Rev Canon Charles Richardson

[Mick Mac]

Robert Poste's Child Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Didn't the letter say the Bishop is going to St

> John's this Sunday to speak with the congregation?

> Perhaps it would be best to tell him how you feel

> in person before publishing it on social media.

I don't think the church have earned that right RPC. This action by the bishop is much too late and in reaction to the backlash, that they played a role in creating by allowing people to openly grieve for who they thought was a wholly good man without giving the relevant information about the reason behind his death. It's the fact that they choose the route of silence and cover up that social media has been the forum for debate. That's their own fault.

[JohnL]

Robert Poste's Child Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I would agree about openness, but I'm uneasy about

> the extremely judgemental venting and that it may

> be increasing the suffering of others, both in the

> congregation and in his family. Whipping up hatred

> and distrust will make it even harder for the

> church to work through this and a lot of good may

> be lost in the process.

When I heard the Glitter trial - realized I could not have

given him a fair trial - would have asked to leave the jury

Maybe judge only trials for some of these cases.

[Mick Mac]

That's a lawyer talking I'd guess.

[peckhamside]

Distressing all round, je-suis concerned, do you think some of the anger that rightly should be directed at Fa Richardson has been redirected to the diocise?

1. Presumably nothing could be made public before charge, and even then care needed not to prejudice criminal process.

2. Letter states actions were overseen by the C of E national body for safeguarding.

3. You may be right in thinking the Church could have said more following his death, can you find any examples of cases where the 'employer' has made a statement prior to inquest unless the service users have been involved in the enquiry?

4. There are probably many users of child abuse images and sexual offenders, caught or not, living in E.D. I read Police are only persuing people in public positions from this sting!

[je-suis-concerned]

double post correction.

[je-suis-concerned]

Peckhamside

1) The diocese celebrated his 'life as a vicar'.... This is is a paedophile masquerading as a vicar. Totally nuts given what they knew. Seriously. Who was advising them?

2) The story is only out because of the press. Otherwise they'd still be covering up and presumably pretending he was a saint. My guess is they knew the story was about to break so tried to clumsily brush it under the banner of 'safeguarding' without telling people what he'd actually done.

3) Not sure what your point is on high profile. The police have been slow in dealing with the info. But I hope you aren't suggesting he has been victimised over lower profile perverts? There are many countries involved in this investigation so can't know for sure if they've only targeted 'high profile' only.

4) He was dead. Case closes at this point. They could have mentioned any of this from November 21st when he died.

Seriously.... why are people trying to avoid the issue?

[Loz]

je-suis-concerned Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Seriously.... why are people trying to avoid the issue?

I'm still trying to work out what you are trying to achieve by all this.

[JohnL]

je-suis-concerned Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

>

> 3) Not sure what your point is on high profile.

> The police have been slow in dealing with the

> info. But I hope you aren't suggesting he has

> been victimised over lower profile perverts? There

> are many countries involved in this investigation

> so can't know for sure if they've only targeted

> 'high profile' only.

Not lower profile as I read it - but those with access to children

were targeted - others may never be prosecuted as website was described as

below prosecution level initially.

"The nudity-only nature of the Azov Films material caused it to be classified

in the U.K. as level 1 on the COPINE scale for rating images of children, i.e.

, generally beneath the threshold of legal interest."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_International_child_pornography_investigation

The police used the number 50,000 people in the scenario for Operation Spade.

[Nikki66]

Hi everyone, I have been reading all the posts about rev Charles Richardson. he is my cousin & I was completely in the dark about any of this, he & one of his brothers were regular visitors & he had a very happy childhood we as a family feel totally let down by him, I was so very proud of him but now I feel very ashamed . the church said he had taken a step back well it wasn't far enough back, he should have completely removed himself, what he has done is an unforgivable crime. I would never have thought him capable of this but obviously I was wrong, weather he has done anything more we may never know, but I am glad this is out in the open why should he hide behind his dog collar any longer.

[Earl Aelfheah]

Nikki66 - I feel for you and your family, it must be really difficult to come to terms with something like this. Thoughts are with you.

[Chick]

Dont beat your self up. Hate the sin etc.

[peckhamside]

Thanks John L, I did mean public position with access to children. I can see the main point about 'celebrating' the life of someone with feet of clay. However point of information- he was a vicar, not masquerading. lesson has to be we cannot judge (or trust) people according to their position? it may be just that papers only report these cases but historically faith groups, public schools and at the other end of the spectrum public care homes seem to have been higher risk areas.

[Salsaboy]

This sounds like the sort of story Private Eye would be interested in. Church cover up over known paedo vicar.

