Former Archbishop of Canterbury George Carey
Former Bishop Peter Ball was offered only a caution by the CPS in an arrangement that the then Archbishop of Canterbury George Carey, now Lord Carey, was party to.
Surely, that raises important questions that deserve answers, not least, how many other such deals have the CPS made ?
Former Bishop Peter Ball
A former bishop has admitted sexually assaulting two young men in the 1980s and 1990s.
Peter Ball, 83, former Bishop of Lewes and Bishop of Gloucester, pleaded guilty to two counts of indecent assault at the Old Bailey.
He also admitted misconduct in a public office between 1977 and 1992.
Ball faced allegations of abusing boys and young men in Litlington, East Sussex, after a review by the Church of England in 2012 prompted police action.
He had failed in a bid to get his case thrown out on the word of a former Archbishop of Canterbury.
It was argued Ball and Lord George Carey had been assured in 1993 that there would be no future action over the allegations.
But Mr Justice Sweeney refused to dismiss the case earlier this year.
The court was told the church avoided scandal in 1993 when Ball accepted a caution for a single allegation of gross indecency and resigned, despite Gloucester Police being aware of allegations from two more men.
Ball’s lawyer, Richard Smith QC, suggested the Crown Prosecution Service may have settled on the caution to avoid the publicity of a bishop in the dock.
The court heard Lord Carey also sought assurances the case was closed.
But allegations resurfaced when the Diocese of Bath and Wells reviewed the cases, prompting Sussex Police to reopen the investigation.
The Sussex force later charged him with misconduct and a string of sex offences.
theneedleblog 
Reblogged this on Armor Of God Foundation.
Gojam,
“The Sunday Times seems to want to link Darren’s and Nick’s account to Tom Watson’s question at PMQs in 2012. For absolute clarity, they are not linked !”
Yes good point and I also note the Daily Mail article a few weeks ago implied Watson had some kind of link to Exaro. I do not believe that this is correct – if so, it’s the first I have heard. Tory media seem to be trying to discredit Watson by linking him to allegations that are unproven at best.
Wasn’t Lord Carey sponsored when he joined the House of Lords by Greville Janner?
Oh yes he was.
Scroll down here for photo of Carey and Janner:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3064947/Lord-Janner-director-firm-THREE-WEEKS-ago-emerges-damning-dossier-alleges-police-chief-allowed-peer-molest-young-boys.html
Out of all possible people to sponsor Carey when he joined the House of Lords, why was he sponsored by Janner?
Discussion about the cover up here on Radio 4, Sunday programme
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b069gtk7
Sickening how the same cover up and blocks served to protect the Establishment while vulnerable Children were abused, ignored and denied justice. The message that this would have given abusers is that they were free to carry on with the abuse and therefor put other Children at risk. Lovely value systems some of the religious institutions have upheld!
As for Carey’s role in all this, he obviously has a lot of questions to answer to. Plus in the same week that this was in the news, Carey showed his support for military action in Syria. The timing of this is suspicious, was this meant as a distraction? It seems incredible that a ‘man of the cloth’ would show support to bombing people, but according to this article, he has.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/sep/06/syria-air-strikes-lord-carey-adds-to-pressure-on-cameron-with-call-to-crush-isis
‘.
Hi.
I am a survivor who has experienced and still experiencing the church of England’s tactics and it mirrors the Peter Ball situation. I can fully understand how they feel because I too am experiencing it first hand, right now. Its like being stuck in your worst nightmare.
I am truly grateful to Gojam because he was one of a very small number, who did offer unconditional support and care. He knows what the church do behind the scenes and how it affects a survivor because he has gone through it with me every step of the way.
I went to the media about the KH review problems and cover up. The media didnt want to know. Apparently its not news worthy. I went to known CSA/church abuse legals and I begged them for help and they too refused to help and they knew it was an injustice too.
Injustice comes from a group of professionals who all watch each others backs and protect each other. Its not just the church protecting the church, its the police, government, legals and others. They didnt care about the children or grandchildren and they just wanted to see the minutes and the rejected draft TofR for the non existent KH review. Shame on them all.
So, your logical conclusion is that false allegations should not be exposed and innocent men should just put up with being called a paedophile because if it comes out the establishment will exploit it ?
How is that my conclussion. I am saying quite clearly that the establishment will use ‘false’. and BTW at this point we don’t know they are false, to then say it is all just a witch hunt. Given that fact, we should push back on their asof yet unproven or even proven false allegation which they use yo say it is all a witch hunt.
honestly,, I find your interpretation of what I said weird.
