# Buggering in the church.



## raynipper (Aug 4, 2008)

We used to live opposite the vicarage of St. Lukes church Kingston. The congregation were mainly gay men and the vicar often used to drop in when he heard our boys playing in the swimming pool in our garden.
Father Vicary was later charged for indecent behaviour in some gents toilets but retained his position at the church and still retained the benefit of living in the large vicarage. 
Sometime later I saw this headline https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-34670570

Now I have just come across a cutting from 2003 below. 
This is permitted again and again by the high church who seem blind to these goings on or possibly complicit.

More here https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1431585/Convicted-vicar-escaped-scrutiny.html

Ray.


----------



## nicholsong (May 26, 2009)

I was 'shocked and horrified' when I read the thread title thinking it was your confession Ray.:surprise:

Seriously though, maybe the Church thinks it is homophobic to censure such acts in this 'Woke' age.

But the Church like anyone else cannot have it both ways.

[Oh **** just realised that could be taken the wrong way - never mind it might bring the matter to a head, so 'publish and be damned']


----------



## Glandwr (Jun 12, 2006)

Gosh is it really more than half a century since we legalised homosexual acts. You wouldn't have thought so. Maybe it's the influence of our current great and popular leader Boris and his regular "bumboy" jokes.:wink2:


----------



## aldra (Jul 2, 2009)

But does legalised homosexuality include acts against young boys?

Or are we saying this Father only involved himself in legal acts of homosexual activity with consenting adults 

If the latter that’s a matter of conscious decision against church laws he had bound him selves

Otherwise against the law regardless of any decision 

Yes we once had a “friend” that showed shall we say more than normal interest in our young children, we were slow to respond, but not that slow

We had met in Israel and again in England , he was a teacher in a private school , it took a while to realise all was not well, although his interest was in young girls

Not easily spotted when you trust someone

Sandra


----------



## Webby1 (Mar 11, 2012)

There are a mixture of ideas floating around here.

The fact that his congregation was mainly gay men is not relevant............the fact that he was done for indecent behaviour in toilets may have something to do with the situation for gay men at the time and maybe the Church found some compassion for his being gay. I don't know

But now we come to the important bit mixed up with all that buggery...............and we need to be oh so clear

As Sandra correctly said "legalised homosexuality does not include acts against young boys"......................this guy was a paedophile who preyed on and abused young boys.........males were presumably his sexual preference.

But his being a paedophile should no way be associated with his being homosexual.
My sexual preference is heterosexual but that does not mean I will then prey on young girls.

I have no idea why the Church so often seems to tolerate abuse of young people (but then we have the BBC )

But as said bumboy jokes and taking it both ways.............may be amusing but are not really helpful. 

Oh yes watching "It's a Sin" at the moment.......that's hell for me then


----------



## aldra (Jul 2, 2009)

Correct

There is a great distance between a peodophile and a homosexual 

I have absolutely no problem with homosexuality , an adult choice between consenting adults

With non consenting youngsters or even youngsters who have not yet determined their sexuality

It’s against the law

Full stop

I must admit I’m not familiar with bumboy jokes

Sandra


----------



## raynipper (Aug 4, 2008)

My point was this has been going on (tolerated) by three different vicars at the same church for almost 40 years to my knowledge. We felt uncomfortable that one of them always seemed to present himself when our young kids were bathing. And it went on long after we moved.

Ray.


----------



## erneboy (Feb 8, 2007)

Grantchester anyone?


----------



## Penquin (Oct 15, 2007)

While I have absolutely no objection to relationships (in the Biblical sense) between two adult men, or two adult women, I can never condone any form of abuse or coercion by people in authority over younger people who have a right to be protected from such attention and actions by those in trustworthy positions.

The Church of England and the Roman Catholic Church of Rome have a very long history of sweeping such reports under the carpet. To me that represents an equally horrendous act, probably criminal. Those making those decisions rely on the information that they have been given - that step must involve "lesser" officials passing the knowledge onwards and upwards without deciding that something is "irrelevant", they potentially are at least as guilty for trying to protect the image of the Church - which should represent the highest moral authority on Earth. Failings at that level destroy trust.

