主播大秀

Very sad news.
Incidentally and very pedantically, he wasn't the "university's director of studies" in anything - just the college's. But he's a great loss to both.

In a bit of odd timing and contradiction, the thread I was reading up on before this thread, was the one on assisted suicide. Pastorphilip saying our lives belong to God and that it is for him to decide when our time on earth is done, etc. And then the next thing I read is the tragedy of Reverend Ian Thompson apparently taking his own life.

I am finding it hard to read the positive elements of this, when there are outstanding allegations of child sexual abuse - are people aware of the courage and pain that victims have to go through to report abuse? It is not an easy journey to undertake and now these children/young people will receive no closure. Please consider them too at this time....

I completely agree with Brownchristine and I am glad someone has been brave enough to make a comment like this. Tributes are pouring in for this man who could potentially be a child sex offender. He wasn't proven guilty but certainly wasn't proven innocent either.
My sympathy lies with the victim who will have to read what a wonderful man he was

colourfulVirgnia - I too agree with much of what Brownchristine has written, but I don't agree with your sentiment at all. If the allegations are true, then I feel absolutely awful for the victims of Ian's behaviour. But they are historical incidents. If true, this doesn't make him less guilty of them, nor does it lessen the severity of the crimes. I knew him personally, however, and regardless of what happened in the past - which I'm not defending them in the slightest - the fact is that the support he gave to our college and the care he showed for us all was no facade. In the years my peers and I knew him, long after any of the alleged incidents took place, he was a fantastic Dean and a good man.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

听

OT - if William's role is to provoke thought and engender debate then surely it is appropriate that, in his header articles at least, he be absolutely neutral whatever the issue.

Simply raising an issue in a discussion forum ought not to be construed as taking a position on that issue or as offering support to any party in the ensuing debate.听

I think your suggestion in post # 6 mischievous but then that is why I like you!

I managed, unintentionally, to provoke PeterM to wrath on the Polanski thread and I suspect my comments here will again prove controversial.听

We demonise sexual offenders as monsters when, in many cases, they are themselves victims of a history from which they have been unable to escape. The love of Christ is as much for the loveless and the unlovely as it is for the innocent and the vulnerable.

Phillip Larkin's poem Deceptions repays careful reading in this context. He understands there are often two victims when man is inhumane to man.听

We in Northern Ireland are very fond of the concept of听innocent victims which we oppose to other kinds of victims thus building a hierarchy of suffering. Larkin makes us question the easy assumptions which underpin this world-view.

"Of course I was drugged, and so heavily I did not regain听consciousness until the next morning. 听I was horrified to discover that I had been ruined, and for some days I was inconsolable,听and cried like a child to be killed or sent听back to my aunt."

--Mayhew, London Labour and the London Poor

Even so distant, I can taste the grief,
Bitter and sharp with stalks, he made you gulp.
The sun's occasional print, the brisk brief
Worry of wheels along the street outside
Where bridal London bows the other way,
And light, unanswerable and tall and wide,
Forbids the scar to heal, and drives
Shame out of hiding. 听All the unhurried day,
Your mind lay open like a drawer of knives.

Slums, years, have buried you. 听I would not dare
Console you if I could. 听What can be said,
Except that suffering is exact, but where
Desire takes charge, readings will grow erratic?
For you would hardly care
That you were less deceived, out on that bed,
Than he was, stumbling up the breathless stair
To burst into fulfillment's desolate attic.

Parrhasios did indeed provoke me to wrath on the Polanski thread and I understand, of course, that this was unintentional. In recognizing this we might continue our conversation about mercy and what it is or isn't, we might debate the reasons for and limits of a justice system, but, and this is critically important, I simply wish to voice my agreement with OT.

In terms of intention it is probable that the recent stories covered on this blog are reflecting that which is currently in the news, however I am equally uneasy about the fact that there is a debate at all about this issue in our society. The issue which matters is not historic crimes and how long one might be perceived to be guilty, it is not terrorist amnesties, it is not NI cultural prejudices, nor is it how the love of Christ "is as much for the loveless and the unlovely as it is for the innocent and the vulnerable", it is, rather, about the protection of children, full stop.

Any debate which might follow about crime and the justice system must take place within the immovable, inflexible and absolute framework of child protection, about that there should be no debate.

And just to be absolutely clear, I am not going to be sucked into a debate on this because there isn't anything to debate. Children should be protected, full stop.

Peter when you say there should be no debate on child protection you are wrong, profoundly wrong, dangerously wrong.

Let me begin by saying that it is absolutely wrong for an adult to engage in sexual activity with a child. The law is right to criminalise such activities and society should take appropriate measures to protect the vulnerable.

There is, however, no topic which should be exempt from scrutiny and debate. There is no concern so over-arching that it renders every other consideration of no import.

Child protection legislation in the UK has been created in an atmosphere verging on the hysterical and the result is system which is both wholly ineffectual and a deterrent to wholesome relations between adults and children. I do not hesitate to blame the no debate allowed on this issue mentality for much of that situation.

I am not really familiar with matters concerning the Irish poet but in the recent article it was OT who raised the issue of pederasty - it requires his customary cheek then to attribute it to William. The life, ministry, and suicide of Ian Thompson might illustrate the complexity of the human experience and the facile nature of any approach which does not at least attempt to address the many,sometimes conflicting, layers which make up our personalities.听The Polanski case raises important issues which society should debate.

Justice is not justice if its purposes do not extend beyond vengeance. No crime should leave the response of the state immune to critical assessment.听No crime should bar its perpetrator from consideration for mercy.

