Miriam Cates

[CassieMaddox]

New report says she was trustee at a church while gay conversion therapy was happening. The kind of conversion therapy that involves exorcism of demons.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4ngprp5xdvo

As a director and trustee at the charity behind the church, external from September 2016 to September 2018, Mrs Cates, had safeguarding responsibilities for those who attended

Thought this might interest some posters on here. Not sure I would trust her with safeguarding after this, if indeed she retains her seat.

Like this @borntobequiet

Conversion therapy not OK in schools and hospitals. The implication being it is OK in other settings, e.g. Churches.

I tend to believe harmful things are harmful regardless of the setting. And that the concept that someone can consent to harm is damaging particularly to women.

This case is nothing to do with parents or parenting

It’s my day off and it’s raining so a bit of winding up comes as a welcome relief.

Belief systems are not ok in hospitals and schools. They are ok in churches as long as they don’t lead to abuse.

It is not ok to pray healing for an epileptic patient in hospital. It is in church.

Hospital- evidence based care.
Church- faith based care.

Is your determination to believe the worst of what people say baked in? Or do you reserve it for a specific set of people?

All sorts of things constitute social pressure. If your parents are Muslim, you are likely to be under strong social pressure to embrace Islam. If your friends are feminists, you are likely to be under strong social pressure to be pro-choice. If you are a young man, you are likely to be under strong social pressure to (say that you) like football. If you are a young middle-class person in a UK city, you are likely to be under strong social pressure to be a left wing progressive.

I am under strong social pressure to affirm my son.

Why are all these pressures the same as or different from “social contagion” or “brainwashing”?

There's no pretending involved
I'm not sure what parenting has to do with a case involving conversion therapy on an adult

My understanding is that Church safeguarding officers respond to safeguarding concerns raised with them. They are not required to know every person within a church, which may have dozens or hundreds of members. They are not expected to know everything about each member’s circumstances.

You were replying to this:
Can I just confirm though - you think "praying away the gay", and social ostracisation by the church if praying doesn't work are OK?Do you think "exorcisms" are OK too?

If I misunderstood you saying its not OK to do those things in schools and hospitals I apologise

So I’m saying different opinions are good, you are saying different opinions are good.
You are also saying Miriam Cates has the wrong beliefs and no one should support her, and refusing to discuss why it’s ok for her to have those beliefs.

I’m finding it hard to follow what the thread is for. You only want to hear people say ‘It’s shocking, she’s awful’. You don’t want anyone to say why they think it’s ok.

Are we using the wrong words to say it or something? Is there a magic word that means it’s ok to disagree? Because from where I’m sitting it looks like you are trying to stop debate.

I’m waffling now, but I read your response to me with real confusion as you appear to be an extremely black pot to be casting aspersions on everyone else’s shininess. I genuinely cannot see why you think your posts are fine and other people’s are not.

Yes I can believe that. I was a bit taken aback that she wouldn't know about an ongoing safeguarding issue that the church were dealing with, as shown by the timeline.

I am also a bit taken aback that she wouldn't know these practices were condoned by the church, given what the report says. Feels a bit negligent. I think I'd say the same if it were governors of a school where there were safeguarding issues too.

Someone upthread raised "institutional" issues - yes exactly what it is and I feel she should have been watching out for those.

Nope. If you think conversion practices are OK that's fine. I mean that. You are entitled to your opinion and while I disagree with it I respect the honesty.

What I don't like is posters evading what's obvious (not you) and then claiming I'm bad faith for pointing it out.

You are also saying Miriam Cates has the wrong beliefs and no one should support her, and refusing to discuss why it’s ok for her to have those beliefs.

This is a huge strawman. I was actually not saying anything about her beliefs when I started the thread. It was about safeguarding.

My opinion is her beliefs are damaging to women, so I can't support her. If you want to support her, no skin off my nose.

And I'm here, discussing it. Others are constantly "what about..." and accusing me of bad faith so that's not a fair characterisation at all.

Admittedly we aren't going to get very far if the way out of this is I have to believe I demonic possession, but I really couldn't care less if Cates does.

