Photo from MACSAS
A retired Church of England priest has been found guilty of a string of sex offences dating back to the 1970s and 1980s.
Vickery House, 69, from West Sussex, had denied eight counts of indecent assault against six males aged 14 to 34, between 1970 and 1986.
He told the Old Bailey he was ashamed of his actions but claimed they were not sexual assaults.
House, of Brighton Road, Handcross, will be sentenced on Thursday.
The former vicar in Berwick, East Sussex, worked under Bishop Peter Ball, who was jailed for 32 months earlier this month after he admitted molesting young men between 1977 and 1992.
theneedleblog 
Pingback: The Monthly Investigation -November 2016 – The Dark, Hidden History of Child Sexual Abuse within the Diocese of Chichester in East and West Sussex | Gatwick City Times
Pingback: A Dark, Hidden History of Child Sexual Abuse within the Diocese of Chichester in East and West Sussex – The Bell Society
Pingback: Rev Vickery House: Will No One Rid Us Of These Paedophile Priests - News4Security
tdf
I’m not intending to be censorius, but what I’m saying is that there seem to be a class of very powerful men who have ready access to unusual sexual activities. Presumably, such men pay a lot of money for this. My presumption is that some must be paying for children. This certainly has been proven in Belgium. People who are coming forward as adults are reporting that when they were children they were used by such men. I’m no Mary Whitehouse. I’m trying to find a better way of characterising such men and their activities which more accurately portrays their weakness and lack of control rather than what I see as a constant re-inforcement of the strength of such men by conspiracy theories that see them as always protected by ‘the establishment’. Although men who indulge in sex with children in these circumstances may have the best lawyers and although they may have connections with those pulling the levers of power, they are ultimately child rapists and I am trying to make the case that we should use that term rather the more anodyne ‘paedophile’. Clearly there are some in the police who are well aware of some of these individuals, but for lack of hard evidence and a degree of interference, they are unable to act. These men and not ‘child-lovers’.
If such powerful child abusers are not protected, how have they constantly got away with their crimes? You just have to look at Gojam’s post about child abusing Bishops to be confronted with the fact that multiple, child abusers have infiltrated into powerful establishment positions and have not been prosecuted, in fact, the establishment has covered up for them.
There is clear evidence that members of the establishment have committed child abuse crimes and have been covered up for.(Sir Peter Hayman, Sir Peter Morrison, Sir Cyril Smith etc etc etc, there are multiple closed files etc etc). If there is no collusion with their peers etc, how did they get away with their crimes? Why has child abuse been tolerated by those in positions of power, when in broader society it is seen as abhorrent? It is very hard to imagine, as you say, that these, powerful child abusers, have been able to act independently. How did they get into positions of power,and maintain that power, with their own particular, abhorrent to most, peccadilloes?
blackmail and whitewash,carrot and stick etc etc .
iantoosmart,
Agreed, certainly, that ‘paedophile’ is not really an appropriate term considering its meaning in Greek. To an extent the fact that this word has entered into the common lexicon represents a victory of sorts (albeit largely pyrrhic) for the P.I.E.
I agree in general with what you say, but I think it is hard to assume that these members of a ‘powerful elite’ act independently to satisfy their perverted desires. There is much more at stake, why on earth should such people be supported in their powerful positions?
Your work colleague represents the ‘I’m alright jack’ mentality in the UK, those who have benefited financially and don’t want to disrupt the status quo, which allows them a better life style over others. It’s also about aspiration, climbing the ladder at the expense of others, so they are happy to be in denial, to believe the MSM etc propaganda, for party political reasons, that support their comfortable lifestyles over others, even the denial of the now burgeoning evidence of CSA in every instituition in Britain, not a very compassionate society!
You are right that if we want to confront and deal with the CSA issue, we all have to get over our party political prejudices and accept that every institution, from the establishment down has been infected (like a rotting fish) and has been allowed to, because of this same denial, it is not party political, but people are using it as such to prevent the much needed changes!
iantoosmart,
I agree with much of your post, but I have an issue with this comment:-
“We saw Mosley and his Nazi sex parties.”