In defence of Cahal 脫 Searcaigh I would just like to post the following comments he made on RnaG. Of note is how he makes clear that even the makers of the film about him accept he did not break the law because the 17 and 18 year olds he had relationships were above the age of consent;-

COS: Well, the whole thing has been blown out of all proportion, as I've said before, I'm surprised those people have been involved, say the Rape Crisis Centre, you'd think I'm a rapist, there is absolutely no basis for that. I'm accused of this and that, but that's what happens when you are in the middle of a public circus like this. I've learned, a friend told me about a particular teacher who teaches my poetry, and that a boy came into the class and asked the teacher, do we have to study that Rapist? That sort of thing hurts me inside. It is appalling that I'm being treated like that. Regarding the whole thing about the authorities, it would have been much better and I'd have been pleased two years ago if they had decided to investige it. The film makers have said I did not do anything unlawful, so what's all this about the authorities investigating it. The young men mentioned in the film, the people I have a relationship with, they are all 17, 18 or above. The whole thing is silly and it upsets me that the truth is being corrupted.

Just as some background to this discussion, I thought it would be helpful to read the defence of the third person from post 9 as made by himself on TV;-

"Well, the whole thing has been blown out of all proportion, as I've said before, I'm surprised those people have been involved, say the Rape Crisis Centre, you'd think I'm a rapist, there is absolutely no basis for that. I'm accused of this and that, but that's what happens when you are in the middle of a public circus like this. I've learned, a friend told me about a particular teacher who teaches my poetry, and that a boy came into the class and asked the teacher, do we have to study that Rapist? That sort of thing hurts me inside. It is appalling that I'm being treated like that. Regarding the whole thing about the authorities, it would have been much better and I'd have been pleased two years ago if they had decided to investige it. The film makers have said I did not do anything unlawful, so what's all this about the authorities investigating it. The young men mentioned in the film, the people I have a relationship with, they are all 17, 18 or above. The whole thing is silly and it upsets me that the truth is being corrupted."

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Will

ref post 9

In fact your Polanski post DOES NOT ask "why there is any debate at all?". It is much more neutral than that. Please read it again quote from it if you wish as to where the absolute position has been taken.

Quoting from Sunday Sequence does not rescue you as you made those comments on air 24 hours after I raised my concerns on this blog. In saying that I am not accusing you of anything, rather I personally think that that radio programme muddies the debate at this time, welcome though your comments were, imo.

As for the concerns about Ian Thompson, I feel you are making this too personal towards me.

I feel we could have a more objective conversation about the points I raised if you answered the concerns of the three other posters above who raised similar concerns. Perhaps then you could come back to mine.

And as for the third case, you will actually note that you appear to be completely mistaken to accuse me of having made any allegations of criminal behaviour. As I have explained, in our country and many others, it is perfectly feasible to have sex with minors who are above the age of consent and that is exactly what the individual is on record as saying that he did. I did make this point explicitly on the thread relating to that indvidual. Perhaps I should have done it on this one too, but are you saying you didnt read it on the other thread?

If I owe you any apology for anything as you know I will be only to happy to make it, if you make your point clearly.

If you owe me an apology, I hope you will be equally forthcoming.

sincerely

OT

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Brownchristine is right to say that it takes courage on the part of sexual-abuse victims to come forward with complaints. It does. We must,however, remember that we do not yet know whether there were any victims at all. If there were any,Ian Thompson, who must have still been a schoolboy himself throughout the seventies,could have been one of them for all we know.
Rev Thompson was in one of those professions that is vulnerable to accusations. Cases of false allegations by troublemakers ganging up on a professional person do not receive much publicity because they tend mostly not to reach the court stage and exonerations are not of interest to newspapers. Those of us acquainted with people it has happened to know that it is the kindest,most generous ones who seem fair game to the blackmailers, the jealous, and plain nasty-minded. Accusers know that even if their victim is later found not guilty or even if he is not prosecuted then rumours and tongue-wagging continue. They do damage just by pointing the finger,especially if they can stir up a few pals to join in. A decent person feels long-lasting horror at being accused of crime and when it's as bad as this sort of thing then he (and sometimes she) finds that it preys on the mind and weighs heavily on the heart. There is no escape.
I know next to nothing about Scots law and I'm wondering whether offences that may or may not have been committed by a juvenile can really be pursued after all these decades. Whether anything that Rev Thompson could have been a part of in his own childhood and adolescence was connected with his suicidal feelings we have no way of knowing, at least not for the time being.

Ian was a very close and dear friend of mine. He told me the details of one allegation made against him, which was an attempt at blackmail by a 17-year-old heroin addict. I don't call a 17-year-old a child. At the time, Ian was a 23-year-old, married, Salvation Army officer. Not only was their no impropriety, he wasn't even in the same city as the blackmailer at the time of the alleged offence. When he took up his post at King's, both the police and the college found no case to answer, although he was badly let down by the diocese of Ely (he was even told "denying it is often evidence of guilt" - get out of that one). Whether there are other cases, I don't know. I assume this case came back because the person concerned got wind that Ian had gone up in the world, and thought he'd have another go at taking a slice of his good fortune. In a letter he sent to me just before he died, he maintains his innocence, and explains that his choice was to protect his wife from the publicity that such a case would bring. He was himself an intensely private man, and found even offers of help from his closest friends very difficult to accept. The pressure of this present allegation bore very heavily on him, and his friends watched helplessly as he slowly disintegrated. Even his hand-writing in that last letter shows that he was no longer himself.

So, how can an innocent Christian man give up hope and take his own life? Because he has been driven to a point at which even if he is acquitted his ministry will be ruined, and his family shamed. Don't underestimate how much he loved both, and as others have posted, his commitment to his charges - students, fellows, and staff, alike - was exemplary.

A lot is rumour and whispering, and no allegation has yet been substantiated with a time and place, still less a name. One thing I do know - Ian could not knowingly have hurt another human being. It wasn't in him.