If trust in the organisation is destroyed, what can be the purpose of it ? I say that as a Christian, with a position within the Church heirarchy specifically as regards "Safeguarding" or as it used to be referred to as "Child Protection" although it now covers the possible abuse of vulnerable adults as well. ANY such allegation MUST be investigated promptly and efficiently by the relevant authorities and that does not mean the Church itself.

More damage is done by well meaning people trying to talk to someone making such a comment and ending up putting words into their mouth or leading them into areas that become impossible to establish the truth behind by careless questioning. That is particularly true with talking to children. If an allegation is received it MUST be passed on without further questioning and very careful notes written of EXACTLY what was said in raising the report - those notes are as valuable as a Police Officer's notebook as they represent the clearest record at the time, but how many people, parents included, would think of that if their young child reports how uncomfortable they felt with the Priest/Vicar/Teacher/Doctor/Nurse/Neighbour and how they had behaved ?

Please, please, do not try to seek more details, simply pass the allegation on to the nearest suitable authority.


----------



## Webby1 (Mar 11, 2012)

raynipper said:


> My point was this has been going on (tolerated) by three different vicars at the same church for almost 40 years to my knowledge. We felt uncomfortable that one of them always seemed to present himself when our young kids were bathing. And it went on long after we moved.
> 
> Ray.


I in no way dispute what you are saying Ray...................but we need to think about the power imbalance..................same as in BBC and the things these people rely upon

So one arrives when your kids were bathing.............perhaps you think........maybe..........in retrospect.............did you ask him not to come round again.Did you make an complaint to anyone.

Tolerated by 3 different vicars, who perhaps had the same confusion you had.........is it going on.........might it be............am I imagining this............what will happen if I stick my head above the parapit.

Sadly i think there is something about religion that gives some people the illusion of power....and God given right


----------



## Penquin (Oct 15, 2007)

and God given trust from the members of their Church, or there should be....


----------



## raynipper (Aug 4, 2008)

And all three were prosecuted for indecent behaviour but retained their positions.

Ray.


----------



## Webby1 (Mar 11, 2012)

And Alan Turing, who will be on the face of the new £50 note was also prosecuted for indecent behaviour and chemically castrated.

I'm not sure what time period you are talking about, but please don't confuse homosexuality (sometimes called indecent behaviour) with 

paedophilia. 

They should have been sacked and prosecuted for anything to do with young people.........I am not sure about consenting adult behaviour...........called indecent behaviour in those days

Some would say many of our politicians are guilty of indecent behaviour (with men or women) but also retain their positions.

But


----------



## raynipper (Aug 4, 2008)

I don't think you can see what I'm pointing out Peter. Nothing to do with Alan Touring or homosexuality or a lot of other things.
I think you have deliberately steered this thread back to your crusade again.

Ray.


----------



## Penquin (Oct 15, 2007)

Ray, a question that you were asked was about when these incidents occurred ? If it was the 1950's some answers would differ from 2010's.

My personal view is that anyone convicted of such offences - against public decency, should NOT be retained in their positions (no pun intended), BUT grounds for summary dismissal from a CofE living are few and far between. That is undoubtedly wrong, but is the outcome of the way the "living" is appointed.

We had a vicar, who was marrying his housekeeper, so far so good, no-one would object to that.

He was marrying for the THIRD time, she for the FOURTH, he also did not believe in very many of the basic Christian principles. The ArchDeacon was approached (via the Bishop as the ArchDemon is actually responsible NOT the Bushop) and he pointed out that it would be impossible to remove him on the basis of ANY of those grounds, but only if he had been convicted of, as you put it; " buggering the choirboys" , unlikely since the choir consisted entirely of men and women well past the age of retirement, often in their 80's, but they warbled through a few hymns (badly).

