chichester.

I think you meant to say he was bishop of Lewes . . .

My apologies.
you are correct.
At my time of life, they all look the same.

[robert totterdell]

Dear All

I am copying you below what I have sent to others directly (quite a lot and including some teachers).

Like Julian I am surprised that there has been very little comment on the programmes on this site given Ball's connections with CH and given Cairncross.

So I hope what is relayed below will perhaps concentrate minds somewhat.

I don't comment often now on the forum as I am still investigating CH, but I think you should all see this to make you all aware that my work is still progressing.

So as below: this has been copied to Simon Reid directly

Dear [redacted]

Thank you and many others who alerted me to the article in the Guardian concerning St. Pauls school and the BBC 2 documentaries on Peter Ball.

This also comes at a time when a report has been released on Greater Manchester which includes child sexual abuse.

All three are linked. Oddly it does feel like the old adage of London Buses - you don't see one for hours and then they all come along at the same time.

I have blind copied some others on this.

To deal with St Pauls - I had met an Old Blue who is also a member of the Guild of Mercers and who was aware of the St Pauls situation. However, I must say that if you had read this report (as below) to me without giving the school's name or location or the numbers involved I would have said CH. It is so similar that it is really shocking but proves a point that many, if not all, Public (Independent) schools behaved in the same institutionalised way towards the young children in their charge. Ampleforth, Winchester and others.

Of course this leads to questions concerning the HMC (Head Masters (Mistresses) Conference) the ISA (Independent Schools Association) and the ISI (Independent Schools Inspectorate) the latter which oversees the education at Independent Schools - their equivalent of Ofsted, which to be honest is not worth the title that it has or the paper that it is written on. It is an Old Boys Club. I have read their reports on CH for 2007 and 2012 and they are totally meaningless rubbish.

Perhaps it is time that the independent school sector was reviewed by the Government's Dept. of Education under Ofsted?

However, it leads me to once again ask CH to ask the HMC why it was suspended twice on the leaving of both Newsome and Baker? Whilst myself and another were told that 'CH didn't have the time to follow up on this matter' they actually should respect a wish from a victim to do so?

I will once again request that they provide the reasons for the suspensions.

I guess that, given the situation at St Pauls was so similar to that at CH, any Inquiry into CH would simply be a carbon copy of St Pauls so there would be little point in it being undertaken other than perhaps for the victims of CH, both those who have come forward and those who felt unable to do so, they would feel they were equal citizens within society rather than second rate as not being sons or daughters of the great and the good - this issue being highlighted by Martin Stephen in his book The English Public School A Personal and Irreverent History and pre-supported by John Rodgers in his book of 1938 Old Public Schools of England, where both suggest that the reason that CH comes out as the worst school for physical abuse in the 18th & 19th centuries is because the parents of its pupils had absolutely no standing or clout, they were basically indebted to the school authorities.

Of course it is interesting to note that at St Pauls (as per Winchester) the parents were ignored regardless of there wealth or place in society - the school establishment overruled.

I will once again re-ask that the Council of Christ's Hospital uses some of its substantial reserves of funds, which to remind all are there for the use of benefiting the pupils both past, present and future and not for building an ever increasing financial reserve, to hold its own Independent Inquiry before all concerned are deceased (I am attending the memorial service for Neil Simms on the 25th).

This brings me to Peter Ball. As you will be aware I did some considerable research into this person back in 2018. I found the programmes to be quite emotionally disturbing, in fact I have not felt that upset since listening to Arthur on the radio.

I will not comment but perhaps can add some details missed in the programmes: I am guessing that all reading this are aware that Ball had significant contact with CH.

Pre 1974 (the earliest date in the documentary) Ball, as mentioned, had been a monk at an establishment set up by himself and his brother in East Sussex (near coincidently Lewes - I suspect only EP who is blind copied on this will get that joke). This is prior to his ordination and becoming Bishop of Lewes (well done Norwich for rejecting him).