Thank you, richard_haggis,for sharing with us your knowledge of Ian Thompson and drawing attention to the fact that he had put his concerns in writing.
If I remember rightly my long-ago reading,English law gives strong weight to a declaration from someone knowingly about to die,especially if the information relates to the reason for the death.The presumption is that dying declarations are truthful. Under certain circumstances they are exempt from the hearsay rules too.
As an ordinary member of the public I am not competent to suggest that a letter I have not seen which is from Ian Thompson declaring his innocence and mentioning circumstances leading to his decision for suicide would be admissable in court.I imagine that would be up to a coroner and/or a judge to decide.
However,if the police do think that the letter is worth putting before a prosecuting authority for the purpose of exploring the possibility of charging someone with blackmail or malicious falsehood,I hope they do so.
From my own working life I am aware of the lifelong damage that can be inflicted by abuse of children and adolescents, and of adults too, by those they should be able to trust. The authorities have more than enough on their hands chasing up real culprits. It is wicked that predators after easy meat make attempts to distract them from appropriate pursuit of offenders.

It has been encouraging to read some of the recent sensitive comments on the blog from people who have attempted to sympathise with a man experiencing intolerable emotional pain. I believe Christ calls us to extend our compassion to all who suffer and that without judgement or prejudice.

I do not wish to comment on Ian Thompson's history (being entirely ignorant of his past) so I hope that if I raise one issue from Richard's post it will be understood to have only general reference.

Richard says: One thing I do know - Ian could not knowingly have hurt another human being. It wasn't in him. That statement is a wonderful endorsement of the positive impact of one human's life on another and an eloquent testimony to enduring friendship. It is the kind of remark, however, which would cause me some little concern. We none of us know any other person so well that we can account for their actions and motivations at every stage in their life given all the various circumstances through which they have may have had to navigate.

I raise the point, not to cast any doubts or shadows on this case, but purely because there is a danger here that anyone who might seek to support the suicidal needs to recognise.

It is tempting, if a friend is facing dreadful accusations, when we offer our support to couple with that offer a declaration of our total confidence in his innocence and our knowledge of the unquestionable integrity of his character. I would caution against that approach. If a person genuinely wishes to stand with another in his distress, whatever the circumstances, he must be prepared to hear anything but do nothing which might signal an inability or unwillingness to face the often messy realities of human experience.

Fears of letting-down friends, exposing our flaws, failing to live-up to the image we perceive others to hold of us, all of these things can be serious barriers to opening one's soul to another and sharing the entirety of our pain and the whole of our situation. It is in the unconditional acceptance of a person for who and what they are in love that we offer what may be the only flicker of light and hope in the dark and despair surrounding a foundering soul.

Parrhasios,you give some very good advice there and make some helpful points,thank you.
It certainly made me think about the subject.
There are millions of damaged people in the world,including criminals both caught and uncaught. Most of them are somebody's friend or relative and to return to a proper functioning life they need support from those who accept them despite what they have done or been caught up in. Thank you for pointing that out.

fyi, as I have said, I hold to the principle that we are all innocent until proven guilty.

in light of the above discussion, readers may be interested to know that Rev Thompson had been charged in court before his death;-

Will

ref post 15

just to refresh our memories, here is the post W&T published about polanski in its entirety;-


"Yes, there is a debate -- and some say it is a moral debate -- about the appropriateness of the arrest in Switzerland, and possible extradition to the United States, of the film director Roman Polanski. The fact that there is a debate merits some consideration all by itself.

Mr Polanski was arrested in connection with the alleged rape of a 13-year-old girl, Samantha Gailey (now Samantha Geimer), in 1977, and has been pursued (some say not vigorously enough) since.

His victim says she now forgives him and wishes to put the matter to rest. But victims do not determine whether assailants should stand trial for a crime as serious as rape.

Others say it's been a long time, and it's better to simply move on. But some of the clerical child abuse cases being investigated in Ireland stretch back even further, and we can expect some prosecutions in those cases. Would anyone be questioning the rightness of Mr Polanski's arrest if he was not a celebrated film director?

The 'perception gap' seems greatest between American and French responses to the arrest. TIME says that gap is as wide as the Atlantic:

"As Polanski's fans across Europe decry his detention, his lawyers say they're filing appeals of both his arrest and eventual transfer to the U.S. "To the French mind, this has made Polanski a combination of Oscar Wilde and Alfred Dreyfus - the victim of systematic persecution," Stanger says. "To the American mind, he's proof that no one is above the law."

/blogs/ni/2009/09/polanski_the_debate.html

Will

ref post 15

sorry for the delay in getting back.

First of all I would just like to affirm 2 things.

1) I can't presume to know your motives and thoughts on this issue.

2) I am going to focus on the output of W&T/SS corporately and not of William Crawley, which may also be fair comment about much of the broader media.

Thus I am talking about 主播大秀 corporate output and also the media generally and not the private thoughts of William Crawley.

Also, in case you think this is some sort of personal vendetta I would like to quote Peter Morrow from post 8;-


"...I simply wish to voice my agreement with OT.

"In terms of intention it is probable that the recent stories covered on this blog are reflecting that which is currently in the news, however I am equally uneasy about the fact that there is a debate at all about this issue in our society. The issue which matters is not historic crimes and how long one might be perceived to be guilty, it is not terrorist amnesties, it is not NI cultural prejudices, nor is it how the love of Christ "is as much for the loveless and the unlovely as it is for the innocent and the vulnerable", it is, rather, about the protection of children, full stop.

"Any debate which might follow about crime and the justice system must take place within the immovable, inflexible and absolute framework of child protection, about that there should be no debate.

"And just to be absolutely clear, I am not going to be sucked into a debate on this because there isn't anything to debate. Children should be protected, full stop."


I disagree with you that the *whole* tenor of the W&T post on Polanski was to question why anyone would think it odd that a self confessed child sex criminal would be arrested etc etc.

