More Church sponsored Child Abuse

[Tao_Equus]

BBC NEWS | UK | Sedation 'link to birth defects'

Yes yet another scandalous abuse of children in the care of a religious group.
Given that this kind of horror, child sex abuse, physical abuse, child enslavement and more seem to be so common within religious groups can we conclude that there is something within religious establishments that leads to such inhumanity? I think so. It happens so often it cannot be coincidence. We cannot entrust the care of the vulnerable to the religious. It is happening still at the other end of the spectrum too, in the care of the elderly in church 'care' homes. Here in Scotland church care homes are a growing industry and as the Church of Scotland is thoroughly infiltrated by ex jailbirds and outright crooks we could ask ourselves why are they investing in those that potentially have a lifetimes worth of savings. Same reason any preacher pays so much attention to the elderly in his flock is my guess.

 

[nativeastral]

o dont get me started Tao; doesnt restrict to church run places either. l think privatisation of such establishments run on profit and not the welfare of those being in care, old or young, despicable. Any wonder trust is gone? l know of folk my age brought up and abused in a convent care home still coming to grips in their 40's and obviously affecting their primary relationships. What can be done when resources are being slashed right left and centre- more money seems to go to keeping the roses pretty at roadsides than care of vulnerable people.

 

[Thomas]

Yes yet another scandalous abuse of children in the care of a religious group. Given that this kind of horror, child sex abuse, physical abuse, child enslavement and more seem to be so common within religious groups can we conclude that there is something within religious establishments that leads to such inhumanity? I think so.

Well you'd be wrong, I'm afraid, and simply because you're not looking for the same data from secular organisations.

At the top of road where I live is the site of the infamous Colney Hatch, just one of many mental hospitals set up in the Victorian era. I assume it's no better nor worse than its fellows, and yet the stories of abuse within its walls are many.

In here, whilst I lived less than half a mile away, women in their fifties had been incarcerated and institutionalised for getting pregnant outside of wedlock. We know one doctor now in his 80s, who served there as a young man, and still cannot stand to look at the place.

The treatment of the sick, the disturbed and the social outcast reflects contemporary social mores ...

... what is more disturbing is that in England, up to a decade or so ago, the majority of the prison population was Afro-Carribean ... now the numbers have altered and those of an Islamic background are fast forming the majority.

Does this mean Afro-Carribeans have turned away from crime, that Moslems have turned towards crime ... or that white middle class society is now more frightened of Moslem men than black men?

This point was raised by a psychiatrist on BBC Radio 4, in a serious discussion programme, and he added that his own profession is being obliged to look at itself seriously as unconsciously complicit in the abuse of those who are alien by virtue of their colour or creed.

If your only interest is church-bashing, then feel free, but you are beginning to sound like a scratched record (or is it a stuck CD? frozen DVD ... ?)

If you're actually interested in social justice for real, then I suggest there are many current injustices which would benefit from your attention, rather than reviewing (even recent) historical ones solely in pursuit of an anti-religious agenda.

Thomas

 

[path_of_one]

More or less all the people I've known who were institutionalized through the foster care/group home, Juvie, and other state-run systems also were abused.

And a lot of elderly and disabled folks in secular group homes are abused. My own dear uncle who is severely disabled had his leg broken. The guy was fired, but the damage was done. My uncle stayed at home with my grandmother until she could no longer physically care for him, and meanwhile my father (the oldest of her children) is still 15 years away from retirement. He requires full-time care. We tried to get an in-home care person, but could not find one that was affordable and available round the clock. Such care is beyond the reach of a middle-class family, even a well-provisioned one. This is the crux of the matter- we know that vulnerable people are typically best off with their families and not with strangers, but it is generally impossible for the middle class to provide extremely long-care options this way. We all have to work, we have kids, etc. While the elderly patients are easier to work with in terms of temporary care in the family, because they are dying, it is far, far more difficult to place the disabled- be they mentally, physically, or otherwise disabled. My uncle is in his fifties and has been severely disabled since the age of 10. We had neither the money nor the physical capacity to care for him once my grandmother became more fragile, we found the best home we possibly could, and he is checked on weekly. What else could we do? It breaks one's heart.

The problem is that these jobs pay poorly, and they are desperate to have warm bodies to do them. So they hire people who should never work with vulnerable populations. It has not much to do with religion, I think.

We somehow see it fit to pay athletes and actors millions, but in privatizing child care, elder and disabled care, and so forth... we ensure that these difficult jobs will also be paying people as little as possible. I am not sure there is an answer. The state-based systems the US used to have were awful, and places like Juvie are still awful.