You are not allowed to know about safeguarding issues unless you are the safeguarding officer or you reported the abuse. I sought safeguarding support recently after something happened. The vicar roundly told me off for not telling her. She is not supposed to be told.

What you will get told is ‘an investigation is underway and person x has stepped back’. When the investigation is complete, a report is released.

That’s safeguarding protocol for the sake of all involved.

I have no idea what goes on in Boys’ Brigade or youth work at my church. It’s not my department. I know everyone there is DBS checked, and that there is oversight by senior church leadership, but not by all senior leadership. Some will be overseeing the nursing home visiting, others the toddler group etc.
So she could well be completely unaware that ‘this church does not accept same sex marriage’ had moved on to ‘we will pray to cast out the demon of same sex attraction from this man, who has asked us to do so.’

For clarity, personally I don’t reject same sex relationships and marriage. I believe it is between the couple and God. Some may choose to be celibate, others to marry. Their choice.

I’m personally more concerned about her being involved in a political party that carries out harmful practices, but unfortunately I have the same problem with Labour MPs. You can criticise MC because of her views, or even what you perceive as her views, but guilt by association is a very dubious concept. There are a lot of defensible moral positions that I find questionable.

It’s taken me decades to even understand the bodily autonomy argument in favour of abortion, so that now that I do understand it and can give it some weight, I do not see it as self-evident or a gotcha. I have sympathy with the woman and sympathy with the foetus, and I think that we probably can’t do much better than the current law in the UK. I don’t want to sidetrack onto the abortion debate, it’s just an example. My views on trans issues are based on physical reality and women’s rights; I know people who instinctively side with trans people, and it’s obvious that they could have difficulty understanding my moral perspective. Few of us are right throughout our lives - most of us change our opinions, which logically means that for part of our lives we must be wrong.

🙄
It's my thread.
You seem incapable of any response other than to throw shade. Tedious.

I'm criticising her for being a trustee of a church carrying out conversion practices and either turning a blind eye or condoning it. It is a safeguarding issue, nothing about "guilt by association".

I'm genuinely confused because I've seen GC posters on here far more irate about what comes across to me as far less well evidenced safeguarding issues.

It is a double standard. Who knows why.

And also ROGDDad I know you do your best for your kids and are engaging in good faith. But frankly I don't care much for mens opinions on abortion. It's not them putting their life at risk to give birth and it's usually not them left to deal with an unwanted pregnancy.

I specifically said I didn’t want to sidetrack onto that debate; it was just an example, to show that people can change their viewpoint (as MC may or may not have done) and that people may reach the same conclusion from opposing starting points. It took me ages to come to any understanding of what to most feminists is “obvious”, and yes, my being a man made it harder to understand - because my starting point was the very obviously vulnerable foetus. We have the same problem with other highly contentious issues. It doesn’t help people to understand an opposing viewpoint if they are constantly told they are wrong.

Yes I know. I'm sorry. I don't really want to talk about abortion, apart from to say to me anyone who argues for greater restrictions is damaging to women.

This isn't just a thread sharing your concern about a church Miriam Cates was once involved with.

It's a series of continuous threads by you following the same path: finding a conservative viewpoint by someone who agrees with GC feminsists on trans kids and presenting it to us to condemn. Followed by your faux naivete of 'gosh I didn't realise FWR was so racist/ homophobic/ far right/ whatever. 'It's illuminatin.' (we still have the ability to shock you at least 😂)

It's so predictable and tedious.

Haven't you yet sufficiently proved we are so far right we shouldn't be tolerated?Who else apartfrom KJK, Tommy Robinson, Mariam Cates is needed to prove this? I guess I'll wait for the Katie Hopkins is GC, so what about that ??As your next thread? Then Julia Hartley Brewer? She's a right nazi her. She probably likes Farage. You definitely need a thread where we all have to condemn her or reveal our own facist leanings.

Couldn't you agree to just have just one thread all to yourself?

Call it: Here's all the far right people who you agree with. You facists.

So we know what it's about.