In fact, the many different perspectives/moralities on the issue were given a very fair hearing. See the actual text in my post above.

The (welcome) sentence you quote is only one from the several hundred words which appear to give pretty fair airtime to all the moralities on this case.

Regarding Ian Thompson, I fully accept your comments. As I said, I would not have brought him into my discussion but for the concerns for alleged victims raised by three other posters, above.

I repeat, this shows it is not just me that has to be convinced by you argument.

ctd...

regarding Cahal I am going to comment no further than to let people read his own comments above in posts 11 and 12.

he also speaks for himself in this audio interview here;

/blogs/ni/2009/06/cathal_o_searcaigh_in_his_own_1.html

I cant and wont judge cahal. I dont know him or all the facts in his life story.

But I do feel this discussion raises some interesting questions.

Why would we describe a 40 something year old man such as Polanksi who has sex with a 13 year old girl as "horrific appalling evil and wicked" as it says in post 15?

(Please note that W&T felt it was important to add these value laden terms to its Polanski text, reprinted above, after questions were raised about its neutrality).

So far as I can see Polanski was not convicted of rape ie the court took no specific position on the absence or presence of consent from the 13-year-old girl. he was convicted on grounds of her age. correct me if I am wrong.

In some countries consent can be as young as 12;-



Does that mean our morality is always determined by the current legislation? And does morality change from country to country?

And in contrast to that, what if I am a father of a 17-year-old girl in a ghetto type area of the UK and a 50 something year old US multi billionaire arrives in our neighbour giving gifts to everyone in the genuine interests of the community.

If I find out that 50-something year old man has been having sex with my daughter and her 17 year old friends what should we think? what standard do we use?

If I confront him and he says this;

"I always consider myself to be 18 and Kinsey has proven there is no such thing as a normal sexual life. Therefore because I am not married it is absolutely normal for me to have sex with your daughter and her friends.

"But I would like to reassure you that I am in love particularly with your daughter even though I am sleeping with her friends too...."

No laws have been broken...

Do we take an absolute position on cases like Polanski but remain neutral about the billionaire sleeping with my daughter and her friends?

Interested in other readers thoughts.

sincerely
OT

trying to break up my comment because there is no telling what matter of public record the moderators will find to have broken the house rule....

Will

ref post 28, Sometimes the moderators are a bit overzelous here.

Perhaps you would try again, I'm interested to hear your response.

I was thinking that the issue about neutrality on sexual matters was also reflected recently by W&T giving incest and bestiality euphamistic "respectable" names, as a recap to radio discussions SS has held on the matters previously.

I did not find that especially edifying, I'm sure other readers may have a different view.

But should we really "neutralise" bestiality and incest in the interests of an "open-minded" debate?

One poster above (post 7) defends W&T on the ahild abuse matter, claiming it is and MUST be neutral, - do we add bestiality and incest to that list too?

Doesnt that leave us on a path which could encourage animals being left open to horrific abuse on the grounds of human sexual rights? and doesnt that leave the younger members of families wide open to grooming and sexual exploitation just where they should be most secure, even if they are above the age of consent?

I am not suggesting that W&T would endorse either of these, I am asking if neutral re-labelling of bestiality and incest could indirectly encourage them.

Doesnt questioning traditional biblical values on sex outside of marriage inevitably undermine such values and lead to a position where society accepts no absolutes on them?

Incidentally one poster who ardently defends W&T from the questions I have raised is the first to acknowledge the neutrality of the blog on the topics we were discussing - see post 7 above.

ARE we neutralising the debates on these issues?

Does it matter?

Thoughts anyone?

OT

fyi

here is the re-branding of bestiality and incest I spoke of

see post 17 here;-

/blogs/ni/2009/09/light_on_distant_hills.html



////////////////////////////////////////////////////
The relevant post from W&T says;-

17. At 3:03pm on 19 Sep 2009, Will_Crawley wrote:
I may have misread OT -- perhaps he means only that Sunday Sequence has had debates on the programme about the legalisation of same-family couples in some European jurisdictions? In which case, yes, we've certainly had that debate. There's a big difference between having a debate and sponsoring a position on the debate, though. The same is true of my interview on TV with Peter Singer, who discussed inter-species sexual contact (bestiality). Merely raising that topic in a debate with a guest is not the same as championing the practice, OT.
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////



Here is a film about (and showing) sexual orgies being reviewed on W&T and SS;-

/blogs/ni/2007/01/shortbusing.html


Arent these "neutral" takes on these matters?

Perhaps other see it differently....?

Does it matter?

OT

............ of course, still interested to hear others views on post 26 too.......



"Do we take an absolute position on cases like Polanski but remain neutral about the billionaire sleeping with my daughter and her friends?"

OT

I would hate to upset you about something important!!

Sorry but the Jan Moir thread is broken, so adding this in here;-

There are a few layers of this latest twist on the tragic death of this young man Stephen Gately, imo.

I agree with Peter Morrow, firstly, there is such a thing as a respectful distance from a tragic death.

Next, it appears to me that Mr Gately's civil partner may have a huge pay cheque coming for a libel action against the Daily Mail.

If the DM is wrong it must pay up royally in damages, should it be sued. it should be, imo.


But, I want to flag up what appears to me to be double standards.

All sorts of guff are written about christians now having their whole faith based on "delusions".

- a hate crime or freedom of expression?

TV storylines portray them normally as nutters and psychos (before you respond, please cite me a few contrary examples in proportion to all the nutter ones we all know).



On this blog for a number of years I was subject to serious guff in the name of fredeom of expression, see post 218 here;-

/blogs/ni/2007/09/the_evolution_of_a_debate_at_s_1.html


If someone had written the same tirade of guff against an openly gay person on this blog it would have been rightly condemned all round.


