AIBU to think a vicar accused of sexual assault shouldn't be visiting schools?

[AnnieLobeseder]

I've just read our school newsletter, and it says that the local vicar, who hasn't been visiting in a while because of a disciplinary injunction, will be coming back at some point soon. I knew nothing about this so Googled him, and it turns out this "injunction" was a charge of sexual assault by a local teen, and that while he hasn't admitted guilt on that, he did admit to failing to follow child protection policy.

I'm absolutely gobsmacked that the school think it's okay to have him working with children.

I'm very much opposed to visits by religious people anyway, but this really has me raging.

I've written to the school telling then I don't want this man anywhere near my children.

Of course there is the possibility that he's innocent. But why take the risk? Surely it's no huge detriment to his career if he doesn't visit schools anymore?

i don't think anyone wants him to be treated as if he were guilty but we also know that just because he was not charged and convicted does not mean he is innocent, and when it comes to our own children we have an extremely strong desire to protect them so in such cases most parents instinct is to be cautious.

I have every sensitivity to the issue. I do not thing the accusations should be taken lightly. I know nothing about the case. But would the OP like the route that everyone that was ever accused must be guilty and treated as such? What about the number of malicious allegations made against teachers each year? One accused, investigated and acquitted should they then be banned from teaching?

Soup, what would you do if it were your children? As I have said, it's a difficult situation because while I don't want to see something held against someone long term if they are in fact innocent, if it comes down to upholding justice or protecting my children, it's a no-brainer as to what I will do. I'm sorry if his reputation is ruined, but I will keep my children safe first and foremost.

And I'm not, as someone said, putting together a lynch mob or demanding the school not let him in, just quietly keeping my own children away from him.

This is exactly the type of scenario that makes me think there needs to be something between "guilty" and "not guilty". I'm almost tempted to suggest a lie detector, which obviously has its own problems, but could add a "probably guilty, but not definite enough to convict"?

People are very divided in either believing most victims are lying or most accused are, and theres no way of finding the complete truth from it.

IYSWIM?

Loa you don't need to tell me about the CPS. I was raped by a teacher as a teenager and not believed by the school who covered it up and it was not inestigated. It was only investigated by police when I reported it years later and they uncovered all the evidence of the cover up. He was charged and it went to court, only for him to be found not guilty because I was too suicidal to give evidence.

I know rapes go in convicted and guilty men walk free. I also know that the every one person who makes a false allegation means that many more like me are not believed when they should be and that enrages me. But I also trust the police to investigate things properly as to refer to CPS where appropriate.

And I am also careful in trying not to allow my experiences to cloud my judgement to the point where I see every man as a predator.

If the police have found no evidence, physical or otherwise, if there is no history or hearsay or previous concerns, ten I don't find it beyond comprehension that this was aalicious allegation, in which case the vicar involved will hae gone through a horrendous ordeal and forever be followed by whispers behind his back which is wrong.

Ithinkyouare confusing two separate issues here

1. Your annoyance with the school that they teach their own religious /philospohical beliefs and not yours, even though you knew that when you chose the school

2.your belief that everyone accused of a sexual crime ( or is it any crime at all ? ) shoudl be seen as guilty, ( forever? ) even though they have never been charged or convicted

Um, no Kristina, I don't think I am.

And may I point out that as a village-dweller there was no choice other than a CofE school unless we went private.

And no I don't think everyone accused of a sexual crime should be seen as guilty, but given the shockingly low stats on conviction, I reserve the right to be cautious of them.

I'm simply annoyed on two counts. Firstly that the school allows religious people in to teach their brand of religion to impressionable children as if it were fact, and secondly that they just expect parents to be happy about what happened with this particular man with no provision put in place for parents who are (understandably) nervous about him. No confusion between the two issues, just a compounding of the two.

If the vicar NJ longer went in to te school a lay reader from the church or a vicar from a neighbouring parish would likely do so instead. YABU to expect a church school to not have religious aspects. It's most likely only assemblies anyway?

To reassure yourself OP why don't you ask what the vicar will be doing with the children. Then it doesn't come across to the school that you are assuming the man's guilt and starting a witch hunt.

In my school he comes to lead an occasional assembly (300+ children and 10+ staff all present) or gives some input in an RE lesson (e.g. demonstrating on doll how baptisms take place in Christianity) with 30 children and teachers/TAs present. He is never without a member of staff (he's not that good at behaviour management and we wouldn't inflict that on him!) and he is never alone with a child. What do you think is his role within the school that concerns you with regard to putting your child at risk from him?

If you are unhappy with the teaching of RE or the fact that the school has a Christian assembly (as required by law in every school) you are quite within your rights to withdraw your child from these.

Allowing himself to be alone in the same room as an underage person is all that would be needed to 'breach child protection policy', that could easily happen if someone were to ask you for help, sometimes adults aren't as paranoid as they need to be in this day and age.