His monastic foundation was based on caring for the young and he particularly targeted young boys at major public schools in the south east who suffered from homesickness. There is a long list of schools who sent pupils to Ball - including two in Canterbury, Eastbourne, Lancing, Charterhouse and CH - even as far as King Edwards in Southampton. A wide net. I am not aware of any from St Pauls in Barnes but, if their records are as bad as those of CH, I doubt anyone would know.

I wrote about Ball and seeing moving pictures of him it brought back dark memories. He was as tall as I thought (I had assumed that because I was so small and that he wore a black habit, that I had imagined him as tall). I remember his smile was - well I would say creepy as a child but sinister might be a better word with hindsight.

I do not remember him talking to us in chapel, just visiting houses. He would stand in the corridor looking at the notices, although one must now suspect that he wasn't. He didn't seem to talk that much but on occasions would have a group of 5 or 6 kids around him. I didn't like him. I do not know why but I think he frightened me but then I was a country bumpkin. Everything at CH frightened me at first.

Ball actually had no real interest in my investigations or thoughts until Nigel brought up the issue of PS and his homesickness at our first meeting with Simon Reid and Jacqui Duggan. It brought back the memories quite slowly and I had to check but was able to confirm what PS had said to MS and me. I will not go into that here as many will already know about it but when the issues of Ball started to come out I was able to confirm that PS was the boy rolled about naked in the snow as a punishment and he was beaten - he was also abused sexually although he only ever implied this and it was I think nakedness that allowed it.

However, in the first episode of the documentary one of Ball's victims drove back to the house in East Sussex and I sat up with such gusto that my back is still hurting (I have back issues). The reason was that the house is exactly as PS described it all those years ago. The reason PS was so specific is that he spent two weeks there in the Christmas holidays rather than being allowed home. Remember he was desperately homesick. I have checked all of the other details (including the snow which started on Christmas Eve and only in the south east of England (it was in Scotland as well but then there is always snow in Scotland)).

The other thing in the documentary concerned Ball beating a certain boy as his (the boy's) father did (this an accepted excuse as the same as Guy Perricone's comment to me that this was the normal form of chastisement at the time (it was the 1970s not the 1870s). PS on the few occasions that he made it home was beaten by his father, dragged back to CH to be beaten again by Gregory but not for long, as first Seaman and then Newsome took over. It is a long and chilling walk for a 10/11 year old from Maine to the HM's house. Plenty to contemplate, particularly on what is about to happen.

The other aspect of the documentaries, which they have missed, is the connection between Ball as Bishop of Gloucester and Bath & Wells. The connection was Elizabeth Cairncross the former deputy head of CH and its first (and not its best) child protection officer and her subsequent position of Principle of Wells Cathedral School.

Cairncross had sent pupils with homesickness from CH to Ball in Gloucestershire. As did other schools based in the SE and as they had done before when he was based in East Sussex. So she was not the first to do this with regards to CH - I think Robson was.

More interestingly, is that Ball's net widened to include pupils from more westerly schools - Winchester (what a surprise), Sherborne and even, on the basis he was a monk rather than a Bishop, from Downside! But it gets more interesting and I sort of missed this connection myself until yesterday: he took boys from Kings Oxford and Reading, The Oratory (where did Peter Burr go?) and he stretched his net north to Worcester and yes Shrewsbury (where did Dobbie go?).

And now the coup de grace - Ball on a very few occasions travelled abroad. He visited at least one country in Africa (actually he visited two Uganda and Kenya). In Kenya he visited a school - I bet there is not one of you that could name it? Starehe of Rodger Martin fame. What a coincidence.

Of course it is all of no relevance as Ball is dead. I should have followed upon this but my mind was on CH.

However, as the programmes highlight, there are networks of Paedophiles and also it is extremely rare that a Paedophile changes a bit like a Leopard with it's spots.

Remember I have spent over two years on the issues of CH and I suspect that is considerably longer than the BBC on Ball.