If the DM are wrong I hope Mr Gately takes them to the cleaners.


But, welcome to the 21st century.

Homophobia is heresy.

Christophobia is orthodoxy.

OT
/blogs/ni/2009/10/jan_moir.html

Hi RJB

thanks for your comments in advance of being able to read them.

I also thank you in advance for living up to your promise to play the ball and not the man with me ie avoiding ad hominem attacks and instead discussing the issues at hand.

OT

Thanks RJB

I dont think that counted as playing the ball not the man :-(

forget your promise so soon?


Are we really saying it is unimportant if refuse to make sure value judgments about sexual abuse of animals, incest, child sex abuse, 50 something men in a position of power having sex with numerous 17 year olds....

there are no implications for us as a society if we take a strictly neutral position on these matters???

I think I will take that penalty kick for the gash you left on my shins in that tackle RJB.

;-)

Do you feel unable or embarrased to actually engage in debate on the ISSUES?

cheers
OT

OT - I must insist on accuracy. What I said was that neutrality is appropriate when the aim is to provoke discussion. When I look at this blog it strikes me as being quite unusual in one respect: unlike most bloggers Will does not offer opinion pieces indeed he seems studiously to avoid them. He appears simply to report stories and leaves it to us, his followers, to offer our opinions and our far from neutral takes on the issues he has presented for our consideration.

I do not like to duck direct questions so let me repeat that I see nothing intrinsically wrong with either bestiality or incest - any particular instance would have to be judged in its full context. On the matter of your hypothetical daughter if she is of an age at which both her and the billionaire's societies license sexual contact then what she chooses do is entirely a matter for her.

I defend W&T when I think it appropriate to do - just as I have defended you in the past and just as I absolutely uphold your rights both to hold your opinions and to express them freely.

OT

Lol. I actually said/wrote nine words. NINE.

Out of those nine words you have managed to -

1. Insinuate that I can see into the future.
2. Accuse me of not making ad hominem attacks.
3. Accuse me of making ad hominem attacks.
4. Accuse me of breaking a solemn oath to you.
5. Claim that I am not taking a list of things seriously.
6. Claim that I am frightened to take part in debate.
7. Accuse me of leaving a gash on your shin.

Kinda proves the point I was making in post # 32 dont you think?

Ok - lets see if we can summarise the consensus so far.


RJB says that neutrality in the media on the following issues is unimportant;-

1) child sex abuse, (alledged lack of neutrality above mentioned by 4 people excluding myself, including parrahosis).

2) wealthy American 50-something-year-old men writing personal cheques out in ghettos and then having sex with multiple 17-year-olds in that area.

3) Bestiality

4) Incest

5) Orgies


RJB suggests the correct response to such questions is to focus ridicule on anyone who raises a question about this matter.


W&T in the name of Will Crawley, post 38, concurs.


We are also agreed with Parrhasios that there is nothing wrong with;-

- bestiality or incest;

- that child protection legislation harm relations between adults and minors

- that fathers in ghettos should look the other way if their 17-year-old daughters are being sexually "known" by wealthy 50-something American men who are writing out cheques across the community.


Is that a fair summary of what we are agreed on?

RJB? Will? Parrhasios?


OT

correction - point one above should say "alleged neutrality" not "alleged lack of neutrality".

OT

When I call you an a*s you accuse me of ad hominem attacks.

I have called you an a*s at times and a Pharisee.

However, never in my life have I knowingly and falsely accused anyone, not even my worst enemy, of being neutral about - sexual abuse, bestiality,incest, orgies, rich men sexually abusing 17 year olds.

What a disgraceful ad multi-hominem attack.

OT

Have you lost the plot completely?

If you were to have made general points about societies inability to judge, or to find a common ground to make judgments from, then you would have diagnosed a significant problem.

But you personalised this. And I'm just absolutely bewildered at the result. What on earth were you trying to achieve?

I have to ask you - is this paranoia or spite?

It's a serious question.

GV

I happen to think OT is more paranoid than spiteful. OT- it seems you have a little work to do if you'd like to generate some understanding on this thread.

OT - I find myself unable to glimpse Fortune without throwing a hostage in her general direction! Let me make some of what I said clearer.

I did not say there was "nothing wrong with bestiality or incest" - I said there was "nothing intrinsically wrong" with either. When you omitted that word and my rider on context you changed a nuanced position into blanket licence.

Let me set the general context of my views: God has no interest whatsoever in human sexual behaviour; the knowledge of God will, however, shape every aspect of one human's dealings with another; Christian sexual morality (in terms of what it excludes) is therefore based only on considerations of mutual respect and the avoidance of hurt or harm.

I can illustrate how this translates into practical ethics with regard to bestiality by referencing a guide to the Sacrament of Penance I read a few years ago - it was written by an Italian priest whose name unfortunately I cannot remember. He said context is everything. If he heard an urbane Siennese banker confess to bestiality he would think of moral degeneracy; if, on the other hand, it was a shepherd from Abruzzo he would not speak of sin but would seek pastorally to guide him towards greater socialisation in his local community.

I think this is a humane and sensitive approach which relates all human behaviour to the detail of the individual situation and seeks to understand before deciding if condemnation is appropriate.

I do think that much current child protection legislation was ill-considered in its making, is completely ineffective in protecting the really vulnerable, and actually damages society by the way in which it influences how children think about adults and indeed how we as adults think about each other. (I have enhanced-disclosure POCVA clearance myself).

With regard to American billionaires I think Northern Ireland's position is eminently sensible. A person seeking to obtain sexual favours from a seventeen year old here by means of any inducement (monetary or otherwise) would face arrest and imprisonment. Sexual contact is legal at sixteen, which seems entirely reasonable to me, so long as there is no abuse of position or the offer of reward. At eighteen, in this culture, we judge a person capable of making up their own minds and at that age the law withdraws its protection and then, too, even fathers should stand aside from interference if not from influence.

