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?

'Prey tell, what reasons have I apparently given for "thinking" he sexually assaulted her?'

Would you have withdrawn your children from contact with the man if these accusations hadn't been made against him?

I'm presuming you haven't withdrawn them already because you would have said you had before now, and there'd be no reason for the thread.

So why no contact with him now if you don't think he's sexually assaulted a girl?

I'm surprised by some of the responses on this thread. I wouldn't want my children around somebody who had been accused of sexual assault but not prosecuted due to lack of evidence in a situation where I wasn't present and couldn't control what went on (like in school). If was there or knew the person and could make my own judgement I would feel differently. As a teenager many friends were assaulted and worse, these vents definitely happened but I don't know anyone who was convicted for them .

And as for the church school comments I love the fact that people think you get to choose a school, round here you choose school or home educating and are lucky to get a place.

I'll use small words and speak slowly so you may actually understand this time, AgentZigzag.

He. Was. Arrested. For. Sexual. Assault.

This. Is. A. Fact.

I. Don't. Know. If. He. Did. Or. Didn't.

But. In. Case. He. Did. I. Would. Prefer. My. Children. Not. To. Be. Near. Him.

Are you usually this hard of understanding?

FWIW, I would probably have withdrawn my children from any assembly lead by a member of the clergy.

I did try to withdraw DD from a visit to the local church but was told that in that case I would need to keep her off school as they weren't prepared to put her in another year or keep a teacher back to look after her. I was less than impressed. I let her go in the end once I found out it was just a visit and not an actual service.

The fact that the accused is a vicar is relevant. We all know about the massive historical problem of child abuse within the church, and the cover-ups.

As I said upthread, three Catholic priests in Oxfordshire have been convicted of child abuse offences in the last three years, one is serving a 70 year prison sentence for raping children on a church trip to the States. I know the Catholic church has had a much bigger problem with child abuse cover ups, and possibly also the factor that priests can't marry which probably sends some of them a bit funny in the head, but the CofE has its problems too. Vicars tend to be implicitly trusted, and they are in a position of power and work with the vulnerable, often alone.

It's also relevant because I find it unlikely that a school visitor who had been accused of sexual abuse against a teen would be readmitted into schools unless he was a vicar or priest.

No need to resort to being rude and patronising OP.

I've tried to be polite discussing my opinion, I understand it might not be an opinion you agree with, but there's no need to try and undermine me by making out I'm thick as shit.

Even if I didn't have the intellectual capacity to follow what's being said, why would you try and humiliate me?

Very odd.

Why? Because you keep trying to draw the same incorrect conclusions from my posts despite my repeated polite attempts to tell you that you indeed incorrect. As such, I thought perhaps being a little less polite might get the message through. Nothing odd about a person losing their rag at continued obtuse refusal to understand a point being clearly made.

From this point on I'm going to resort to the less stress-inducing ignoring you.

You posted the thread, I've posted what I thought.

You wouldn't be the first OP to not like what's been said, I didn't say it was 'The Truth', only my opinion.

I don't have to agree with you, I acknowledge you've made your point very. Clearly. And. Are. Now. Taking. It. Personally. Completely your choice, but don't try to make out I'm responsible for you being shitty.

What's the point being clearly made. You aren't happy. Fair enough. How do you think you should deal with this OP. As obviously you don't like the advice or opinions you've been given.

Yes, hide the thread Annie. Aibu was maybe the wrong place for this...

If he hasn't been convicted he's entitled to go about is business restricted.

AIBU is only the wrong place if you can't deal with people disagreeing with you.

It is well known that all accused people are guilty, I don't know why we bother with a legal system really.

I'm glad someone mentioned Jewish schools.

There is a excellent one near us. Many people who are not Jewish choose to send their children there. They like the school results and the ethos.

However, all pupils and staff are requested to observe rules regarding food and clothing. Female staff are not allowed to wear trousers. Packed lunches are not allowed to included pork or certain other foods.

IMO it woudl be unreasonable for me to send my child there, then insist she wear trousers or object to visits from the rabbi because

" the school allows religious people in to teach their brand of religion to impressionable children as if it were fact "

Kristina - the big difference with your example of the Jewish school is that I presume parents make an active choice to send their children there. In many areas of thecountry, there is no alternative to church schools - a very high proportion of state primary schools still have church affiliation, even though they are state funded, have no religious entry requirements and are part of the standard school allocation system.
I live in a big city, and of the five state primary schools within easy walking distance of my house, only one does not have a church affiliation: one Catholic, three CofE and one 'community'. The Catholic one has religious entry requirements, but the others all allocate places on the usual criteria, ie mainly distance. Being an atheist does not give me any priority in applications for the non-church school; even if I made that my top preference on the application form, I would most likely get allocated one of the church schools because they are closer. I would guess the OP's situation is similar. don't think it is then fair to say 'you chose a church school, suck it up'. Choice of primary school is an illusion for many people.

And in any case, due to the law obliging all state schools to carry out a daily act of collective worship of a broadly Christian nature, there is no guarantee that you will get away from visiting vicars even at a non-church school.

Annie, are you viewing the two issues as mutually exclusive or are you compounding them as you were keen to point out on pg2 of this thread? Also, what did you mean when you said "cases like this"?

In case anyone is interested, here is my email to the school this evening:

Dear Head Teacher

Thanks for understanding. I'm sorry if my email was a little, erm, reactionary… but I had absolutely no idea about any of the back story (and I'm sure I'm not the only parent who was completely ignorant) – we have nothing to do with the local churches as we're not Christian and weren't at (Local School) back in (year in question). So when your newsletter said a vicar with an injunction was coming back to school, I Googled to see who, what and why. You can imagine my shock at what I found, hence the reactionary email.

I understand this has probably been a difficult situation for you – the school obviously has a long-standing relationship with Rev Bloggs, and it’s apparent from my enquires of other mums that he is well liked and respected. I'm not sure how you could have handled it better without making a huge issue (which I imagine you want to avoid), but a short paragraph in the newsletter may not have been the best way for those of us who didn't know to find out!

I'm sure the school and the Parish have made sure that all Child Protection issues are covered when Rev Bloggs comes back to school, and to be honest, now I've had time to think about it I don't have any real fears about him coming to school or being around children.

However, on a personal level and due to my own beliefs, I do remain uncomfortable with clergy leading worship at schools anyway and so would ask for DD1 and DD2 to be excluded in any case.

Best wishes
Annie Lobeseder

PND??? Joining up police forces? Hsuahahahaaaaaaaa

Funniest thing I've read on mn for a good while now.

OP, I think you have had a hard time on here, and unfairly so.
I have personal experience of infuriating Church of England cover-ups. Better to protect the church's reputation than the current and future victims. Our recent vicar left under a cloud after abusing adults, said that he had been 'unwise' but made no further admissions and is now working in a hospice with the blessing of the diocese. The mind boggles...
I also have experience if the CPS not prosecuting winnable cases.
Maybe the vicar in your case is innocent, maybe not, but I understand your concern.

Which is all well and good, tiggy - until it's your children having contact with a man in a position of authority who has been accused of sexual assault.

With regard to the ex-partner accusing current partner of something (I assume you mean either dv or rape here?) I would, if it was a new partner - take this as a possible warning flag. Recent CPS investigations by Keir Starmer over a period of 18 months, have shown that the number of malicious accusations are far, far fewer than people had previously thought.