Sadly both the CofE and the RC Church have a VERY bad history over dealing with any of these failings, is it changing ? Yes in the case of the CofE but I have no knowledge of the RC procedures, which to me on the surface seems a much more likely venue for such things to occur due to their requirement for chastity and total abstinence of sexual activity (but is that just m-f ?).


----------



## raynipper (Aug 4, 2008)

It was from the early 70s to 2003 to my personal knowledge. Various newspaper articles indicate similar and I doubt little has changed since. 
It appeared to me all the time we lived there and had the occasional dealings with that church that the congregation were mostly of a similar persuasion.

Ray.


----------



## Webby1 (Mar 11, 2012)

raynipper said:


> It was from the early 70s to 2003 to my personal knowledge. Various newspaper articles indicate similar and I doubt little has changed since.
> It appeared to me all the time we lived there and had the occasional dealings with that church that the congregation were mostly of a similar persuasion.
> 
> Ray.


Well you have certainly made it a crusade now Ray.............despite being asked and it being explained. you still make the disgraceful comment that "the congregation were mostly of a similar persuasion".....what do you mean bent, queers, bumboys........or were they mostly paedophiles.

Oh of course you didn't say that..................but you certainly seem to be confusing the two.......perhaps in your mind they are the same

What has a gay congregation got to do with the vicars abusing young boys................that's what he was guilty of and he should have been prosecuted and kicked out. It seems churches are far too tolerant of such behaviour

I hope I am allowed to disagree........am I allowed to have a different point of view.
What is it that you are saying that (some) people are not understanding.


----------



## raynipper (Aug 4, 2008)

Is saying "Of a similar Persuasion" so bad. I thought it described the congregation accurately imho.
Apart from that I think you are making more assumptions about my intent. I did have quite a few dealings with that church and it's congregation to be able to formulate an opinion. One gentleman of the same congregation we were happy for him to babysit at times. So not all suspect or condemned. 

Ray.


----------



## Webby1 (Mar 11, 2012)

OK then Ray I take on board your comments ....just one thing to think about.

If a clergyman was found guilty of abusing young girls, we would never dream of commenting that half of his hetero congregation was of the same persuasion................... in preferring females

But anyway, those who objected to non-motorhoming posts must be distraught to see that "Buggering in the Church" keeps jumping to the top of the page..............will it intrigue or put off new members >0

Perhaps best to let it fade away


----------



## raynipper (Aug 4, 2008)

I can never trust any bloke wearing a frock.

Ray.


----------



## aldra (Jul 2, 2009)

I would guess it depends on the church and the congregation 

I don’t think Ray identified that

There are many denomination of churches, large and small communities, closed and open 

About a year ago I was a visitor at a Messianic Christian church, Christian feasts were not recognised , much was in Hebrew 

So far so good, until the sermon when gay people among others were ridiculed and demonised and the congregation stood up shouting Amen to all the fire and brimstone that would fall upon them

Definately not anti discrimination , yet that congregation fervently believed their leader words 

We of course left and never returned , not a God or creed I recognised 

But there are faiths and congregations that uphold strange beliefs, and seem to be untouchable

Sandra


----------



## raynipper (Aug 4, 2008)

Just to keep it on the boil so to speak.
St. Lukes Kingston was very high CoE and almost RC. But I don't know after 2003. 

But then I think they are all deluded and misguided in believing in any supreme being. I could go on.
And I think the comment about letting this topic die and drop out of sight is wonderful coming from one who seems hell bent of stirring almost hatred and personal abuse unless contributors 'bend' the knee to his views.

Ray.


----------



## Webby1 (Mar 11, 2012)

raynipper said:


> Just to keep it on the boil so to speak.
> St. Lukes Kingston was very high CoE and almost RC. But I don't know after 2003.
> 
> But then I think they are all deluded and misguided in believing in any supreme being. I could go on.
> ...


Now I thought we had reached a treaty of some sort.......but clearly not.

What dreadfully insulting,hateful,abusive and so unnecessary comments.

Show me examples of being *"hell bent on stirring hatred"* and *"personal abuse" *and I'll bend the knee to you.