I think it possible that circumstances might change the age of general capability in different countries and I think morally we need to recognise this while asserting that it is always morally wrong to exploit the vulnerable.

I'm going with paranoia as well.

OK, John has asked me to try and generate a little more understanding, so here goes.

My position, as you will know, is that I am a very much fallen man in a fallen world, aspiring to understand a biblical worldview on issues affecting us on a daily basis.

Regarding sex I see it as a gift created by God to be enjoyed by a man and woman in a lifelong marriage relationship only, first for sealing companionship and second for procreation. I also believe that used other than this it ncessarily always causes suffering of one sort or another eg the pain of abortion, sexual exploitation/abuse, STDs, mental/spiritual addictions, unwanted children, the often heavy burden of single parenthood, the pain of life without a secure and loving father figure.
I also believe in the Christ who taught forgiveness of 70 times seven, who reaches out with grace and forgiveness to broken people like me.

I have raised the query about whether Sunday Sequence and W&T from my position, appear to be very neutral on sexual acitivities outside of marriage. I dont have any right to expect anyone to share my values or conclusions, but I do have a right to ask respectful questions. Three other posters on this thread have raised similar views, including Peter Morrow. My concern is that raising the potential normality of sex outside of marriage necessarily leads to human (and animal) pain and suffering in practise. There is also the question about whether there exist ultimate moral absolutes on sex outside of marriage. I believe there are.

I dont hold William Crawley as responsible for all the worlds ills, youll be glad to hear, in fact I recognise that as a professional broadcaster he is working under editorial policy and direction and as part of a team; I dont presume that what he writes or says personally necessarily reflects his personal views. He may or may not wish to comment.
Now, the questions I raised on this thread related to several different stories on this thread, in which I personally saw a bit of a trend. You are free to disagree of course, as many have done.


1) Ref Roman Polanski and his conviction and arrest for unlawful sex with a 13-year-old girl; I said that it appeared to me that the text on this blog in reference to that story was quite neutral, ie gave pretty fair coverage to all viewpoints on the story without making any value judgements. After this W&T in the name of William Crawley condemned Polanski's actions in very stark absolute terms, as mentioned above.
I asked if we were happy to take an absolute position on Polanski's actions (the courts did not convict him of rape/violation of consent, of which he stands innocent in law). I asked if our absolute position could change dependent on the age of consent in different countries and whether we should take absolute positions on any of the other cases we were discussing.


2) Ref poet Cahal O'S, when W&T posted a thread about what he had been doing in Nepal the content of what he said on audio interview linked from the W&T thread was quite startling for me personally. To discuss the issues raised I invented a hypothetical 50-something US billionaire who comes to a UK ghetto and starts writing out personal cheques to various members of the community with genuine intention. But I raised reservations about the fact that this billionaire then began having sexual relations with multiple 17-year olds, which is all perfectly legal. The billionaire utterly defended his behvaiour because he felt 18 in his own mind; was not married and because Kinsey had "proven" that there was no such thing as a normal sex life.
But how do we decide to take an absolute stance on Polanski but fight shy of any value judgement whatsoever on this case? Why?


3) Ref Rev Ian Thompson. On this case I am not raising any personal issues on its reporting, but three other posters, above, said they found it neutral against alleged victims of child sexual abuse. A fourth defended it on the grouns that "neutrality" was essential to a blog but the other three were concerned by it in this case.
One of them was Peter Morrow, who correctly pointed out that it was part of a wider fault in the media and also nodded to similar concerns about the coverage of the Polanski case. I only mention Thompson because other posters have expressed concern on the same theme as I was raising. I would not have raised any concerns about this thread on its own.


4) Then I also linked to previous SS/W&T reporting on bestiality, incest and orgies.
W&T has previously presented discussions/threads on Shortbus, a film featuring real group sex scenes. The W&T thread expressed no value judgements or qualifications on the matter. As recently as the past month W&T in the name of William Crawley confirmed it had sponsored discussions challenging our taboos against bestiality and incest, with both issues having been re-branded with non-value judgement terms. Again, personally I feel that these issues should not be dignified with neutral description or debates. I know others disagree. Details of all this coverage are to be found in posts above on this thread.


OT

Will

Sorry for the delay in coming back 鈥� busy times 鈥� and thanks for your thoughtful response.

1) I don鈥檛 agree that your original post about the arrest of Polanski expressed surprise (see it reprinted in full in post 23 for readers to make up their own minds). To be fair to you, I guess you were fairly representing many views in the media about him at that time, as another poster mentioned here. W&T / SS obviously must have had some reservations about the text as Mr Crawley later came out on this blog and on air to condemn Polanskis actions in surprisingly stark terms. I wouldn鈥檛 suggest there was any malice in the W&T post 23 piece. I expect it was more likely taking in the zeitgeist and eyeing the entire matter from the point of view of an interesting ethical debate. But I do think Peter Morrow above hit the nail on the head, above; regardless of all these issues, child protection must not be up for debate or negotiation or secondary to any of these other matters ( imo too). We wont agree on this Will but I am happy for readers to make up their own minds and leave it at that.


2) Cathal O Searcaigh vs Polanksi; Where did I suggest I couldn鈥檛 see the moral and legal difference between these two cases??? What I am actually asking is HOW W&T condemns the actions of Polanski in absolute terms but refuses to make any moral judgement about Cahal. I was actually asking what moral standards W&T uses to measure the two cases by. Any clues?

Polanski was convicted of one offence only -sex with a girl who was below the age of consent (not rape or deugging etc). In some countries this is not against the law with a girl of 13.

