Pat Regan

Former pupils at St Bede's school to sue Salford Diocese over sexual abuse claims

But what can we deduce about the organisations that are 'alleged' to protect our children?

Lawyers acting for ex-pupils at the Whalley Range School say they suffered a variety of horrors at the hands of priests at the school

Former pupils of a notable Catholic secondary school in south Manchester, who are suing church bosses over sex abuse claims, have spoken of their disgusting experiences. Ex-students of St Bede’s College in Whalley Range say they suffered appalling treatment at the hands of priests at the school.

Traumatic claims from three former pupils, who have bravely relinquished their right to concealment, describe in detail how they suffered at the hands of senior staff. They are amongst a collection of former pupils who are suing the Catholic diocese of Salford, which previously operated the former boy’s school, which is now an independent mixed-sex school.

Full story here…http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/st-bedes-abuse-victims-sue-10787276

The Sub-culture Alternative Freedom Foundation (SAFF) has been monitoring this disconcerting situation closely.

Similar events happened extensively in the U.S. and are still going on there. Such Christian clergy abuse cost the Catholic Church millions. Furthermore, some of the archdioceses have actually gone bankrupt to limit their fiscal liability.

The groundswell of accusations in the U.S. was phenomenal. Thousands of cases and all historic of course, which were all based on the fact that the dioceses covered up the abuse and recycled abusing priests into other churches/areas, wherein many of them re-abused little children. This is why we know that many of the allegations were real; there were documentations and records to prove earlier attempts by victims to expose particular priests. The Church cannot deny those.

Obviously there will be a large percentage of these accusations, which are simply a gravy-train (as was the Savile hysteria) and we await the outcome of the Salford case because if the Church allow it to go to court (we don't think they will for in the U.S. they tried to settle out of court with gagging clauses in the deal to limit public knowledge of the amounts paid) then it will cause a watershed of historic claims and accusations. Cases such as this simply confirm SAFF’s accurate predictions and warnings in the 1991 Black Museum of Priestly Abuse. http://saff.nfshost.com/sickvics.htm

NSPCC refused to help!

Several years ago SAFF tackled the NSPCC after meeting their local director and he refused, point blank, to include priestly abuse as a risk factor in their risk-assessments for children. Is this child care organisation STILL refusing to believe what we have said for years about clergy abuse?

SAFF arranged a meeting about the issue between its representative, Kate Harrigan, and the Director of the NSPCC Gordon Ratcliffe.

SAFF stated at that time…..

Kate is a local council candidate, mother of three,

and owns and runs a nursery - so she knows a thing or two about how to take care of children. A SAFF observer went along to take notes at the meeting which took place in May 1997.

The crux of the meeting was that we wanted the NSPCC to recognise and acknowledge the threat to children from paedophile priests, include it in their leaflets and warn parents.

The notes of the meeting confirm Kate's recollection that Gordon Ratcliffe said he did not agree with the use of the term Clergy Abuse but said he did recognise that some abuse was perpetrated by members of the clergy.

When Kate brought up the matter of the pie-chart (of risk) leaflet the notes of the meeting show that Gordon Ratcliffe was surprised that it was not mentioned and agreed that it it should have been included.

Kate presented a 10 point plan by the SAFF for the NSPCC to follow to counteract the abuse of children by the Clergy. A copy of that Plan is reproduced in the column alongside (see rightmost column) and it is interesting to note that many of the points we warned about have been confirmed as a danger in the Ryan and Murphy reports.

Kate told Ratcliffe that SAFF research had shown that Clergy Abuse is a hidden problem and that sooner or later everyone must recognise it.

According to Kate's recollection and the observer who was present and the notes of the meeting Gordon Ratcliffe was off the opinion that as soon as you categorise priestly abuse thus most people would just turn and walk away.

S.A.F.F. Ten Point Plan

Because of the immediate need for Clergy Abuse against children to be addressed publicly we have compiled a suggested plan to help the NSPCC counteract clergy abuse:

1. The need for NSPCC to highlight Clergy abuse & not lump it in with all other forms of abuse. '

2. The need for the N.S.P.C.C. to bypass the secrecy of church order, so that known abusers are not put back into the system or simply moved on to different unsuspecting, trusting parishes.

3. For clergy abuse to be acknowledged not portrayed as a few minor mistakes that can be rectified by the abuser being 'told off' and moved. A Clergy-Abuse Helpline placed in schools and libraries would be useful.