All I have done is disagree with you............... but as you have shown on other threads it seems you just cannot bear that.

Sorry for others having to see the "Buggering in the Church" thread carrying on..............the thread title says it all


----------



## aldra (Jul 2, 2009)

To be fair Ray

Most people who believe in a supreme being do not support anything outside of the norm

They are by far normal family people who wouldn’t condone any acts against a child be it boy or girl 

Believing in a supreme being doesn't make for monsters, rather the reverse 

I may be deluded and misguided 

But the God I believe in isnt

And nothing in His laws entitle me to hurt or harm others

Mans interpretation of those laws maybe

But I’ve got to 77 years believing in God, not necessarily believing in religion 

So I guess having once given up everything to follow that belief

I’ll manage the years I’ve got left

And He never promised me a Rose Garden and I certainly never got one

Sandra


----------



## aldra (Jul 2, 2009)

Sorry I missed webbys response

And I missed the end of your post Ray 

It’s not something I’d want to respond to

Not something I’d understand

Nevertheless the thread has merit as a thread

I’m sorry it’s gone so off topic and into personal attack

Sandra


----------



## Penquin (Oct 15, 2007)

raynipper said:


> Just to keep it on the boil so to speak.
> St. Lukes Kingston was very high CoE and almost RC. But I don't know after 2003.
> 
> *But then I think they are all deluded and misguided in believing in any supreme being. I could go on.*
> ...


That is your personal view and others would disagree with your character assassination..

I know nothing about the Church that you have *named*, I would never attribute such characteristics to a named person, or organisation, unless I was very sure that no-one was aware of the Libel Laws. Fighting the Church may be as hard as fighting the Government, not something to be undertaken lightly.

This is certainly NOT the place to discuss religious views, there is clearly no point in doing so as your views are heavily entrenched for some reason. Your views do not correspond with those of others including myself - as I have already said I hold a position in the CofE as regards Safeguarding, perhaps I should make the contents of this thread known to the Church ? Your allegations and innuendo are a direct attack on a section of the CofE, is that acceptable, particularly now that you have named the Church concerned.

It does not take long to find more information;

https://m.facebook.com/pg/churchkingston/about/

The Rev Michael Walter was removed from this post in 2003 when it was discovered that he had been convicted and served 15 months 30 years earlier in Hull. He had a second conviction for assault but neither of these came to light when he assisted at Kingston Church.

https://uk-database.net/2012/10/28/michael-walter-many-areas-of-uk/

Disgraceful oversight by someone, there was no evidence of new allegations but he should not have been appointed. Church Law makes that abundantly clear. Somehow, he failed to declare these convictions.


----------



## raynipper (Aug 4, 2008)

He was one of three vicars Dave.
But OK I will agree to sweep it under the carpet now and not rock the boat so it will carry on as before.

Ray.


----------



## dghr272 (Jun 14, 2012)

raynipper said:


> He was one of three vicars Dave.
> But OK I will agree to sweep it under the carpet now and not rock the boat so it will carry on as before.
> 
> Ray.


Quite surprised there's any room left under the carpet as that sadly has been the go to place for years.

Terry


----------



## Penquin (Oct 15, 2007)

raynipper said:


> He was one of three vicars Dave.
> But OK I will agree to sweep it under the carpet now and not rock the boat so it will carry on as before.
> 
> Ray.


I am NOT asking for it to be swept under the carpet and will pass on your comments if you wish me to.

BUT

That Church is dealt with under separate measures as it does not accept the Ministry of women, that means that any such allegations will be viewed as potentially an attack on such Churches; High CofE bordering on RC in terms of practice. My experience of such "Alternative Measures" Churches is VERY limited, hence my caution about passing the contents of this thread on, not because I wish to "sweep it under the carpet" - to use your phraseology, but simply because I do wish to be thought of as someone attacking a sector of the Church that is frequently the target of such adverse reporting.