Just to clarify it doesn’t mean you should not point out false allegations, but you should also be cognizant of the fact that such allegations are being used to paint a wide brush of they are all liars.
Also, untill such allegations are proven false it would be a good time to point out ithe ‘witch hunt’ meme, which you can do inaddition to questioning the allegations. Otherwise, I can just read MSM
http://www.exaronews.com/articles/5657/police-betray-csa-survivor-by-referring-his-son-to-social-services
“Darren” has his baby referred to Social Services, Social Services see no reason for action on their part. The police seem to be saying ‘Thanks Darren, now kindly fuck off and shut up’
tricia the “establishment” create or promote false (and mistaken/misled )allegations to give them a trampoline to jump on .
i for one find those as educational as real and true allegations which if they affect the “establishment” position they do there best to suppress.
the difficult bit is establishing which is which and where they fit into context.
Exactly what I have been suggesting. who is behind the trampoline.
i believe the list to be genuine based on those convicted and those proven to be PIE members who also appear on it which would sort of cover me from libel as i believe it to be genuine but to put the pie list and the msm story which seems to point to a particular individual together is a bold step which might be counterproductive if it turned out to be either true and correct or a trap.
whether or not there is truth in the allegations that are (alleged by the msm to) have been made i do not know but if there is truth and legal proceedings will follow tis probably best to keep quiet at this stage.
several people came up with the same name by different routes from the msm story(which seems to have not been followed up in further publication) and from that coupled with a credible PIE membership list it seems that there is only one plausible candidate.
im not aware of an injunction (it seems likely)but i suspect there may be ongoing criminal investigations into the matter which if they come to a court could imho ( im non legal ho) be compromised by voicing my suspicions.
as far as i am aware the police have the list i refer to and other PIE membership lists(including some compiled from the “righton papers”
“My point is if you allow the establishment to use ‘false allegation’ to paint VIP child abuse as a witchhunt then one is part of the problem.”
No I don’t. That is just the way you want to portray it. Actually, very clearly, quite the opposite. So why are you trying to place it in that light ??
Not sure I follow what you are saying here. Seems to me the establishment assisted by their mouthpieces in the media waste no time in pushing allegations as false and using that as the backdrop to claim the whole thing is a witch hunt etc.
Also can you explain why you think the inquiry is above establishment involvement?
If you think you have facts that support HP, why wouldn’t you post them? No reason not to.
You are suggesting that I’M ALLOWING the establishment to use false allegations. I’m doing what I can. I don’t ALLOW anything of the sort.
“Also can you explain why you think the inquiry is above establishment involvement?”
By that I mean it is now independent of government and it can not be cancelled.
“If you think you have facts that support HP, why wouldn’t you post them? No reason not to.”
Plenty of reasons not to and I don’t need to explain them to you.
You misunderstand. I am saying the establishment jump on false allegations to brand the whole thing as a witchhunt – and when they try that there should be pushed back.
Because it can’t be cancelled makes it beyond establishmnet interference? Okay
You don’t have to give your reasons why you believe HP, but it would sure help and add clarity.
So, your logical conclusion is that false allegations should not be exposed and innocent men should just put up with being called a paedophile because if it comes out the establishment will exploit it ?
Or alternatively you could have a go at those that hyped it in the first place and not me.
it is difficult to know whether or not to name a sitting mp who appears on what i consider a plausible if incomplete PIE membership list and fits the criteria mentioned in the msm reports of both a tory and a labour mp making formal statements to the police regarding the chap’s activities.
if an active investigation is to result in legal proceedings to name him at this stage would be counterproductive,if no action seems to be ongoing i do not have sufficient data to know if the msm report is “bait”for another macalpine defense or if the matter is being quietly hidden.my personal opinion is that appearing on the PIE list is fairly damming circumstantial evidence but to compromise what might be the first sitting mp charged and convicted of csa crimes would be a big mistake.
im fairly sure there are quite a few such things ongoing where to speak out would be counterproductive for instance north wales is a legal minefield in terms of either telling facts or speculating at links due to the ongoing and imminent series of interlinked criminal cases in regard to that area.
etc etc .
Do you have reason to believe that the list is genuine and not a fabrication?
if so an accusation to that effect without alluding to anything else risks an action for libel but cannot be a contempt (unless there is a current injunction). Sub Judice applies post charge.
I’ve been paying very close attention and my view is that false allegations against innocent men do not help genuine victims of child abuse get justice.
I disagree. Flalse allegations only prevent genuine victims get justice if you allow the media to use such allegations to demonize and paint it as a witch hunt.