[PiusMws]

I think the posts miss the safeguarding issue here. Of course legally people are innocent until proven guilty, but the church and head teacher of the school knew of the circumstances of the police investigations into Fr Charles and have done nothing to open up discussion with young people or their parents to ensure the possible abuse issues are brought out. Indeed we have met a wall of silence for most of the time following his suspension from ministry and have been patronised with sermons about patience and silence. The facts are this man hid a guilty secret and for all we know the indecent material on his computer was the tip of the iceberg. He went on holiday to Thailand, a place known for child prostituion. Was anybody else inovovled in this? Are the people telling us to keep quiet hiding secrets? No victims are likely to come forward if we don't allow a safe space for them to talk openly. If parents in the congregation loved the man and wish to think well of him, fine for themselves, but lauding the man in front of their children would send the wrong message to their children if they were victims. It would be saying, please don't tell me anything bad happened. And so the victim, abused and vulnerable is silenced yet again. Believe me, it is very difficult for young people to open up about sexual abuse and we need support systems in place. This is why sexual abuse victims often don't come forward until later on in adulthood. Meanwhile we could have victims suffering in slience.

[peckhamside]

I am concerned you are so troubled by this. can I suggest any troubled victims, of whatever age, ring Childline who can refer for proffessional support.

[je-suis-concerned]

I'm concerned by the lack of leadership in the church on this.

They seem hopeless. According to the Bishop no victims in ED. Based on his handling so far I have no confidence in that statement. How does he know?

[Robert Poste's Child]

Why don't you get together with other concerned members of the congregation and write to him demanding an explanation? I fear that unless you take a direct, active approach the evasive behaviour is likely to continue. They're probably being advised to do that by their lawyers and PR in the interests of damage limitation, but you are stakeholders and have a right to ask questions.

[PiusMws]

As you say, professional support is what is needed, peckhamside. Parents need to be empowered and feel supported. Children need to be spoken to and that will vary according to age and the level of contact. No stone should be unturned to get to the truth and ensure all are supported. And I agree with je-suis-concerned, why would anybody trust what the Bishop says? Good idea RPC, we need to club to together in the congregation and make representations about our concerns. It's time for evasion and equivocation to end.

[peckhamside]

Clearly he cannot know. however he will have been advised by the Police, local authority and the Church proffessional advisers. Caution is needed with so called 'fishing expeditions'

[keekybreeks]

dont wanto ingnite this subject, but SJ&C are organising a public forum with a copper from the investigation next week- if you have any Q or concerns , then may be worthwhile going along

ETA, this is likely to be awash with Mail filth given their surprisingly timely doorstepping activities when Fr CR was removed from his position last year.

[speedbird]

http://www.dover-express.co.uk/Police-slammed-paedo-vicar-threw-Dover-cliffs/story-25956711-detail/story.html

Seems the case rears its ugly head again this month

[cn150]

I've recently heard what happened to Fr Charles - obviously it was wrong that he downloaded and stored the videos, however I do feel very sad that he was so despondent he killed himself. I used to attend the children's services attend at St John's with my family - Fr Charles was always very friendly and approachable.

I hope he has found some peace at rest now.

[Otta]

Wow, I'd never clicked on this thread until today, and wish I never had.

Just a couple of observations, and excuse me if I've missed something.

I'm not one for defending the church, but all the talk of cover ups is a bit dramatic being as

1. You don't know what they knew.

2. You don't know what they were allowed to say.

Now in my opinion if you obtain a video of child abuse, you share some of the responsibility for that abuse. But (for ME) there is a big fat line between that and actually doing the abusing. Bothered messed up and wrong, but I still think there needs to be a division.

Finally, whether or not the poster claiming to be his cousin is actually his cousin, I take with a pinch of salt their claim that he had a lovely happy childhood, because you don't even necessarily know that if you're living in the same home as an abused sibling. A cousin wouldn't know.

Anyway, all very grim, and quite sad to see the home counties pitchfork Daily Mailesque posts from some on here.

[Jeremy]

Surely if you're paying for a video you are funding abuse. You have to take a share of blame for the next victim. If this makes me a home counties pitchfork Daily Mailesque type then so be it.

Well yes I guess he has found a sort of peace seeing as he's, you know, dead. Shame he took the easy way out instead of facing his punishment.

[Otta]

Jeremy Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Surely if you're paying for a video you are

> funding abuse. You have to take a share of blame

> for the next victim. If this makes me a home

> counties pitchfork Daily Mailesque type then so be

> it.

???

Otta Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

>

> Now in my opinion if you obtain a video of child

> abuse, you share some of the responsibility for

> that abuse.