I am in no way defending what happened pre2003, but are you suggesting that abuse has happened since that date ? Many Churches are required to share ONE ordained person between them, so to find a Church with THREE such people may indicate that they appeal to a unique section of society, they may preach "Hellfire and Eternal Damnation" but that is not illegal, preaching terrorism IS illegal, quite rightly, preaching any form of "unnatural act" would always be questionable but would be difficult to uphold without such strong evidence as recording made at the time and sealed.

Over to you whether you wish me to place it "on record".


----------



## raynipper (Aug 4, 2008)

I can only relate what we saw at the time and read subsequently Dave in the press.
It was not my intention to perpetuate any further exposes or embark on any quest. It was just that I came across that cutting and it brought back memories from an earlier time. Talking to my son today he also remembers the early vicar and actually did some work for him and his partner some years later.

There have been so many 'revelations' of misconduct by priests and many covered up by the church. Ireland, Jersey and Canada recently. It's common knowledge and not my 'revelation'.

In fact ironically that same vicar refused to 'marry' two friends of ours that had been divorced earlier. Dare I say hypocrisy?

Ray.


----------



## Penquin (Oct 15, 2007)

Agree, lots of examples of illegal, atrocious behaviour by people in authoritative positions, covered up by Senior Members of the Church.

I hope that things have improved since the public database was established and dunce the Church has taken a much more rigorous view of all aspects of Safeguarding, as have virtually every other aspect of society, including football and rugby clubs, schools, tennis coaching, swimming coaching, gymnastics training and so many other areas.

This is not just happenstance but is due to a greatly increased PUBLIC awareness of such activity and a willingness on their behalf to report it if they believe they MIGHT have encountered it.

As I said earlier, initially this was under the "Child Protrction" umbrella, but it is now realised that adults as well as teenagers and children are potentially at risk of such foul attention.

Sadly, it has meant that allegations have been made which have no justification at all, no evidence to support them but irreparable damage may have been done to someone's reputation, careeer, marriage and family life and all too often simply because the person making the allegation wanted to get back over some perceived slight. 

Teachers (which of course are my greatest knowledge of ) are corectly suspended as soon as any allegation is made while it is investigated.

That investigation may take a number of YEARS, during which time a marriage may disintegrate, family relationships be destroyed and the teacher concerned may never be able to work again, sadly due to the stress some innocent people have ended their life due to the delay.

Only later does it come out that there was no truth behind the allegation, indeed there could NEVER have been any truth as the teacher was known to be elsewhere at the time. The (unnamed and unnameable) child (sadly often a girl) concerned cannot be prosecuted even though their actions may have inadvertently cost a life.

How can such an injustice EVER be corrected ? OK it should never have taken that long, but bureaucracy works extremely slowly.

Hence why care must be taken that evidence CAN be made available that would or Gould be acceptable in a Court of Law (so no amateur sleuths are involved in the evidence chain).

My original training was with the NSPCC and duchess points were stressed again and again - the need for accurate evidence carefully collected and stored by professionals, that must mean within recent history, earlier than that may well only inflame public opinion and achieve little.


----------



## Webby1 (Mar 11, 2012)

So seeing as this ridiculous attention grabbing (new member off putting thread is going to carry on)

I ask you Ray....what exactly was the point when you decided to start this "Buggering in the Church thread"

You still have not related "what you saw at the time" and it unfair to people like @penguin and the people involved to insinuate without presenting any proof or evidence. You make it even more difficult for him by stating.......

"He was one of three vicars Dave.
But OK I will agree to sweep it under the carpet now and not rock the boat so it will carry on as before"

What is someone with a safeguarding position to do with these statements/allegations.

No doubt if it goes further then you will distract or dilute what you have actually said.....it was just something about the Church hiding these things in general.Well yes we all know that happens...............but that is not what you said

Again what is the point and the purpose of this attention grabbing thread............do you want someone else to take action because you are not prepared to do so. And then you agree to sweep it under the carpet.............err leaving someone else with the responsibility.


----------



## raynipper (Aug 4, 2008)

No.

Ray.


----------

