Only By Under The Table Means Would This...
Crosswords6 mins ago
Abuse In The Church Of England
More shame for the church.
Safeguarding doesn't work it seems.
https:/
Safeguarding doesn't work it seems.
https:/
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Theland. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
// AH, I read the first couple of lines of your post. You provided nothing that backs your point//
o god even I can see that the evidence may be further on
but generally - and I know at least 50% of AB will not be able to follow this - if there is child abuse and then safeguarding and child abuse continues
then the point the OP made is valid innit? - [safeguarding doesnt work[
me - I know it is me
o god even I can see that the evidence may be further on
but generally - and I know at least 50% of AB will not be able to follow this - if there is child abuse and then safeguarding and child abuse continues
then the point the OP made is valid innit? - [safeguarding doesnt work[
me - I know it is me
pixie, there's no reason to conclude that only person is at fault here. Some of the victims told senior church members at the time, and they did nothing. They did not commit abuse themselves but their inaction enabled the bishop to abuse others. Even after the bishop's death they did nothing to help those who had suffered.
They are at fault too... there just seems to be a distinct lack of blame towards the actual guilty person.
Do we just accept that it's expected and normal now and then, or is it that they can't help themselves, but nobody is diagnosing them as legally insane?
We just seem to have a mishmash of blaming different people.
Do we just accept that it's expected and normal now and then, or is it that they can't help themselves, but nobody is diagnosing them as legally insane?
We just seem to have a mishmash of blaming different people.
the headline in the original link is quite clear (if ungrammatical)
//Former Bishop of Chester committed "appalling" sexual abuse, reports finds//
But here's the headline from the Church Times
//Review castigates Church’s treatment of Bishop Whitsey’s victims//
https:/
For the Church itself, that's the news - not that a bishop was an abuser, which they knew already, but how the Church failed in its own duty.
Both angles are legitimate stories; both contributed to ruining leaves. But those who are still in authority are the ones who now need to be dealt with, before it happens again.
//Former Bishop of Chester committed "appalling" sexual abuse, reports finds//
But here's the headline from the Church Times
//Review castigates Church’s treatment of Bishop Whitsey’s victims//
https:/
For the Church itself, that's the news - not that a bishop was an abuser, which they knew already, but how the Church failed in its own duty.
Both angles are legitimate stories; both contributed to ruining leaves. But those who are still in authority are the ones who now need to be dealt with, before it happens again.
AH, //I maintain my premise that it is more than reasonable that a priest grooming a victim is going to bring both God and the bible into his persuasion//
Find out what acting in the name of God, which is what you claimed these people are doing, means. I’ll give you a clue. It doesn’t mean lying to achieve a purpose.
Find out what acting in the name of God, which is what you claimed these people are doing, means. I’ll give you a clue. It doesn’t mean lying to achieve a purpose.
naomi - AH, //I maintain my premise that it is more than reasonable that a priest grooming a victim is going to bring both God and the bible into his persuasion//
Find out what acting in the name of God, which is what you claimed these people are doing, means. I’ll give you a clue. It doesn’t mean lying to achieve a purpose. //
I know it doesn't mean that, which is a very good reason why I did not say that it did.
I think you are confusing what I said, with the incorrect interpretation you wish to put on it - evidence here -
// You claim to have read the bible so if you think these creatures genuinely believe they are pursuing their vile activities in the name of God, produce the source of their inspiration. //
Once again, I did not say that, because it is not what I think, so I don;t have to 'produce the source of their inspiration' because I have not referred to it - you have, using your imagination to create what is my view, instead of seeing what i have said.
But then, if you are only going to read two lines of any response of mine, it's not surprising that you revert to making things up about what I have said, since clearly you don't read what I actually say.
As for your incorrect assertion about me 'claiming to have read the bible' - how is life as a monkey's uncle, which you say you are not, and then provide evidence to the contrary.
I see we are giving my 'text' point a swerve, I'll just accept that you are doing what you usually do when you are found in error, you simply ignore the fact and move on to what you perceive as safer ground.
Find out what acting in the name of God, which is what you claimed these people are doing, means. I’ll give you a clue. It doesn’t mean lying to achieve a purpose. //
I know it doesn't mean that, which is a very good reason why I did not say that it did.