Anybody could be falsely accused, there are a lot of malicious people, disturbed attention seekers, compulsive liars that are a danger to anyone unfortunate enough to be on the receiving end of their attentions.

There was no evidence to charge him, the community are rallying around him because they know him and believe he is innocent. The probably know his accuser too. Local opinion is formed based on what we know personally of the people involved, if the parents love him and can't wait to have him back to teach their children, that says a lot.

You seem more offended by the fact that he is a religious figure than him being accused of sexual assault, you want to believe the worst of him because he represents what you hate.

The communities judgement is based on what they know of his character and history, ditto for his accuser too. You're judgement is based purely on religious hate, yabu.

zaty agree 100%

I agree that the most likely 'breach of policy' was simply being alone with the child. The vicar absolutely should not have done that. The policy is there to protect him as much as the child in this context. I think it's very sad that, in the eyes of OP, this can never be an innocent man AND it's his faith which makes him so much a target for her anger.

Religious hate? That's a bit strong. I don't "hate" anyone for their religion. Sheesh, over-interpret much?

The way you talk about your views on religion in schools does make it look as though you've got the two connected in your mind, else why bring up something irrelevant to the accusation?

And you're pretty black and white about it, even though as another poster said you chose this school for your DC.

This is a tough one. I think an accusation like this is likely to show up on an enhanced CRB check isn't it? So would probably be reasonable grounds not to give someone a job working with children.

I would contact the school to ask what procedures are going to be in place to safeguard children while the vicar is on school property.

'We're not Christian and I hate the fact that a) religious state schools exist and b) I have no choice but to send my children to one'

'I'm very much opposed to visits by religious people anyway, but this really has me raging.'

OP - these two comments really don't read too well. Supplement the name of a religion - any religion- for the 'religious' in the above sentences and it's not a pretty read. I am pleased you don't feel hate for religious people. That being so I would urge you to choose your words more carefully.

In relation to this particular case - you are ranking what you've googled over and above what people who know this person have said. Do you think that's the best way to form a judgement?

I don't see what is wrong with what the OP has said. What is wrong with objecting to religious state schools, or religious people coming into schools? Plenty of people think religion should be a private thing and has no place in state schools.

Sigh. As I have already said....

a) There are no schools in this area which are NOT religious, so "choosing" to send my children here was hardly a real choice in terms of the religious aspect.
b) I brought up my opinion of religion in schools because apart from his position as a religious figure, there's no reason for him to be in the school anyway. So I see his visits as pointless with or without the accusations against him.

Is it really so bizarre that I have two reasons not to want him in the school rather than one? Either reason would be enough alone, but I see no reason to separate the two since they both exist.

Religious hate? Let me give you...

Residential schools

Catholic Church abuse

Home Children

Magdalene asylums

Off the top of my head. The hate looks one-way in these cases. Giving anyone 'special' status because of their position as a religious person has resulted in child abusers seeking out these positions. It's not that religious people are abusers but abusers choose to be in positions where they are less likely to be challenged and have access to children.

There are no schools in this area which are NOT religious so "choosing" to send my children here was hardly a real choice in terms of the religious aspect.

So bloody well home educate them, then !!!! and stop moaning about religion being taught at a Christian school.

Northenlurker, what I found on Google were local news articles, so not just rumour, but actual reports on the case, giving details of the outcome etc. Perhaps people do think they know him, but the fact remains he was arrested, the accusation was made. As such, I don't judge him as guilty, but there is enough doubt in my mind that I would prefer him to stay away from my children. Unfair? Probably. But there it is.

And yes, I hate that state schools are often religious, for many reasons. I don't hate religion itself unless people are doing awful things in the name of religion, but I believe absolutely in separation of church and state.

Why would you supplement the name of "any religion" into my statements? It's a blanket statement covering all religion, including my own. I'm Jewish, but I don't think the state should be funding Jewish schools either. If people want one, they can go private.

Oh FFS, FlapJack, yes, of course, why didn't I think of that. I'll give up my career, we'll live in cardboard boxes for this HE to happen but at least my children won't be exposed to religion.

I'm hardly unique in my distaste for religion being so tied up in the UK education system when we are for all other extents and purposes a very secular country.

Nothing wrong with objecting to religion in schools hetti, but it doesn't have anything to do with judging whether there's any truth to an accusation of sexual assault.

If your DC go to a religious based school Annie, how can there be no reason for him to be there? Don't religious leaders visit schools regardless of their religious status?

It's pretty crap if you think the man's more likely to have sexually assaulted a teenager because he's a vicar, because that's what you're saying. The fact that you don't like religion in schools anyway just reinforces your reasons for believing him guilty??

It wouldn't be OK if I said I don't like the police/politicians/going round the supermarket, and people working in those jobs are more likely to have committed an offence.

Yes, Annie, if your ethics dictate your feelings strongly enough OF COURSE you would sacrifice 'all' for them !

What happened in those revolting institutions MrsT, is not this vicars responsibility, just as you're not responsible for something like the slave trade.