Compare Cahal admitting to writing cheques arbitrarily to people in one of the poorest countries on earth and to having sex with 鈥渁 small fraction鈥� of 17-year olds he met there. He defends himself 100% by saying that although 52 he still feels 18 and because he is not married this sort of behaviour has been proven normal by Kinsey. He broke no law in Ireland or Nepal , as William keeps repeating.
It has to be said though that someone carrying out these actions on other countries would be breaking the law of course.
But since the whole film on RTE etc W&T has plugged Cahals biography, which bombed in the wake of the film, and you have said you are planning a documentary interview with him.

W&T condemns Polanski outright but Cahal it promotes. I have no interest in passing judgement on either person (I couldn鈥檛 because I don鈥檛 know them or the facts) but I am interested to know by what standard W&T makes such distinctions between them? What standard does W&T use to condemn one and promote the other?

I have my own personal opinions about the differences between the two cases, I have nowhere suggested that I can see no difference between them. But I have repeatedly asked by what ethical standard W&T condemns Polanski outright but excuses and promotes Cahal? I repeat that it is clear that Cahal has broken no laws in Ireland or Nepal. But promotion of him and his writings could be seen by some as a hearty endorsement of his complete self justification. Does W&T think it is therefore generally acceptable in Ireland for 52-year-old men to have sex with various 17-year-olds while writing out cheques to the poor in that community, so long as the 52-year-old men are not married?


3) Ref coverage of bestiality, incest and orgies (post 30), I was not primarily asking why they were covered. No I was primarily asking why W&T had rebranded incest and bestiality in neutral terms such as 鈥渟ame family marriages鈥� and 鈥渋nterspecies intimacy鈥� (or similar). The traditional terms denote disapproval, the modern terms cited by W&T imply that the disapproval is up for debate, which it literally is and was on W&T/SS.


4) I doubt that there would have been petitions raised against the 主播大秀 if these stories had not been covered. In fact I doubt if anyone would have noticed. There is an entire universe of ethical and religious topics out there, you will have a job to convince me that these two topics were massive public interest roadblocks that the 主播大秀 NI could not bypass.

But I repeat, I personally find that adopting neutral alternative terms for bestiality and incest is generally reflective of the liberal stance on sexual matters taken by W&T/SS and indeed the media generally.
I don鈥檛 dream for a second that the 主播大秀 should or would take its editorial line from me, but it DOES invite me onto this blog to air my opinions.

I note there is now a Hollywood comedy movie about a woman having sex with her dog. Perhaps it is only a matter of time until such groups claims 鈥渆qual rights鈥� and 鈥渉uman rights鈥� to have their relationships recognised. If we have no absolute truth then nothing can be absolutely right or wrong for all time. It seems we are more comforable laughing at this idea than with engaging with it. 50 years ago we would not have dreamt what the media now uses its freedoms to cover and promote.

You also neglected to mention the promotion of the film Shortbusing by W&T and SS, which features actual scenes of group sex...the story is about a short bus on which people have group sex.... On W&T there was not the slightest warning or qualification about the film in the brief treatment it got. Many will think this commendably open-minded. Having been invited to give MY opinion, I suggest it again demonstrates a very liberal view of the traditional Christian view that God created sex as a wonderful gift to be used safely within marriage.

I am *not* condemning anyone who has been tempted strayed outside of this and then sought the grace and forgiveness God offers. I *am* challenging the viewpoint that suggests that there is no need for forgiveness for sex outside of marriage and that it is commendable to tempt others into sin. Again, that is my personal opinion, which the 主播大秀 invites me to give on this blog. It does not dream of being an alternative editorial line, at least not in this lifetime.

William says;- 鈥淎 specialist programme dealing with religion and ethics must have the freedom to examine debates about religion and ethics, even if some people wish those debates would simply go away. That's called a free press.鈥�

I would say in response, what actual boundaries are there on this freedom, if any?
Just because we have freedom of the press does not mean we are forced to stretch these freedoms to their limits or abuse them. Freedom of the press does not in itself force stories which challenge conservative biblical values on sex onto the news (or drama) agenda day after day, week after week. It is people who do that.

This high minded defence of these sex stories -it is the obligation of the free press to cover them in depth- begs the question in my mind of how exactly we define 鈥渁 free press鈥�.

Do the Daily Mail, the Guardian, The Independent, 主播大秀 and Daily Telegraph all operate as part of this same free press? Because I notice that they all have very different ideas of how to use their freedoms. (witness the Daily Mail鈥檚 ill-founded and ill-timed treatment of Stephen Gately鈥檚 death).

The news agenda they promote is coloured heavily by what values they consistently challenge; by the values they don鈥檛 scrutinise but assume and promote instead; by the stories they give pride of place to; by the stories they don鈥檛; by the voices they give platforms to ... and the voices they don鈥檛; By the same type of stories they cover week after week and the stories they ignore; by the victims they portray....and the victims they ignore; by the powers that they repeatedly press for reform and on what issues....they are all free press aren鈥檛 they?

A stark example can be seen in that some sections of the media champion those people who fight for their rights on grounds of their sexuality while ignoring others who are losing their jobs and livelihoods because they are living by their consciences on these very same issues (both are rights enshrined in the ECHR).

There are NO media that I can think of that really give similar space to both groups of human beings. Most media ignore one side totally. Is this the same free press you are defending Will?

OK, but please dont allow us to think that "free press" equals "neutral press" or "press without agenda".

To defend coverage of sexually libertine people and stories week after week with a free press defence might seem to some to be the equivalent of saying 鈥渨e are free to do this and you are powerless to stop us鈥�. True.

But in the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire Gibbons noted that it was a sign of a crumbling civilisation when it was obsessed with sexual libertinism. What good will a free press be if there is eventually little in the way of society or broadcasters to engage with?

The media seems allergic to the idea of putting these questions in a long term historical context.