4) The need for the N.S.P.C.C. to record and indicate for the public, the extent of priestly abuse.

5. A separate file kept for Clergy Abuse so that NSPCC can access fast information if an abuser is put into a new parish. SAFF can provide printed copies of the BLACK MUSEUM II in volume to the NSPCC on a local or national basis on request.

6. A leaflet for children (not given out through church) highlighting the dangers that Stranger Danger can also include paedophile-clergy. Cost would be minimal as this information could be simply added to existing leaflets when they are reprinted.

7. Information on Clergy-Abuse made available to those professionals such ,as Therapists and Carers who provide data to the NSPCC.

8. N.S.P.C.C. method of alerting their staff to the special problems of clergy abuse plus guidelines.

9. A local public campaign for children with the special telephone hotline number enabling them to contact N.S.P.C.C. re. clergy abuse.

10. Urgent need for NSPCC investigation into WHY incidents of clergy abuse exist and is such a huge problem in society.

This is simply a brief framework that can be improved upon once the problem of Clergy-Abuse has been fully acknowledged by the NSPCC.

The notes of the meetings report that Mr Ratcliffe said he would see what could be done but in July 1997 his response became much less constructive when he refused a mutual cooperation agreement on Clergy Abuse which the SAFF had provided to him. Gordon Ratcliffe stated in his letter that 'it was apparent from the meeting that that we had different perspectives.'

Ratcliffe repudiated the notes taken by our Observer during the meeting in respect of the major thrust of there being a much wider problem with paedophile priests who abused children than was currently being acknowledged. He insisted that they not be used as a statement of the NSPCC's position. His whole letter was antagonistic to further debate.

He remonstrated with Kate for 'misusing' a meeting attended in good faith and distanced himself from any cooperation with the SAFF or PAN ending with the expedient statement

'In the circumstances I do not know how we might take this matter forward'.

Effectively then the NSPCC was alerted to the hidden epidemic of Priestly Abuse 12 years ago and was provided with time-tested research to prove it, but chose not to respond constructively or work with us on the priestly threat to children which we had identified.

Their pie-chart of risk was NOT amended to include Priestly Abuse.

Further investigation or talks were NOT undertaken with the SAFF.

The SAFF's Ten-Point Plan to protect children from paedophile Priests was NOT accepted.

Well, not quite FULL stop perhaps.

If the NSPCC's fund-raising slogans are going to be anything other than jingoistic PR statements they should at least apply to ALL abuses of children surely?

As the thousands of victims in Ireland found out, authorities who are part of the Establishment have a tendency to defer to the power of the Christian Churches.

You can see their point. The bedrock of public donations to the NSPCC come from good nominal Christians. Many of their volunteer workers come from Christian backgrounds. Some people at the top of the NSPCC are committed Christians.

We are not tarring ALL priests and clergymen with the suspicion of child abuse. It is undeniable that the vast majority of priests are honourable and good men. We are drawing attention here to the fact that a serious threat exists from paedophile priests within the churches and they should get their act together and sort it. The church is no stranger to pogroms. In the sixteenth century they massacred tens of thousands of Huguenots and other dissenters for such slight differences in theology as would go un-noticed today. A blitz on paedophile priests would be an easy move for them. Indeed the current Pope spent many years as head of the Holy Inquisition (yes it still exists!) so knows just how to do it and what it can achieve.

The Church has the experience and the organisational capacity to ferret out evil paedophiles and put a stop to this suffering in short order. But it apparently won't. Perhaps because of the crippling claims for damages that would ensue. Perhaps because they feel if the truth came out they would lose millions of their faithful.

And so they resist, and it is destroying them little by little because more and more the public are beginning to conclude that they don't practice what they preach and that maybe so many priests are guilty that the church would collapse if they were all brought to book and this is the reason why the Vatican will not take a grip on it. In such a case it is up to the 'independent' NGOs like the NSPCC to take charge of the problem and use their influence to press the churches, and the government to take action to stop it. To full stop it. But the NSPCC won't even admit Clergy Abuse exists!

Like the Archbishops before them, the NSPCC is in a state of denial.

They are still insisting that child abuse by priests is an occasional aberration when the overwhelming incontrovertible evidence proves that it is not an aberration but a systematic generic form of repetitive abuse perpetrated over long periods of time by priest-rings within a secret society which is a law unto itself and which is intent on hiding these crimes at all costs even if it means more children are abused in the process.