Mosley stated that these ‘sex parties’ took place in the context of role play/consensual BDSM activity involving only consenting adults. His testimony has been accepted in law, and Mosley successfully sued the NOTW for implying otherwise. In fact, the women involved – all adults well over 18 – were very unhappy with the media descriptions of them as ‘prostitutes’. Seemingly, Mosley did pay for the rental on the venue – but only because he happened to be wealthy. Their take on it was very different to that of the gutter tabloid press. The women were not prostitutes, and Mosley is not, and never has been, a Nazi (his father certainly had sympathies in that direction, but we should not transfer the sins of the father onto the son).
I think it is very dangerous and wrong-headed to conflate adult consensual sex activities with child abuse. Such a conflation runs the risk of getting close to the Mary Whitehouse type anti-sex mentality of the past, in my view.
“Allegations regarding CSE in his constituency would have been passed to the local police force and not the Met and so DCI Settle would not have been aware of them.”
Watson apparently gained Settle’s confidence and trust, which the latter felt was subsequently betrayed. The information that none of the CSE allegations related to Watson’s constituency could only have come to Settle via Watson
As for the local plod there is a bit of an issue here
“West Midlands Police knew five years ago that Asian grooming gangs were targeting children outside schools across the city – but failed to make the threat public.
Documents obtained by the Birmingham Mail show the force were aware pupils were at risk of child sexual exploitation (CSE) back in 2010.
The confidential report, obtained under a Freedom of Information Act, also shows police were worried about community tensions if the abuse from predominantly Pakistani grooming gangs was made public.”
http://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/police-knew-grooming-gangs-were-9518461
Do you not find it rather strange that the most prominent local MP and child abuse campaigner of national renown should be pursuing allegations of VIP abuse, of highly uncertain provenance, which allegedly occurred decades ago whilst completely ignoring “Rotherham” in Birmingham and the Black Country ie his home turf?
Indeed our hero found time to support the allegations of Ms Baker and the alleged Cannock Chase vice ring demanding a “complete investigation”
But this …….
“Parks, hotels and taxis: The terrifying truth about child exploitation in the Black Country
Parks, hotels, taxis, house parties – just some of the locations where organised sex gangs are targeting vulnerable children in the West Midlands”
http://www.expressandstar.com/news/2015/05/02/parks-hotels-and-taxis-the-terrifying-truth-about-child-exploitation-in-the-black-country/
didn’t rate so much as a tweet
How is Watson’s extraordinary and highly selective sense of priorites to be explained?
I give up. You don’t seem interested in the truth.
Let’s leave it there.
I met a new colleague at work last week. I’d not spoken to him much, but it turned out he was a great follower of Ayn Rand and Louise Mensch and he thought the coup in Chile was a legitimate take-down of an evil man who supposedly had a list of people he was going to kill.
I told this new colleague that I was from the North and that socialism was part of my family background and culture, starting with the realisations of my grandmother when she was mistreated in domestic service. ‘Oh, the North’ he sneered. ‘That’s where the Labour Party allowed all the child-raping’. That struck me as a very, very odd thing to say.
He is clearly a person who has an intellect and who is active in online forums and when he spoke to me, I had a sense he was speaking to me in the way he might write comments online. Where is this politicization of csa flowing from? He had this real anti-statism libertarianism that I’ve sometimes seen in an American context. Very odd for the Home Counties.
If we want to get those who abuse children brought to justice we need to work with people of good will from all sides. The Churches seem to be the ones who have buried this the most deeply. All political parties have been less inquisitive than they should have been. Sure, there are some odd games afoot and scores being settled. The police have been rubbish historically.
I recently went through a link from here to a history of the Belgian cases. It’s worse than I imagined. There was abuse on an industrial scale, with children simply being taken off the street to order. The investigations seem to have petered out due to political cowardice and collusion.
Watson is not the boogeyman. Neither is he flawless. He’s not a powerful man like Dominic Strauss-Kahn or Jeffrey Epstein. Look at his demeanour. It does seem plausible to me that there are powerful men with insatiable sexual appetites who have the ability to indulge themselves whenever they feel like it. They may feel themselves as the alpha males. The real movers and shakers. We are seeing such men coming apart in Fifa right now. We saw Mosley and his Nazi sex parties.
