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?

No, I don't think he's more likely to be guilty because he's a vicar . Where have I said that?

The two issues are mutually exclusive.

1. He's been accused of sexual assault.

2. He's a vicar.

No connection between the two except that they happen to be the same man. It's just that gives me two reasons not to want him near my children instead of one.

But they are connected, and it is what you've suggested because you've brought up not liking religion in schools on your thread about a vicar accused of sexual assault.

You've lumped the two reasons why you don't want him near your children together, I don't think it's a huge leap to assume one influences the other.

It's maybe understandable then that if one of those indicators (that we know could suggest something more) is attached to someone, that people make the connection and wrongly assume they're guilty.

he hasn't followed child protection procedures for what ever reason in the past at his own admission leaving themselves open to an accusation - How are they ensuring he will follow child protection procedures in the future to ensure my DC safety is a valid question and isn't assuming guilt it's asking how they are managing the non-disputed part of the problem and isn't a question to throw at the vicar but to calmly put to school.

But I also trust the police to investigate things properly as to refer
to CPS where appropriate.

I hope they would to but there have been cases where they don't or where CPS don't take things forward despite the police desperately wanting them to. They are people with resource and times and conviction rate pressures and even the most professional people can and do make mistakes and miss things.

I doubt that this man is a risk - I would expect him to be more careful to follow protection procedures and staff to be aware of him.

However if it was my DC I want to bloody sure of this and not assume everything is fine - because there are a lot of historical cases where people gave people the benefit.

Agent actually I do feel that I and everyone in Western countries, have a duty to acknowledge and rectify some of the post-colonial legacy. I would argue, boringly and at some length, that we have a duty to Africa having directly caused, and benefited from, slavery, Empire, colonialism and policies such as divide and rule.

I think the sensible thing to do is find another school. And I agree there are two issues. You aren't happy about the vicar. And you don't want your child to go to a church school. Opposed to visits by religious people in a church school? The solution is simple if you feel that strongly you would send your child to a different school even if it meant travelling.

NEITHER of your 'reasons' for wanting him away from your dc stands up to scrutiny.

'He's been accused of sexual assault' - but not found guilty, not even bought to court. What if this were your partner - or you? How would it make you feel to know he was forever condemned simply because an accusation. You've no right to consider somebody guilty, excuse it as keeping your children safe and expect this to be in anyway acceptable behaviour.

'He's a vicar' - and so will not be allowed near your dc. That is hateful.

The point I was making about supplementing specific words is that 'religous' is such a catchall. People tend not to define themselves as religous per se but rather by the faith they belong to. So saying:
'I'm very much opposed to visits by religious people anyway' is less obviously offensive than saying 'I'm very much opposed to visits by Jewish people anyway' or 'I'm very much opposed to visits by Christian people anyway' - where the distrust and dislike of the religion itself is much more apparent.

I have a question. A vicar is going into a church school. The school have given a letter to all parents stating he is returning after disciplinary action. This caused you to google him. If a policeman, fireman, nurse etc go into school to give a talk (as they often do) will you know that they have been subject to disciplinary action (which often happens) and would you ask your children to be kept away from them?
It sounds to me that the school has failed both vicar and parents by supplying insufficient information which allows rumours to grow.

I don't think changing schools is a proportionate response, and would probably be pointless anyway. Vicars visit many schools, including ones that aren't technically church schools - the local children's minister here visits most schools in our area to do assemblies and some RE lessons, whether they are officially CofE or not, because of the legal requirement for all state schools to have communal worship of a broadly Christian nature. And in many areas, the only state schools available are church schools. You might move schools and find the same vicar popping up there too.

So by FlapJack's reckoning, should all the atheists in the country (around 25% according to the last census) as well as all Jews, Muslims, Hindus etc give up work and home educate our children? Even though our taxes are funding the schools?

Annie, I think just withdrawing your DCs from any religious assemblies is probably the way forward.

A duty acknowledge the pain and suffering caused MrsT, but you shouldn't be judged to be partly responsible for it. How can you be when you weren't born? And even as a country (if such an entity existed with us all together) we're not responsible for what other people chose to do in the past.

Maybe going in from the job angle, just because teachers used to flog children in the past doesn't mean a teacher now is more likely to have committed a violent assault because they're a teacher.

I'm with you on the religious state schools OP (& religious practice in all state schools). Anachronistic, divisive & deeply inappropriate.

& I can quite see that you might have a) dislike of his role & b) disquiet about the allegations as two entirely separate reasons not to want him in contact with your dc. Don't see why people find that hard to accept!

On a practical level, he's highly unlikely to be alone with any dc - especially if he's already breached child protection policy. It's not routine/good practice for school visitors to be in one-to-one situations with pupils unless they're actually delivering one-to-one tuition...

I'd just withdraw the dc from all god stuff, tbh, as the easiest way to set your mind at rest.

'I'm very much opposed to visits by Jewish people anyway'

With the OP saying she is Jewish, plus the appalling recent history with this very point setting up wholesale slaughter in a country's social policy, that's a pretty scary/good point.