You’re not very open minded. I’m not going to persuade you. Even when it is shown that I am right (and it will) you are still going to cling to the Exaro line and say it is a cover-up.
I have stated multiple times I don’t know who is telling the truth, and open to false allegations etc. However, I have also stated that I am open to dark arts being behind some of this. Decades of history, as shown in your post above, should make one question if there is collusion, cover-up, and distortion going on.
You say I have no facts to support it. Really ? How do you know ? You don’t !
You are right, I don’t. But given you wrote you believed HP, but gave no facts to back it up, it is speculation. Do you also have facts to back up why you believe the inquiry is beyond establishment interference? What is your basis for saying such a thing?
As for Exaro it seems that they are trying to expose VIP abuse. Have they in doing so, muddy the waters? I don’t know. What other media outlets are relentlessly exposing VIP abuse? When within the space of 24+ hours you slam use of anonymous sources and tabloid journalism, and then post information from a tabloid using anonymous sources – it is bizarre.
People questioning your posts does not imply close minds. In fact, people need to question what they read on VIP abuse, regardless of where they read it, as smoke and mirrors has been a consistent theme throughout.
Rather selective quoting. Here is the full quote;
“a form of journalism that uses anonymous sources and makes unprovable allegations against unnamed individuals.”
1) I personally think it is fairly obviously where the source/s for the Mail story have come from and why they are not named.
2) The Mail story will be either proven to be correct or incorrect in the near future.
3) Those accused in Mail story were named.
“I disagree. Flalse allegations only prevent genuine victims get justice if you allow the media to use such allegations to demonize and paint it as a witch hunt.”
Piffle! Parts of the ‘media’ are the ones promoting the false stories and while everyone is focusing on this ‘Westminster Paedophile Ring’ other genuine cases are not investigated. You just don’t get it. This will have consequences and the best that any genuine supporter of victims can do is differentiate between the false and the true, so that the true is still believed.
I identify the false stories so that I’m believed on the genuine ones. Whereas those that suggest everything is true and those that believe nothing is true are not believed by anyone credible. This blog has had over 5 million hits in almost 3 years, so I think I know what readers come here for – Honesty.
…while everyone is focusing on this ‘Westminster Paedophile Ring’ other genuine cases are not investigated…
This particular version of ‘Westminster Paedophile Ring’ or Establishment cover up of their involvement in general?
We all know that a small subsection of the unwashed are child abusing perverts and may therefore infer that a small subsection of ‘the great and the good’ are similarly inclined.
Are you of the opinion that the perverts among the ‘great and the good’ are just freewheeling along in a similar vein to their unwashed brothers without either state collusion or facilitation?
I’m not sure I understand the question.
Apologies for the lack of clarity.
Are you of the opinion that CSA committed by the ‘great and the good’ has been essentially the same as CSA committed generally, that is to say liberty taking perverts taking chances as and when the opportunity arose without any collusion or facilitation by servants of the State.
Should we reject the allegations of ‘Westminster paedophile rings’ and instead concentrate on house masters of minor public schools, scout masters, clergy men and the staff of childrens’ homes and intra family abuse.
I wouldn’t dismiss them out of hand. I’d say generally abusers act in the same way regardless of their social status.
This from Newsnight is interesting – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C6PEH-jVT4c
I just look at every allegation on their own merits.
I was aware of that story and alluded to it in a post aimed at someone else.
Is there now new information to cast doubt on that one?
Not that I’m aware of. That’s the point. I’m not dismissing these kind of allegations out of hand but Nick’s allegations don’t stack up.
Sorry I did not quote your full statement on anonymous sources… it makes no difference ro my point.
However, false allegations occur is not relevant to my point. My point is if you allow the establishment to use ‘false allegation’ to paint VIP child abuse as a witchhunt then one is part of the problem. The post above and countless others show this is anything but a witch hunt and false allegations do not change that.
Other Genuine Cases are not focused on. Do you mean non establishmnet VIP abuse? I could be wrong but the peasants committing child abuse do not have the entire establishment protecting them. In addition, the peasants do not pass laws, start wars and are not privy to national security issue that impact everyone.
“My point is if you allow the establishment to use ‘false allegation’ to paint VIP child abuse as a witchhunt then one is part of the problem.”
No I don’t. That is just the way you want to portray it. Actually, very clearly, quite the opposite. So why are you trying to place it in that light ??
If I understand correctly, you stated in a previous post that you know “I’m right” with respect to HP. How do you know that?
I also said in one of the original stories that I’m not going to explain why I don’t believe the allegations.