It seems clear to me that there are some among this powerful elite who enjoy raping children. The evidence of the people coming forward is often confused and fragmented. They were children when this was done to them! The evidence of Jane and Nick and others is entirely consistent with what was happening to children in Belgium. The UK is not an isolated occurrence. Our focus needs to be on these grotesque and insatiable men. As in Belgium, they may be in the parliament, in the police force, in the judiciary, in the church and in the royal family. Wherever serious power is to be had and especially unaccountable un-scrutinised power, these men will be present.
The question of grooming gangs is a separate issue which requires a vigorous pursuit. It’s connected with the eve-teasing rapes in India. It’s about disempowered degenerate men colluding for a taste of the forbidden fruit. The doubly forbidden fruit, in fact, as in some cases their taste is for white girls. It’s a kick up the arse of the Britishers. On the Indian sub-continent there are many buried topics and one of them is csa and incest. There is research and activism and we can only hope.
‘Oh, the North’ he sneered. ‘That’s where the Labour Party allowed all the child-raping’. That struck me as a very, very odd thing to say.”
Well they did
“Instead, she believes the Labour-dominated council turned a blind eye to the problem because of “their desire to accommodate a community that would be expected to vote Labour, to not rock the boat, to keep a lid on it, to hope it would go away.”
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/jul/13/alexis-jay-politicians-rotherham-report-child-sex-abuse-social-worker-claims-westminster-bbc-nhs
Denis Macshane admitted to feeling ashamed “that I, like so many MPs, preferred to keep silent on some of the dirty secrets about bad practices in the Kashmiri Muslim community”, whose population provided “vast reservoirs” of votes.
Prison Diaries
“MP Barry Sheerman, who chaired the Commons Children, Schools and Families Committee – now the Education Select Committee – between 2007 and 2010, said he felt “guilty” about the Rotherham abuse scandal.
The Labour MP for Huddersfield said MPs were aware vulnerable children were being sexual exploited “up and down the country”.
He said: “We knew about that, we didn’t do enough about it. Members of this house, many of us, knew what was going on.”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-29036742
Sheerman had previously described typical grooming gang modus operandi as follow
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/4303775/Schoolgirls-are-being-lured-into-prostitution-MP-warns.html
The same blind eye to CSE votes nexus operates in precisely the same way in Sandwell as it does in Rotherham. Watson is a powerful politician – he has been a government minister, he is a classic machine politico who had enough support to become Deputy Leader. Pakistani bloc votes are a key part of his electoral base – hence his close contact with Muslim Friends of Labour and Labour Friends of Pakistan; and indeed his re-election piece of vote grubbing at the “segregated meeting” in E B’ham, where Liam Byrne(similarly placed in Birmingham Hodge Hill). was also in attendance.
Watson has very obviously run with the VIP high level paedophile allegations as a diversionary operation to draw attention away from matters of potentially extreme embarrassment close to home – and indeed for the Labour Party in many Midlands and Northern constituencies, and hence nationally.
Seems to me that there is much less to the allegations we have seen thus far than Watson would have the public believe.
“The evidence of Jane and Nick and others is entirely consistent with what was happening to children in Belgium.”
Well surely allegations should stand or fall upon their own credibility. It would seem that neither Jane nor Nick’s allegations, nor indeed those of Darren or David, pass this litmus test. To say that they are credible on the basis of imputed association with occurrences in another country strikes me as unsound in the extreme. Should Chris Fay, the convicted fraudster, be judged to be telling the truth re his tale of Britain’s photo(pink tutu, boy on knee) on the same basis?
“It’s about disempowered degenerate men colluding for a taste of the forbidden fruit”
I’d have thought those truly disempowered are the victims and their families on the receiving end of a grooming, mass rape, sexual torture, trafficking, pimping and prostitution epidemic.
Watson’s omerta on this is truly despicable and disgusting and speaks volumes for the kind of man and politician he is
“Your quote certainly doesn’t contradict what I’ve answered before – “That’s not the way the Panorama journalist tells it” Really ? I can’t see anything in it which addresses how I’ve replied.”