I feel some people are deliberately misunderstanding me here, and determined to paint me as absolutely hysterical about religious people. Which I am not, and this thread is getting silly. Move schools? Really? To where? He is the vicar of the parish, which covers all local schools. And given that both DH and I work, we cannot deal with logistics of a non-local school without one of us giving up work. A ridiculous response when the simple solution is to withdraw my children from assemblies where outside religious figures are attending.

I don't object to my children learning about religion. I object to religion being taught as any kind of truth. The difference isn't hard for any person of reasonable intelligence to work out.

Thank you for the people posting reasonable responses (and by this, I don't mean just the ones agreeing with me, in case that's how anyone should take it to mean)

AgentZigzag - "plus the appalling recent history with this very point setting up wholesale slaughter in a country's social policy"

Can I ask what you mean by this? Which country? Wholesale slaughter of who?

Labro - that's an excellent point. The school seems to have made the assumption that all the parents would know the back-story to this, which I certainly didn't. And FWIW, I don't think they have handled this well, though I can see the point others have made; that if they might be seen as presuming he is guilty if they offer parents the option of withdrawing their children from any activities where he is present. I can't think offhand how they could have handled this better, except that an off-the-cuff comment in the newsletter wasn't it! Surely they should have realised some parents would not know, do Googling and be somewhat shocked by the result!

The Nazis slaughter of the Jewish population Annie.

OP - nobody is painting you as anything. You're the one who has decided this man is a risk to your children. It's NOt a reasonable position to be holding.

For believers faith is truth. I cannot describe my faith fully without explaining that. Otherwise it wouldn't be a faith I hold would it? Which is why I agree - the problem here is in your expectations of what this school can deliver to your children. You should have moved before they reached school age if this is such a major issue for you.

Okay. Not sure how that's relevant.... I have made it clear that I have no particular religion in mind when objecting to schools being religious. Perhaps this thread has enough side-tracks into religion without bringing in more?

northernlurker - It's not a major issue to me at all. And moved to where? North London so at least the religious brainwashing would be more in agreement with my own culture? Because otherwise I'd have to leave the country to find a school that doesn't teach Christianity.

If you think your faith is fact, good for you. Teach it to your children at home. But why should it come into schools? Not everyone agrees with your faith, nor should they.

The only real expectation I have of my school is that they teach my children to read and write to a decent standard. The religious aspect is a minor irritation.

I haven't decided he is a risk, I am concerned there is a chance, however small, that he may be. And as such, I feel I'm within my rights to question whether my children should be exposed to that risk, however small.

I think the fact that it is a vicar is irrelevant. It could be a sport's coach or a teaching assistant - it is about a person who has been suspected of inappropriate behaviour being allowed in a school.

OP do you know if the allegations have been dropped completely? Because then you might be being unreasonable, although I'd probably do the same.

There's a small risk that any adult could abuse a child. The person in this case is considered a higher risk by you because of a previous accusation. You weren't thinking he specifically had to be kept away from your dc before you googled were you?

My dc attend a state school. Christian festivals are referenced in the teaching as are umpteen others. My dc have bought home project work on diwali for example. I'm fine with that because you're right the primary influence is what they learn at home. It doesn't bother me at all what they learn at school but if it bothers you you should remove the child.

With all due respect Annie, there is a chance, however small that ANYONE could be a risk to your child, including the teachers at the school.

However they have been CRB checked to the schools satisfaction, so you apparently trust them. Te vicar has also been CRB checked to the schools satisfaction and they will have looked at it all again following what's happened, and they evidently are still satisfied.

But that doesn't se to be enough for you? Or have you goggles all your children's teacher and parents of their school friends to satisfy your own personal vetting system?

Sorry for the stupid spelling - dumb phone!

Loads of locals bus their kids or drive to get to a school of their choice. People move house for school location

The church has a school close to you ...you use it, dislike it being a church school and want them to change for you? Unreasonable

A vicar goes into a church school. One issue. See above. Move schools if you don't like

A man was accused of abuse and has not been charged so has returned to a role he did as part of his employment. Separate issue. It's discrimination to not allow him to. Why don't you discuss your concerns objectively with the head? Find out what measures are in place to protect him from further accusation (big risk) and thus your DC will be safe?

Oh, and a specific religion can be taught at school without saying it is the truth if all the children are not of that faith. At my DC's school they regularly say "Christians believe..." or "we are Christians believe..." which is very different to saying things as fact.

OP - nobody is painting you as anything. You're the one who has decided this man is a risk to your children. It's NOt a reasonable position to be holding.

Sorry - but I disagree. OP is perfectly reasonable to not want her children to have any contact with this man - for either or both reasons she's stated.

I think when it comes to our children we have to use our best judgement to protect them - isn't that what child protection charities tell parents?

And sorry Agent - but I call Godwins.

Anyway, I am going to take away from the sensible posts the answer that IABU (though possibly understandably), and will calm down.

But really... move house/schools/home-ed? And you think I'm the one over-reacting?

Aw Annie - I still don't think yabu