It may be there is just a sheer lack of people who can care for people without becoming abusive. It's a very psychologically demanding job and I wouldn't doubt could cause people to snap.

The best scenario is generally to have care given by extended family groups, but without restructuring the economy so that family can all live/work in a single area (not currently the case), that remains an impossibility.

 

[Nick_A]

Child abuse is just another multi cultural delight.

 

[Francis king]

a multi-cultural delight? not the best choice of words there, Nick A...

 

[Tao_Equus]

What can be done when resources are being slashed right left and centre- more money seems to go to keeping the roses pretty at roadsides than care of vulnerable people.

And bankers in their £million pensions....

Thomas,

You are of course correct. Such abuses of power are not confined to religiously aligned establishments. But irrespective of that the sheer number of times religiously run institutions have been found to perpetrate these heinous crimes shows very clearly that those of a religious bent are not free of sadism and that religion can claim no moral superiority.

PoO,

It is an incredibly difficult issue. Even within family abuse of the vulnerable is common. Most child abuse is carried out by a relative or close family friend.

 

[Thomas]

You are of course correct. Such abuses of power are not confined to religiously aligned establishments. But irrespective of that the sheer number of times religiously run institutions have been found to perpetrate these heinous crimes shows very clearly that those of a religious bent are not free of sadism and that religion can claim no moral superiority.

Over what, secular culture?

Oh, I think it can. The great religions, when they function as they should, provide a hope for millions that secular culture cannot aspire to. That you think that hope is misguided is purely an opinion and counts for nothing. Hope itself counts for everything ... and if you took that hope away, there's nothing you can replace it with, a crime not far off the type you so despise.

And again, the sheer magnitude of secular crime — and many and often it is secularism under the guise of religion when we're talking big numbers — leaves religion in the shade, so by your own argument, the best you can do is pipe down before people start calling you hypocrite.

Thomas

 

[Tao_Equus]

Over what, secular culture?

Oh, I think it can. The great religions, when they function as they should, provide a hope for millions that secular culture cannot aspire to. That you think that hope is misguided is purely an opinion and counts for nothing. Hope itself counts for everything ... and if you took that hope away, there's nothing you can replace it with, a crime not far off the type you so despise.

And again, the sheer magnitude of secular crime — and many and often it is secularism under the guise of religion when we're talking big numbers — leaves religion in the shade, so by your own argument, the best you can do is pipe down before people start calling you hypocrite.

Thomas

I burst out laughing reading this. Pipe down? Pipe down or what? Have my tongue cut out? Have me burned for heresy?

How can I be called a hypocrite when I have never and will never lend my support to any ideology, religious or political, that justifies mass murder? You see you, and others here, keep trying to tar me with an imposition of your making, not mine. Why? Because without attaching to me some gross injustice you have no other argument. But lets examine that. It actually states that your only 'saving grace' is that other ideologies have also committed terrible crimes. What kind of sad excuse is that? It is a childish, petty and fraudulent logic.

The CC has more blood on its hands than any other religion. In the British Isles it has a history of abuse of children and the vulnerable and of enslavement that leaves every other institution in the shadows. But I should 'pipe down'. Let the CC get on with its conspiracy of silence and denial. You have yet to privilege us with your opinion on CC collusion with Nazi Germany (and you have the cheek to attempt to link my views to the crimes of your church!!) and no doubt you will similarly avoid engaging with me on the Rwandan genocide. I know why. Because it is CC POLICY not to comment on them.

The Pope Ratzinger was a card carrying Nazi, was instrumental in the Vatican policy to cover up child abuse by catholic priests and has managed to insult just about every religion since taking office. He punts blatant lies regarding condoms condemning people to aids and has such a sick and twisted sense of morality that he should not be allowed to lead himself never mind a global institution. And you lecture me on morality!! Sorry Thomas, but you do not have the moral authority to do that. When you come here and take snide swipes at rationalists like me with arguments that are so full of holes they should be called collanders at least have the courage to engage in honest debate. But you cannot, can you? You are on that long noose from Rome and are not allowed freedom to debate the FACTS.

When I see a religion that "functions" with the morality I would like to see then I will applaud it. But I have never seen one and neither have you. My kind of mindset does not lead to anarchy and the breakdown of humanity and to imply that it does is nothing but one of your many red herrings. It is the secularisation of Europe and the removal of religion from politics that has over the past century led to the freedoms you take for granted and the progress in all areas of technology and social improvement. If Rome was still at the helm we would be very likely living in an utterly fascist hell. After all, that is its history.