Of course there is no point in the police following up on all of this - you can not bring a criminal case against a dead person. A corporate case of negligence? Against who? The Church, the Schools? Cairncross didn't do anything wrong (or did she)?

But then, perhaps for victims if CH held an Inquiry some answers might be forthcoming - Cairncross might decide to appear or give evidence. Perhaps Sillett might want to come forward and be honest or perhaps he could be pushed a little by the Lodge.

Would we be better off? I doubt it. I suspect that actually we would all be more frustrated - but I will ask again simply on the basis that we will get fed from the new unbelievable kitchens at CH and then all would understand the progress made!

The problem will be Reconciliation as I just can't see how it can happen if CH is not totally open and honest - there are too many skeletons in the cupboard, but I will be optimistic on this - nothing that a machine gun and a bulldozer couldn't fix.

And this finally leads to Greater Manchester. Because what this report shows is what all the reports have shown from Jimmy Saville onwards. It is actually the establishment who should stand trial. The cover ups, 'keep it in house', 'dirty their name', 'put pressure on them - bully them, threaten them'.

When I started on this I said the real issue will be the Norman Yoke. That is the old phrase for the Establishment (who are basically Norman against the lowly Saxons). The Patricians against the Plebeians.

I feel a sea change has occurred since 2016 with 2017 being somewhat pivotal as the year that at both St Pauls and, I believe, CH changes were finally made to stop the sexual abuse but also in that 2017 seems to have been a year where real questions were asked which finally led to answers in 2018 & 2019.

Personally I think this all started, despite many people trying to come forward back to the 1980s, with the events of 2016. The British are renowned for their sense of inevitability - we stand in queues, we wait for late trains and buses, we endlessly talk about the weather which is never what we want - too hot, too cold, too wet - we complain but we never really do anything - of course you can not change the weather. We accept what we are told to do by the establishment - it is our version of true Communism 'do what I tell you to do and not what I do'. 'Know your place'.

In 2016 despite all of the Great and the Good, internationally, telling us this is what you should do - we didn't. And that brings with it courage - the courage to speak out and tell the truth - perhaps all establishment institutions in this country need to take this as a wake up call - 'times they are a changing'.

CH has an amazing future under new management but it can not just shut out its past - it must be true to its pupils of the present and the future but it must also be true to its pupils of the past - well that's what I think which is irrelevant as I am just an Anglo-Saxon peasant.

Rob - long but probably a lot better than most church sermons that will be given this Sunday

Oh, and I am not dead yet so I will continue to ask questions and will request answers although the requests will increasingly become requirements. Do not worry about my strength - my resolve increases daily - I have Winnie and Arfur, the two dogs, behind me. What more could you ask for?

[ASR]

Here's the Guardian article about St Paul's School that Rob refers to above . . .

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/202 ... ate-school

[ASR]

And here’s the current Bishop of Gloucester in response

https://twitter.com/GlosDioc/status/1217097091211845632

[cstegerlewis]

Well I watched it yesterday, and loads of issues running round my head - again I emphasise that I was lucky and never suffered from him or others at CH so cannot even start to view it from the perspectives of those who suffered.

But a couple of points: Well done (with a note of sarcasm) to whomever is currently doing reputation management at the School that it did not feature once; or perhaps the school were not asked to provide references in 1992, and therefore nothing is on file? And secondly, I would hope that charges should be brought against the Cof E hierarchy, Archbishop, but in particular his chief of staff for aiding an offender; and if not gross negligence in the civil court; that level of conspiracy is a disgrace.

No doubt richardb will counsel me that such actions are likely impossible under law but I can only hope.

[AMP]

I remember reading with interest the report of his caution in one of the broadsheets in 1993.

It was sympathetically reported with mischievous novices being blamed for him being treated very unfairly.

He confirmed me and I was prepared by Dobbie and Porteous.

I recall one house communion Ball took sometime afterwards.

No social media in those days so much easier to put a blanket over it.