You can believe me or not. It’s not of great concern to me either way.
Please excuse the questions, they are inquiries and not a ‘dig’. Are you of the opinion that Exaro are taking a misguided approached or a mischievous one?
I don’t believe that they are part on a conspiracy, I err on the side of misguided and motivated by making Exaro pay for itself.
[Quote] I also said in one of the original stories that I’m not going to explain why I don’t believe the allegations.
You can believe me or not. It’s not of great concern to me either way.[/Quote]
There is no need to interpret a quest to understand as an attempt to impugn your character. Good evening sir.
Sorry if you didn’t like might candid answer.
I’m not the sensitive type and you just can’t have too much candour.
The quote in question however betrayed a lack of candour and an obstruction to communication ‘believe me or not’ to paraphrase.
Believe it or not believe it. I can only write what I believe to be true. It is your choice whether to believe me or not. If you and others don’t wish to believe me then there is little I can do and I’m not going to get too concerned about it because I’m satisfied that I’ve done my best.
That’s fair enough although earlier you stated that you ‘knew’ and now you merely ‘believe’.
I think what would help a lot of this is if those who are of the firm belief that Proctor is entirely innocent would explain WHY they believe he’s innocent, so that those of us who have heard from multiple trusted sources (not all currently reported) that he was definitely present on various occasions can see where the supposed falsehoods are coming from and where they fit into the larger picture.
There are currently no charges, so no subjudice, so I think more than vague cryptic hints are deserved in explaining why we shouldn’t trust the witnesses who say they saw him in attendance.
If any of the disbelief comes down to people outside of the investigation having heard “Nick’s” testimony/tapes/interviews, I hope someone is brave enough to expose such a damaging leak.
Reblogged this on TheFlippinTruth.
to charge the gates of a castle with a forlorn hope of victory is costly and usually doomed to failure.
to undermine the walls ,to allow hunger ,despair and infection to cull the besieged is the means of victory.
to gain as much intelligence as possible by observation and by cultivating assets whilst avoiding the ruses and counter attacks of the enemy is the means of victory.
to rush the enemy at every point that they present as weak is a sure road to defeat ,it is establishing where the true weak points are and exploiting that knowledge is the means of victory.
i will end the lesson in siege warfare with a very relevant point,it isnt quick, it requires patience and a steady demeanor .
Butler Sloss: “The Press would love a bishop”. Well there does not seem to be much evidence of the Bishop on tomorrows front pages and the case was mentioned only briefly on tonights BBC news. You would have thought a cover up, facilitated by a leader of the Anglican church, would be rather more high profile than that. Perhaps George Carey should be ex-communicated?
Awful, manipulative woman. You’re right about the press: a cover-up lasting decades, and with some honourable exceptions they really don’t seem that interested. I wish I could say I was shocked.
im slightly confused bythis site now , maybe thats been the objection all along i agree very much with tricia but you still allow her posts
You’re right Barb, it is confusing. I guess there are some people that are sure of what they believe and treat everyone that disagrees with them as the enemy, and then there are other people that are open to all views and opinions, accepting that their own beliefs may be wrong.
I don’t know. What do you think?
HI Andy,
I am open to all views and opinions. Gojam with no facts to support it said he believed HP. He also in another post slammed tabloid jounalist (exaro) and the use of anonymous sources. Then followed up with another post from The Mail, a tabloid, which used anonymous sources to slam victims.
He has done all this knowing the lengths the establishment have gone to keep this hidden. He even proclaimed the inquiry was above Establishment Interference. If one just looks at the facts – decades of cover ups – how countless inquiries have been compromised across many subjects – only someone who has not paid attention to what has been going on would say such a thing.
I do not know who is telling the truth, and understand that this has to be taking a toll on Gojam. How many years has it been since Watson raised this issue? and so far the establishment are still in control.
I’ve been paying very close attention and my view is that false allegations against innocent men do not help genuine victims of child abuse get justice.
You’re not very open minded. I’m not going to persuade you. Even when it is shown that I am right (and it will) you are still going to cling to the Exaro line and say it is a cover-up.
You say I have no facts to support it. Really ? How do you know ? You don’t !
You just waffle on but I know I’m right and so it doesn’t matter.
As to the comment someone left about confusion; There’s no confusion. If someone is guilty I name them, as I did with Rolf Harris 6 months before press did. As I did with the son of Lord Kenyon before anyone else and despite an injunction, as I’ve done with many others often sticking my neck out to do so.
Equally, if someone is innocent and allegations are false, then I’ll say so.