 

[kiwimac]

Perhaps the following was overlooked in your desire to attack?

"...Mike Lindsay, national co-ordinator for the Children's Rights Alliance for England, said: "Using drugs to control the behaviour of children was perfectly acceptable as far as their own professional understanding at that time went.".."

You cannot fault people for doing THEN what we know to be wrong / mis-informed NOW.

And again from the article linked to your OP:

"...A former member of staff contacted by the Today programme said the home was dedicated to helping residents, but some disturbed children had to be restrained for their own good. She added that while personally unhappy at the use of drugs, staff had been acting under the orders of a consultant psychiatrist..."

SO maybe, just maybe this is not 'teh ebil christians' after all?

 

[Tao_Equus]

Perhaps the following was overlooked in your desire to attack?

"...Mike Lindsay, national co-ordinator for the Children's Rights Alliance for England, said: "Using drugs to control the behaviour of children was perfectly acceptable as far as their own professional understanding at that time went.".."

You cannot fault people for doing THEN what we know to be wrong / mis-informed NOW.

And again from the article linked to your OP:

"...A former member of staff contacted by the Today programme said the home was dedicated to helping residents, but some disturbed children had to be restrained for their own good. She added that while personally unhappy at the use of drugs, staff had been acting under the orders of a consultant psychiatrist..."

SO maybe, just maybe this is not 'teh ebil christians' after all?

But that is not true across the board, indeed that kind of thinking is 'unique' to the religiously run establishments. How do I know? Because I just got off the phone to my mother to check. My mother worked for 17 years with the social work department in the care of children here in Edinburgh at a place called Howdenhall. And later went into the administration of child care facilities at Shrub House. In state care, such as Howdenhall drugs were never used to subdue children. What you quote is a crass and pathetic excuse and no more. The fact that religious establishments are time and time again shown to have used the whole range of outrageous approaches to child 'care', including torture, starvation, isolation and drugs is because the people who are attracted to 'serve' in such institutions are the sick dogmatists least suited to the demands of such work. The pathetic excuses above show only that they are unwilling to take responsibility for their actions. I think each and every one should be hunted down and imprisoned.

 

[Francis king]

In the late seventies and early eighties it was acceptable to give disturbed children sedatives. I myself was a care home child of the 1980's, and while I and the majority of my peers were never treated in this manner, other children did receive such treatment and did discuss it with the rest of us.

In care, adults threatened you with the "lock-up"- basically, if your behaviour could not be managed simply, or you misbehaved too much and became too unruly, or if you became involved in crime and were sent there by the courts, you would end up in a "lock-up". These lock-ups were not in the main managed by charities or churches- they were run by Local Authorities.

Basically, a jail for children who, in the majority, have committed no crime worthy of locking them up- the state simply doesn't know what to do with them. The State cannot control them. These are children who, in the main, are already "looked after" by the Local Authority. Most of them will be on "care orders". They don't get much care. These are usually abused children, vulnerable, passed around, children nobody takes much notice of- they get abused at home, go into care, get abused there, it warps them, and they become drug addicts at 15, they're in jail at 21 and dead by 40. These are the kids with conduct and personality disorders, and trust issues, and difficulty relating to others, and instead of accepting it for what it is we pathologise it instead, further dis-abling them.

You wake up at 15, supposedly with the world at your feet, but... where the ground should be lies a big black hole. You've been given away by your own family, unloved and neglected, and so far you have been treated like crap by most of the people you have met. You matter nothing to nobody. You make bonds with "staff" who leave, social workers who care nothing for you, and your emotional compass is awry. You have been bullied at school due to your situation, so haven't made many friends, no adults have bothered to take an interest in your education, so you will leave school early. College is not an option for you, as you're a poor deprived child with all the emotional baggage that entails, and you've already tried school and don't see college being different. There are no social networks you can exploit to get your first foot on the job ladder, next year they will kick you out of the only home you've ever known and you will be signing on and geting welfare, of 45 pound per week. You will live in a flat which you cannot afford to heat or furnish, you cannot afford to buy clothes or get your hair done or go to music festivals. You don't have an i-pod, and a home recording studio. You have nothing. Each year you stay on welfare the situation becomes worse and your job prospects become smaller each time.

Today we still have "unruly" children the State cannot control. Instead of giving them sedatives we're giving them anti-psychotics instead. Or amphetamines. Depending on their diagnoses. We still have "lock-ups" where we stick all the children who we cannot control.