Whilst unequivocal statements from the current church hierarchy condemning the abuses and cover ups are to be welcomed, I am still deeply suspicious about the level of openness and transparency.

A leopard does not change it's spots as the absence of any sanctions against the facilitators demonstrates.

[LHA]

I remember reading with interest the report of his caution in one of the broadsheets in 1993.

It was sympathetically reported with mischievous novices being blamed for him being treated very unfairly.

He confirmed me and I was prepared by Dobbie and Porteous.

I recall one house communion Ball took sometime afterwards.

No social media in those days so much easier to put a blanket over it.

Whilst unequivocal statements from the current church hierarchy condemning the abuses and cover ups are to be welcomed, I am still deeply suspicious about the level of openness and transparency.

A leopard does not change it's spots as the absence of any sanctions against the facilitators demonstrates.

Does anyone recall the date in which Balls official and unofficial involvement with CH ended? It would be interesting to know if he was 'around' after 1993

[marty]

I would hope that charges should be brought against the Cof E hierarchy, Archbishop, but in particular his chief of staff for aiding an offender; and if not gross negligence in the civil court; that level of conspiracy is a disgrace.

No doubt richardb will counsel me that such actions are likely impossible under law but I can only hope.

If you're referring to John Yates he died in 2008. George Carey is still alive and allowed to sit in the Lords despite calls for him to resign

https://www.secularism.org.uk/news/2017 ... estigation

[sejintenej]

George Carey is still alive and allowed to sit in the Lords despite calls for him to resign

https://www.secularism.org.uk/news/2017 ... estigation

Two very different matters here.
The Secular Society sounds as if it is opposed to religious organisations; OK - they have the right to their opinions but this presentation is like the yah-boo kid spitting in your face and telling you to get lost.

..... police must investigate whether Carey's deliberate concealment of evidence constitutes a criminal offence

. If you see a car being driven the wrong way down a one-way street or a kid swear at an old person do you immediately demand that the police take action? If you do not then you are concealing evidence of a crime (albeit possibly minor). In the event of Carey hearing compulsive evidence was he under oath not divulge the enquiry's hearings? Did he have sufficient evidence to convict in a court of law? At what stage to you report and not report; if I reported everything I see then county police need to increase their manpower tenfold, those who decide whether to prosecute by tenfold and the courts by a similar amount. I think you will agree that that is lunatic but where is the dividing line?
Some months ago my wife was knocked down by a car in a carpark; she was not seriously hurt, we had witnesses, the driver immediately stopped and acted in a proper manner but for insurance purpose we informed the police - they never even considered prosecuting and I don't blame them but a crime was committed.

IF the police actually asked Carey appropriate questions and he refused to answer or gave false answers then that is a very different matter. Do we know?

[marty]

George Carey is still alive and allowed to sit in the Lords despite calls for him to resign

https://www.secularism.org.uk/news/2017 ... estigation

Two very different matters here.
The Secular Society sounds as if it is opposed to religious organisations; OK - they have the right to their opinions but this presentation is like the yah-boo kid spitting in your face and telling you to get lost.

..... police must investigate whether Carey's deliberate concealment of evidence constitutes a criminal offence

. If you see a car being driven the wrong way down a one-way street or a kid swear at an old person do you immediately demand that the police take action? If you do not then you are concealing evidence of a crime (albeit possibly minor). In the event of Carey hearing compulsive evidence was he under oath not divulge the enquiry's hearings? Did he have sufficient evidence to convict in a court of law? At what stage to you report and not report; if I reported everything I see then county police need to increase their manpower tenfold, those who decide whether to prosecute by tenfold and the courts by a similar amount. I think you will agree that that is lunatic but where is the dividing line?
Some months ago my wife was knocked down by a car in a carpark; she was not seriously hurt, we had witnesses, the driver immediately stopped and acted in a proper manner but for insurance purpose we informed the police - they never even considered prosecuting and I don't blame them but a crime was committed.