I think you are confusing what I said, with the incorrect interpretation you wish to put on it - evidence here -
// You claim to have read the bible so if you think these creatures genuinely believe they are pursuing their vile activities in the name of God, produce the source of their inspiration. //
Once again, I did not say that, because it is not what I think, so I don;t have to 'produce the source of their inspiration' because I have not referred to it - you have, using your imagination to create what is my view, instead of seeing what i have said.
But then, if you are only going to read two lines of any response of mine, it's not surprising that you revert to making things up about what I have said, since clearly you don't read what I actually say.
As for your incorrect assertion about me 'claiming to have read the bible' - how is life as a monkey's uncle, which you say you are not, and then provide evidence to the contrary.
I see we are giving my 'text' point a swerve, I'll just accept that you are doing what you usually do when you are found in error, you simply ignore the fact and move on to what you perceive as safer ground.
// //I maintain my premise that it is more than reasonable that a priest grooming a victim is going to bring both God and the bible into his persuasion//
why is this coming up 90th in a thread where the bishop told the novice/acolyte he cd get nearer to god by praying naked
obvious to appeal to a secret of three ( two humans and God) and that God approves - but hey this is AB!
why is this coming up 90th in a thread where the bishop told the novice/acolyte he cd get nearer to god by praying naked
obvious to appeal to a secret of three ( two humans and God) and that God approves - but hey this is AB!
naomi - //
AH, I’ve read all of your posts and I’ve made nothing up.
//As for your incorrect assertion about me 'claiming to have read the bible'//
You have claimed to have read it. //
Still swerving the uncomfrtable truth are you? No change there.
I didn't 'claim' to have read the bible, I stated that I have, and once again, that is something for me to know, and you to accept, because to deny it is to call me a liar.
You state (not claim!) to have read the Koran - who am I to challenge you on the statement?
I am happy to offer you the courtesy of taking you at your word, something you appear unable to reciprocate for reasons of your own, making you, by your own admission - a monkey's uncle.
Have a banana and learn some manners why don't you?
AH, I’ve read all of your posts and I’ve made nothing up.
//As for your incorrect assertion about me 'claiming to have read the bible'//
You have claimed to have read it. //
Still swerving the uncomfrtable truth are you? No change there.
I didn't 'claim' to have read the bible, I stated that I have, and once again, that is something for me to know, and you to accept, because to deny it is to call me a liar.
You state (not claim!) to have read the Koran - who am I to challenge you on the statement?
I am happy to offer you the courtesy of taking you at your word, something you appear unable to reciprocate for reasons of your own, making you, by your own admission - a monkey's uncle.
Have a banana and learn some manners why don't you?
Canary - Of course it is.
I am tired of naomi's superior pontificating about what books I may or may not have read.
She basically calls me a liar, and that is rudeness, and I am happy to respond in kind.
When she answers questions, stops swerving valid points that show she is wrong, and stops questioning my integrity, she will receive the respect she will then have earned.
I am tired of naomi's superior pontificating about what books I may or may not have read.
She basically calls me a liar, and that is rudeness, and I am happy to respond in kind.
When she answers questions, stops swerving valid points that show she is wrong, and stops questioning my integrity, she will receive the respect she will then have earned.
hi mozza! what about
λέγει αὐτῷ ὁ Πειλᾶτος Τί ἐστιν ἀλήθεια;
that is Pontius Pilates in John ( no not sexually in John you naughty boy) 18.38 alth it is er relevant sort of
I see you are still smarting at my joc suggestion that you bite people as a mozzie give them all the death arbovirus wolla wolla disease
λέγει αὐτῷ ὁ Πειλᾶτος Τί ἐστιν ἀλήθεια;
that is Pontius Pilates in John ( no not sexually in John you naughty boy) 18.38 alth it is er relevant sort of
I see you are still smarting at my joc suggestion that you bite people as a mozzie give them all the death arbovirus wolla wolla disease
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles29 mins ago
ChatterBank70 mins ago
ChatterBank76 mins ago
It’s Christmas Eve! What Are We...
ChatterBank83 mins ago
Crosswords86 mins ago