It's not just a catholic issue, is it?

I lived in state run homes- peado's did get jobs. They worked for the government. Where they secret catholics? I do not know, but I know they didn't come from my parish...

 

[path_of_one]

Francis, I just wanted to say that it was heart-breaking to read about that, but I thank you deeply for being willing to stand up and say it.

 

[Tao_Equus]

In the late seventies and early eighties it was acceptable to give disturbed children sedatives. I myself was a care home child of the 1980's, and while I and the majority of my peers were never treated in this manner, other children did receive such treatment and did discuss it with the rest of us.

In care, adults threatened you with the "lock-up"- basically, if your behaviour could not be managed simply, or you misbehaved too much and became too unruly, or if you became involved in crime and were sent there by the courts, you would end up in a "lock-up". These lock-ups were not in the main managed by charities or churches- they were run by Local Authorities.

Basically, a jail for children who, in the majority, have committed no crime worthy of locking them up- the state simply doesn't know what to do with them. The State cannot control them. These are children who, in the main, are already "looked after" by the Local Authority. Most of them will be on "care orders". They don't get much care. These are usually abused children, vulnerable, passed around, children nobody takes much notice of- they get abused at home, go into care, get abused there, it warps them, and they become drug addicts at 15, they're in jail at 21 and dead by 40. These are the kids with conduct and personality disorders, and trust issues, and difficulty relating to others, and instead of accepting it for what it is we pathologise it instead, further dis-abling them.

You wake up at 15, supposedly with the world at your feet, but... where the ground should be lies a big black hole. You've been given away by your own family, unloved and neglected, and so far you have been treated like crap by most of the people you have met. You matter nothing to nobody. You make bonds with "staff" who leave, social workers who care nothing for you, and your emotional compass is awry. You have been bullied at school due to your situation, so haven't made many friends, no adults have bothered to take an interest in your education, so you will leave school early. College is not an option for you, as you're a poor deprived child with all the emotional baggage that entails, and you've already tried school and don't see college being different. There are no social networks you can exploit to get your first foot on the job ladder, next year they will kick you out of the only home you've ever known and you will be signing on and geting welfare, of 45 pound per week. You will live in a flat which you cannot afford to heat or furnish, you cannot afford to buy clothes or get your hair done or go to music festivals. You don't have an i-pod, and a home recording studio. You have nothing. Each year you stay on welfare the situation becomes worse and your job prospects become smaller each time.

Today we still have "unruly" children the State cannot control. Instead of giving them sedatives we're giving them anti-psychotics instead. Or amphetamines. Depending on their diagnoses. We still have "lock-ups" where we stick all the children who we cannot control.

It's not just a catholic issue, is it?

I lived in state run homes- peado's did get jobs. They worked for the government. Where they secret catholics? I do not know, but I know they didn't come from my parish...

What a perfect yet heart rending picture you paint there. Perfect, as in the sense of perfectly accurate as to the UK state care system.

This has come up before on older threads. Unlike you Francis I was not as unfortunate as to find myself in the care system but with my mothers job, (Howdenhall was an "assessment centre" where all kids entering the care system were taken for a 6 week assessment prior to placement within the care system), and several children's homes within my school catchment I got a pretty good look at the system. You do describe it as accurately as I have ever seen.

Two ex 'colleagues' of my mum's have been jailed for sexual abuse. I know one of the victims personally and her story is as you describe. She entered the care system because her father did the same. Her father was also her grandfather*. Her pain is unbearable to her. She is now crippled from a suicide attempt. It has not been the only attempt.

For systematic, sustained "cruel and unusuall" approach to care however was by the sisters of Nazereth House in Colinton. Their idea of Christian love was to beat, starve and lock in cupboards sometimes for days. I was (meant to be) at secondary school from 1978-1982 so only a little before you I think.

I never ever heard of drugs being used outside of secure psychiatric facilities however. The assessment centre did have a secure wing where lock down took place. It was a deeply flawed institution though where good kids had to endure the terror of losing their families alongside serially bad youths already fully committed to recidivism. If they were not lucky in getting good foster care quickly even the kids with the highest potential in time became repeat visitors. It was very sad. No kid that I knew, and I knew 'quite well' dozens of kids who went through the system, ever mentioned being drugged. But then again I do not believe I ever asked.



* Incredibly, this took place in Scotland Street, home of the "Scotland Street" novels by Alexander McCall Smith, (also No1 Ladies detective series). The Scotland Street books are about the different characters living on Scotland Street yet he never knew the actual horror that really lay there.