Jackson says that the link to this alleged powerful paedo ring is a minister in the current government, a charge which is apparently without foundation
“I soon established whom McKelvie believed it to be: a man who is now today a government minister”
“You must be better informed than I am as I have no idea if any if Tom Watson has taken forward any complaints on behalf of any of his constituents. If you can share with me how you know this then I’d agree with you that it is odd.”
I got this from a youtube on your site, the evidence DCI Settle gave before the select committee
I referred to it above
“At the recent select committee hearing regarding Watson’s role in the Leon Brittain investigation, which DCI Settle said Watson had turned into a “baseless witch hunt”, it emerged – following a question to Settle – that none of the CSE allegations put forward by Watson related to his own constituency.”
Apparently without foundation ?
But there is a foundation for that allegation as Alistair Jackson well knows. It hasn’t been substantiated but it has a foundation.
“At the recent select committee hearing regarding Watson’s role in the Leon Brittain investigation, which DCI Settle said Watson had turned into a “baseless witch hunt”, it emerged – following a question to Settle – that none of the CSE allegations put forward by Watson related to his own constituency.”
Allegations regarding CSE in his constituency would have been passed to the local police force and not the Met and so DCI Settle would not have been aware of them.
re the clergy,if robin bryans is correct there is a long history of wronguns being not only being concealed to avoid scandal or tolerated but at times reaching high office within the coe and nonconformist churches.
as recent events have demonstrated the coe seems to have the same issues as the vatican and no dought various other religious organizations.
much as is seen in residential social work bad attracts bad and drives out good(and visa versa)which has the effect of concentrating wronguns into clumps.the greenlight data for the care system does seem to show hot spots and areas with low offending rates(hopefully not low detection rates).
a similar map for religious organizations might well show similar variations and possibly lead to the “common factors”.
is that tom o’carroll with him in the video?
I am somewhat curious as to why this blog has not covered the latest evidence of Watson’s highly dubious proceedings
“Tom Watson “mixed up” his facts and made exaggerated claims about a “powerful paedophile network” linked to Downing Street, the whistleblower who alerted him to child abuse has told The Telegraph.
Peter McKelvie, a former child protection officer, said the deputy Labour leader had been too hasty in making his intervention during Prime Minister’s questions (PMQs) in October 2012.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/tom-watson/11956780/Tom-Watson-confused-claims-over-VIP-child-sex-abuse.html
Surely this should rank above the conviction of a priest for offences of indecent assault carried out by a priest 45 to 30 years ago?
Watson did after all generate an explosion of publicity and speculation following his 2012 HOC “revelations”, and the various accusations that he has forwarded and supported.
So this seems an odd sense of priority.
At the recent select committee hearing regarding Watson’s role in the Leon Brittain investigation, which DCI Settle said Watson had turned into a “baseless witch hunt”, it emerged – following a question to Settle – that none of the CSE allegations put forward by Watson related to his own constituency.
Strange that – it’s not as though the Black Country is a CSE free zone
“Sex abuse gangs in Black Country: ‘Significant similarities’ to Rotherham scandal, say police
Children in the Black Country are being sexually exploited, with gangs similar to those in Rotherham operating in the West Midlands, says a police report.”
http://www.expressandstar.com/news/crime/2015/05/02/sex-abuse-gangs-in-black-country-significant-similarities-to-rotherham-scandal-say-police/
maybe there’s a legitimate explanation, whatever that might be.
Because the story is incorrect
Peter McKelvie talked to Tom Watson on the phone, Tom Watson then did his PMQ, as a consequence of the PMQ, David Hencke and A N Other went to Tom Watson about Elm Guest House (EGH) and after that Tom Watson met with Peter McKelvie for the first time. Peter mistakenly believed that Tom knew about EGH at the time of the PMQ, he did not. The PMQ referred solely to the information referred to by Peter. The paedophile ring referred to by Tom was the Peter Righton, Charles Napier et al (PIE) ring.
The story is selective and misleading and that is why I’ve not used it here.
“The paedophile ring referred to by Tom was the Peter Righton, Charles Napier et al (PIE) ring.”
That’s not the way the Panorama journalist tells it
“Watson’s source was Peter McKelvie, a whistleblower with a long experience of working in social work and child protection. He had helped on a 1994 BBC documentary, The Secret Life of a Paedophile, which profiled Righton and brilliantly exposed how he had been allowed to rise to the top ranks of social work despite having admitted a sexual interest in children to colleagues. McKelvie claimed that evidence recovered by police from Righton’s house contained the supposedly explosive link to No. 10. McKelvie believed he had a lead to the former senior aide being prepared to look after child -pornography.