Because at the end of the day, this is a trusted blog, trusted not by loonies at the extremes but open minded people who just want to know the truth.
I hope this clears up any confusion others have but I’m not confused at all.
data>hypothesis>peer review>theory or abandoned hypothesis
then more data>revised or new hypothesis>peer review> etc etc
that process is complex if dealing with simple stuff like theoretical physics it is more complex when false data (or real data )with a false hypothesis attached is promoted in order to disrupt the process.
sorting truth from smoke and mirrors is a very confusing process at times and a war (like this one) requires it to be done well.
have a read of my siege analogy below ,i think it describes the task we have.
ps imho it took the enemy a while to get up and running with disruption material after both the first and second questions mr watson was briefed to ask in the hoc and although that operation is now quite advanced they are still fighting a rearguard action using tactics that are (mostly)recognized for what they are and the mass of correct data available is a means to defeat them so long as their ruses are avoided and exploited.
i dont think that the above helps them much as they know that the attempt at maintaining the illusions is futile even if they can delay the inevitable collapse of the castle ,it is happening.
Cover up,collusion – nothing to see here, move along.
As HP, the mail, MWT, Matthew Scott, Dominic Lawson, and Gojam have told us. – it is all a witch hunt or various other such things. Victims are lyimg, only want money, fantasists, etc – when I read such thoughful posts I should ignore the lengths those in power have gone to stop any of this becoming public.
Yeah zero chance of sloss or carey being prosecuted. Thankfully, we have the CSA inquiry, which unlike virtually every other inquiry that has gone before on a wide range of issues – is Beyond Establishment Interference. That’s right folks just ignore the fact that this has almost never happened, and slleep sound knowing this time it is different.
Come on Tricia, think about it. Lawson and others have attacked the whole idea of a cover up of child sex abuse by establishment figures; Gojam has been actively trying to expose that cover up every week for the past 3 years – something that has no doubt taken its toll on him personally (if recent tweets are anything to go by). Give the man credit for something, please. Just because he has taken a skeptical approach to the various difficult-to-believe stories out there does not make him one of the enemy. Is he right in the HP case? – I have no idea, but there’s nothing wrong in being skeptical. If the whole idea of an Establishment cover-up stands or falls on EVERY accusation being true, then the fight to expose that cover-up is doomed to failure.
And then they used a variation on this very cover-up technique today to shield him from the charges involving minors. Seems it’s somewhat an accepted perk when you’re friends with Liz’s kids…
iirc this is the clergyman protected by butler sloss ,if so that throws more light on her aborted appointment to the csa inquiry and does beg the questions was/is the csa inquiry intended to inquire or conceal.?
im not a legal eagle but do these guilty pleas open a possibility of both carey and butler sloss being charged with assisting an offender?or misconduct in public office?or something cos ball was protected and crimes concealed.
at the least the church disciplinary unit could go after carey on a variety of grounds.
some more details
https://home.bt.com/news/uk-news/ex-bishop-of-lewes-peter-ball-admits-abusing-18-young-men-11364002477338
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/jul/12/home-office-defends-butler-sloss-bishop-cover-up
Funny dpack, that is what first came to my mind too.
there does seem to be a high probability that there is a conspiracy to “keep a lid “on many interlinking aspects of the darker sides of power.
there are also the well documented attempts by the management of a variety of organizations to avoid “corporate” scandal,responsibility and subsequent liability.the c of e is one,the catholics seem to have had a change of direction but have been very active at cover up in the past,various uk organisations from social services to the cabinet and on to where the real power lies,etc etc etc .
at every level the avoidance of scandal etc is a factor that needs consideration as it can encourage people to cover up evil for “the greater good” and provides opportunity for both control and further offending in many cases.
organizations that conduct themselves in such a manner are rotten to the core and often infectious imho.
‘comes to mind’ will be where it starts and ends.
And mine. This is a pretty decisive exposure of a very rotten structure. And there is hard evidence in both cases.
i just remembered the chard episode as well, she does seem a busy woman for a pensioner.
Seems pretty indecisive to me. To “seek assurance” is something and nothing. Might mean “can I stop worrying about this, can we get on with other stuff knowing no more of this is going to crop up?” It is very tenuous to hang a conspiracy upon, especially as the Archbishop might be assumed to have been very thinly spread amongst a vast array of expectations.
After all, who in that position wouldn’t have wanted to know when the matter was largely done and dusted? If you were Archbishop, wouldn’t you?
Reblogged this on VICTIMS OF THE STATE.
Reblogged this on L8in.