Lest this seem overly dramatic this begs some of the most serious questions that 鈥渢he free press鈥� panics at the very thought of asking in any substantial manner;-

If sex is to become normal outside of marriage instead of inside it, what sort of people and society will eventually be produced if few people have a stable and loving family upbringing? Historically, I understand that such a pre-Judao/Christian (pagan) treatment of sex results in a much more primitive/unproductive society. And before anyone laughs too loudly, where in history is the precedent for the sexual utopia we are now being led into? There isn鈥檛 any. The blind leading the blind?

Theologically, another question the free press would never dream of examining is this; If keeping sex only within the design of marriage provides generally no medical, psychological, emotional or spiritual drawbacks (but only blessings instead) compared to the endless possibilities of sex outside of marriage, could it be the case that God鈥檚 perfect will is to retain sex only within marriage after all?

Surely there is plenty there for a few stimulating panel discussions and documentaries?

Best regards
OT

fyi, the alternative value neutral terms given for bestiality and incest by W&T can be seen in post 30 above.

a few common symptoms of sex outside of marriage, in case I wasnt clear;-

STDs; the pain and guilt of abortion; the betrayal of one spouse by another; people growing up without knowing a loving father; deep guilt and addiction patterns; sex slavery; child sex abuse; animal abuse; etc etc etc etc.

a few common symptoms of sex inside marriage-

The pain and guilt of abortion; the betrayal of one spouse by another; people growing up without knowing a loving father; deep guilt and addiction patterns; sex slavery; child sex abuse; animal abuse;

I believe STD's are more common among people who have more than one sex partner.

OT

[Keep in mind that I'm prepared to disagree vociferously with Will when yo read this.]

1) Ref Roman Polanski: I detected that William did not take a "neutral" stance. He stated, directly, that there was no room for debate. Given that many European and American pundits had taken Mr Polanki's side, I was surprised that William was so forthright.

2) The Cathal O Searcaigh case. Rape is an evil of a different magnitude than exploitation. And Mr Polanski has plead guilty to peculiarly insidious form of an horrendous crime. That neatly explains the differences in approach on W&T.
Now here I share some of your unease - it isn't at all clear that Mr O Searcaigh was not involved in some form of exploitation. I don't give a fig if he makes a nice cup of tea, or writes great poetry.
But the fact remains that "The Economist" has called for the liberalisation of all laws on prostitution, and the exchange of money for sexual favours. It isn't just left-wing commentators who would see absolutely no *moral* harm in Cathal O Searcaigh's actions. Such commentators do not see any exploitation at all.

3) Which brings me to bestiality, incest and non-value judgement terms. Whether we like it or not, prostitution is a controversial topic. And there are those who would like to make bestiality and incest controversial also.
Now this is just the way things have gone in the West. For all I know Will puts his face in his hands and despairs of the whole situation. But it isn't his job to do that on air. As a journalist, he needs to disappear from view as much as possible. At least this is how I see things. (Moir was writing as a columnist, and not a journalist as such. Don't confuse the two. The nature of the column was to be controversial.)
You seem to want Will to move from journalism to commentary. There is a difference. Will needs to let the story tell itself - to open a window on to the world of religion and ethics, rather than tell us about *his* religion and ethics. He does this rather well IMHO.

4) Which brings me to my final point. I doubt Peter Singer would have appeared on a show that was simply going to damn his publications. Now you've been advancing a rather interesting argument. Remove traditional views of marriage and community in general, and replace these with the sovereign individual, and moral chaos ensues. Stanley Hauerwas, Roger Scruton and many others have made similar arguments. I happen to think that there is something to them.
But if Will didn't disappear from view - if he avoided these topics, if he didn't let Peter Singer or Mr O Searcaigh speak, how could I substantiate these arguments? How could I know that Hauerwas and Scruton were not scare-mongering?

Which is to say - reporters report. It's up to us to assess. You have a good argument about the moral "state we're in". But you turned to a rather odd personal grievance with W&T instead. You lost sight of your target (moral chaos) and aimed at an irrelevant target (journalists).

Maybe Will will turn preacher or ethicist one day. Until then let him get on with his job.

GV

Glad we agree on this key point GV;-

"... here I share some of your unease - it isn't at all clear that Mr O Searcaigh was not involved in some form of exploitation. I don't give a fig if he makes a nice cup of tea, or writes great poetry."


But read again GV - I made it VERY clear repeatedly I am not talkin to Will personally, but to W&T and SS corporately. Read above where I have made this point repeatedly.


I AM saying that the choice of W&T and SS stories and the values that are persistently challenged to justify themselves therein most definitley lend themselves to a very liberal agenda.

In other words, why do we persistently herein read stories advancing a sexually libertine / environmentalist / feminist line as opposed to a Christian apologetics-mission / global poverty / 21st century slavery line????

If you really believe that reporters simply "report" you will not be able to distinguish between the editorial lines of the Daily Mail or The Independent. But I dont believe that for a second GV, please.

I am not holding any one person responsible for what I am talking about.

And nor am I allowing you to suggest that the editorial line of W&T and SS is the one subject herein off limits..... or even that it does not actually exist!!!!????

Furthermore, I dont contribute to debates on the economist website. Im here. Nor do I fund the economist with my taxes, which BTW have been surrendered to Christ.
I'm sure the economist will have to struggle on without my pearls of wisdom for the time being.

Nor do have I dreamed for a second that W&T or SS could, would or should adopt my values or viewpoint.

Remember the strapline?;-

主播大秀 Northern Ireland presenter William Crawley discusses the often controversial political, religious and ethical issues of the day.

I'm just joining in.


sincerely
OT

PS I herein (tongue firmly in cheek) grant you permission to think for yourself aside from Stanley Hauerwas and Roger Scruton.