But who was this ‘senior’ politician? Watson was quick to point out who it
wasn’t, ruling out Peter Morrison, a former aide to Margaret Thatcher. I soon established whom McKelvie believed it to be: a man who is now today a government minister. I won’t name him because, as we have seen over the past few months, baseless accusations against innocent men can cause permanent reputational damage. Mr Watson did not, evidently, believe these claims to be baseless — indeed, when I made my inquiries, I was also told that two witnesses would be able to confirm Minister X’s involvement. But when I tracked down the supposed witnesses, both told me that he never been part of the abuse they had suffered.”
http://new.spectator.co.uk/2015/10/why-wont-the-met-speak-out-on-tom-watsons-biggest-claim/
In any event does it not strike you as curious that Watson has had nothing to say about Rotherham in the Black Country, has apparently never taken forward a complaint from a constituent – even though the Bham Mail has established that gang grooming was kept quiet both by the local authority and by WMP?
I don’t understand the relevance of your quote other that I’ve read Alistair Jackson’s Spectator article and I found it extremely misleading, especially the part about the two supposed ‘witnesses’ because I’m unaware that anyone has ever claimed that there are any witnesses of abuse connected to allegations relating to ‘Minister X’
Your quote certainly doesn’t contradict what I’ve answered before – “That’s not the way the Panorama journalist tells it” Really ? I can’t see anything in it which addresses how I’ve replied.
“In any event” (in other words moving on a quickly as possible)
“Watson has had nothing to say about Rotherham in the Black Country, has apparently never taken forward a complaint from a constituent.”
You must be better informed than I am as I have no idea if any if Tom Watson has taken forward any complaints on behalf of any of his constituents. If you can share with me how you know this then I’d agree with you that it is odd.
However, I suspect that the “apparently” indicates that this is nothing more than your own perception and is possibly untrue
And also because the Church is supposed to be, in many areas is, but in some shockingly has not been, on the side of the good guys, a safe place, a clean well, and pure of heart, not mired in lust. Following Jesus, that is, not navel gazing, churchy, narcissistic, misogynist, and sordid, nor persecuting the better clergy. Every time a cleric involved deeply in sin gets promoted a decent clean living one doesn’t and the Holy Spirit is grieved.
It is a feature of many horror films that one of the worst things that can happen is that someone turns for help to the safety of the good guys and the good institutions, and finds them rotten. That is why it matters so much, and why those who have infiltrated the church, called bad good, lust love, and everything, down to the age of consent relative, must be booted out post haste, along with any structures or committees that might have promoted the wrong sort, as asserted by John Derbyshire above, for the church to survive and do the works of God, which is what it is there for.
peter mckelvie has attacked the telegraphs twisting of what he said.
Pingback: Rev Vickery House: Will No One Rid Us Of These Paedophile Priests ? | meggiemom342
Bill Carney: Paedophile Priest
http://www.butlincat.blogspot.com.tr/2010/08/bill-carney-paedophile-full-report.html
Reblogged this on TheFlippinTruth.
Yes, who will rid us of the paedophile priests, well on present form certainly not the Church authorities. Let me explain, many years ago my late father along with three other Church Officers was informed by the Vicar that he was deeply worried about clergy appointments. At first they thought he was going to say the new clergy are not to the calibre of yesteryear. Instead he told them he was deeply concerned about appointments and then shocked them with the statement that paedophiles where being appointed as Bishops, he named Peter Ball by name.
So it could be the appointments system that is it fault. Now as the Bishops appoint the clergy, then there may develop a concentration of sexual deviants in a Diocese, This leads to the question of who is appointing or promoting paedophiles in the Church. I think the appointment of Bishops should be more open than as it is at present and the Laity should be more vocal in telling the authorities that they do not want cover ups for clergy or priests who commit sexual crimes. For if both the laity and clergy prefer to hide the crimes and relocate clergy, they should be charged with covering up crimes.
Dirty bastard paedophiles.
C