IF the police actually asked Carey appropriate questions and he refused to answer or gave false answers then that is a very different matter. Do we know?

Have you watched the documentary?!! And are you really trying to liken driving down a street the wrong way or swearing at an old person to the wilful cover up of decades of child abuse? Incredible.

[richardb]

Well I watched it yesterday, and loads of issues running round my head - again I emphasise that I was lucky and never suffered from him or others at CH so cannot even start to view it from the perspectives of those who suffered.

But a couple of points: Well done (with a note of sarcasm) to whomever is currently doing reputation management at the School that it did not feature once; or perhaps the school were not asked to provide references in 1992, and therefore nothing is on file? And secondly, I would hope that charges should be brought against the Cof E hierarchy, Archbishop, but in particular his chief of staff for aiding an offender; and if not gross negligence in the civil court; that level of conspiracy is a disgrace.

No doubt richardb will counsel me that such actions are likely impossible under law but I can only hope.

I shared your pessimism Craig until I had a look at the CPS guidance on misconduct in a public office:

https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/m ... lic-office

If you scroll down you will see that a Church of England Bishop is a public office holder which is derived from the recent case of Ball (obviously no coincidence of name).

There is at least an argument that covering up Ball's misconduct amounts to misconduct in a public office.

[AMP]

George Carey is still alive and allowed to sit in the Lords despite calls for him to resign

https://www.secularism.org.uk/news/2017 ... estigation

Two very different matters here.
The Secular Society sounds as if it is opposed to religious organisations; OK - they have the right to their opinions but this presentation is like the yah-boo kid spitting in your face and telling you to get lost.

..... police must investigate whether Carey's deliberate concealment of evidence constitutes a criminal offence

. If you see a car being driven the wrong way down a one-way street or a kid swear at an old person do you immediately demand that the police take action? If you do not then you are concealing evidence of a crime (albeit possibly minor). In the event of Carey hearing compulsive evidence was he under oath not divulge the enquiry's hearings? Did he have sufficient evidence to convict in a court of law? At what stage to you report and not report; if I reported everything I see then county police need to increase their manpower tenfold, those who decide whether to prosecute by tenfold and the courts by a similar amount. I think you will agree that that is lunatic but where is the dividing line?
Some months ago my wife was knocked down by a car in a carpark; she was not seriously hurt, we had witnesses, the driver immediately stopped and acted in a proper manner but for insurance purpose we informed the police - they never even considered prosecuting and I don't blame them but a crime was committed.

IF the police actually asked Carey appropriate questions and he refused to answer or gave false answers then that is a very different matter. Do we know?

Your analogy with one way streets is very wide of the mark.

When a victim originally reported Ball to the police, they visited Lambeth Palace and asked for any relevant documents which might help them with their enquiries.

By this stage Carey had received at least six letters from other victims of Ball, but they were not disclosed.

This was probably crucial to him being let off with a caution (even though they are not supposed to be used for sexual offences)

It's very simple: let the police decide what is or isn't relevant.

[Janey Jam-Jar]

I watched both programmes last night.

I'd be interested to know:

1) Who was the contact who first invited or enabled an invitation to be made to Ball for him to become involved at CH?

2) Whether CH was one of the schools who sent a character reference/letter of support?

[marty]

I watched both programmes last night.

2) Whether CH was one of the schools who sent a character reference/letter of support?

A brief glimpse of a letter from Cranleigh appears at 53.00 minutes in episode 1. I'm wondering if Gloucestershire Police would disclose this sort of information if you requested it?

[Janey Jam-Jar]

I watched both programmes last night.

2) Whether CH was one of the schools who sent a character reference/letter of support?

A brief glimpse of a letter from Cranleigh appears at 53.00 minutes in episode 1. I'm wondering if Gloucestershire Police would disclose this sort of information if you requested it?

An FOI request you mean? Might do. Presumably Operation Dunhill is not a live investigation now as he was found guilty of the charges brought and is dead. Does the death of the perpetrator mean the case is closed?