Friday 11 March 2022

 


Catholic church bans visit by gay author to London school...


(Quite right too says Gene.)

Simon James Green had been due to appear at John Fisher boys’ school in Purley, but the archdiocese of Southwark said the event could not be permitted

Simon James Green.
‘I didn’t think this sort of thing could happen in the UK today’ … Simon James Green. Photograph: Gareth Williams

The Catholic church has banned a visit to a London school by a gay author and removed a number of governors who supported the event, in a move that has drawn comparisons to the notorious 1980s section 28 ban on “promoting homosexuality”.

The church said a visit by Simon James Green, an acclaimed author of books for children and young adults, fell “outside the scope of what is permissible in a Catholic school”.

Green had been due to speak and sign books on Monday at John Fisher boys’ school in Purley, south London, a voluntary-aided faith school overseen by the Catholic archdiocese of Southwark. A second event at another school, St John’s primary in Gravesend, scheduled for Wednesday, was also cancelled.

Green told the Guardian that he “didn’t think this sort of thing could happen in the UK today. I was at school when section 28 was in force. So I know full well the horror of living under that legislation. But it was repealed in 2003. So I didn’t think a school today would go down that route.”

Section 28, which prohibited local authorities from “promoting homosexuality”, was introduced by Margaret Thatcher’s government in response to a children’s book, Jenny Lives With Eric and Martin, depicting different kinds of families.

In a statement issued a few days before the John Fisher event, the archdiocese said its schools were required to “deliver a programme of relationships and sex education that is compliant with the Equalities Act 2010 and Magisterium [teaching] of the Catholic church”.

It added: “From time to time, materials or events emerge for consideration that fall outside the scope of what is permissible in a Catholic school … In such circumstances, we have no alternative but to affirm our unequivocal and well-known theological and moral precepts and to act in accordance with them.”

However, the school’s leadership team, backed by its governors, voted to go ahead with Green’s visit. The archdiocese then cancelled the event and removed a number of governors.

The school’s chaplain, Father James Clark, emailed parents to say the proposed event had “caused scandal in the local area and has brought our international reputation into doubt”.

The email, seen by the Guardian, added: “The headteacher and some governors have decided to disobey the clear instruction from the diocese and this will have serious consequences in the weeks ahead,” and saying that the school “had no choice but to make a stand against tyranny and to defend truth”.

Catholic Truth, a Catholic website, also campaigned against the event, saying: “Catholic schools cannot, under any circumstance, endanger the faith of pupils in their charge by presenting as a good, something which is condemned by the divinely bequeathed teaching authority of Christ’s church.”

One parent told the Guardian: “A lot of us are shocked at the intolerant language being used. It sends a terrible message to the children. Who would want to come and teach here or send their children here after this?”

The NEU and NASUWT teaching unions at the school passed a motion saying they believed the archdiocese’s decision violated the UN convention on the rights of the child.

Members were “concerned about the mental and emotional impact these events have had on our LGBTQ+ community and wider inclusive John Fisher school family, including staff, students and parents”.

A spokesperson for the NEU said the cancellation of the event and the decision to remove some school governors was “a matter of grave concern”. The union would be writing to the archdiocese “calling for the reinstatement of both the governing body members and for the visit by Simon James Green to be allowed to go ahead”.

Green said his response to the church’s actions was disbelief. “There was initial shock and dismay and hurt, but after that it was the students I felt most worried for. I know what it’s like to be a teenager at school, questioning yourself, and how vulnerable that can make you.”

His books for young adults were novels featuring LGBT characters, with some “soft romance” but nothing explicit, he said. His books for younger readers celebrated underdogs but contained nothing about LGBT issues.

Green said he hoped the school events could be rescheduled. He decided to speak out “because if you don’t, there can be creeping sense of people feeling emboldened in the future, and things getting worse”.

Stephen Evans of the National Secular Society said: “The disturbing behaviour of this diocese highlights a broader problem of faith schools stigmatising same-sex relationships and therefore contributing to a climate where many young LGBT people are growing up feeling ashamed or frightened about who they are.

“Our own research has shown that a significant number of faith schools promote the idea that same-sex attraction is ‘morally wrong’, ‘disordered’ or a ‘lifestyle choice’. This isn’t acceptable in a publicly funded school.”

Robert Cann of Humanists UK said the archdiocese was “discriminating against a well-regarded children’s author, whose work has been celebrated far and wide, simply because his work promotes LGBT acceptance. The result is that children, including LGBT children, are missing out on learning that LGBT people should be celebrated, and their relationships should be respected just like those of straight people.

“Dioceses should not have the power to block lessons that promote inclusion under the Equality Act, and they should not be able to sack governors who support such lessons.”

A spokesperson for the Department for Education said: “We are looking into the circumstances surrounding the diocese’s role in this incident … Schools should teach students that everybody has the right to be treated with dignity and respect, with particular regard to their duties under the Equality Act.”

The archdiocese of Southwark and John Fisher school have been contacted for comment.


“Catholic schools cannot, under any circumstance, endanger the faith of pupils in their charge by presenting as a good, something which is condemned by the divinely bequeathed teaching authority of Christ’s church.”

HEAR! HEAR!


26 comments:

  1. Given that the Catholic priesthood is stuffed with repressed homosexuals, and that it also has a international reputation for abusing children and covering it up, you would laugh at this story once you had stopped weeping.

    Gene Vincent, the paedophiles' champion, strikes again.

    ReplyDelete
  2. NOW: DATE, TIME AND PLACE OF THE "MYRTLE THORNBERRY" "INQUEST" PLEASE

    ReplyDelete
  3. NOW: THE POSTS IN WHICH I HAVE CLAIMED TO HAVE SODOMISED DELIA PLEASE.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I have never said that you posted a claim on your blog to have sodomised my wife.

      No: you wrote a filthy personal email giving an account of how you had buggered her, which meant that your only reason for writing it was to cause me pain, you nasty little creep. And every time I posted that email on here you couldn't remove it fast enough, could you - you, the "searingly honest" proponent of free speech aka the Canting Hypocrite of Douay Martyrs.

      It makes me sick to see you getting on your high horse about homosexuality when your own attitude to sex is so diseased - groping young women in the staffroom [not to mention the sixth form girls] in a pretence of paternal interest. Christ, you stink the place out and disgrace the church to which you belong.

      Delete
  4. I wonder if the Church of England will take a similar principled stand against the pernicious encroachment by the Gay Lobby on its schools?
    Oops! Sorry, I forgot. The Church of England actively encourages the Gay Lobby to make such advances.

    ReplyDelete
  5. May I offer my congratulations to the Catholic Archdiocese of Southwark and to Archbishop John Wilson on this principled stand.

    GENE

    ReplyDelete
  6. Detterling you lying bar steward:

    I have never written about sodomising Delia. You know this you lying bar steward.

    I have never mentioned Sixth Form girls. You know this you lying bar steward.

    Detterling you present yourself as a man of integrity.

    The truth is you are an inveterate liar.

    ReplyDelete
  7. "I have never written about sodomising Delia."

    So what does "I mounted her from behind, doggy-style, which we all know is Delia's favourite position" mean?

    "I have never mentioned Sixth Form girls."

    No, of course you haven't. But by denying only that allegation, you have admitted to groping female colleagues. Can you really be this thick?

    Ctrl -PrtSc

    ReplyDelete
  8. "So what does "I mounted her from behind, doggy-style, which we all know is Delia's favourite position" mean?"

    It means having sexual intercourse with her in the Doggy-style position.

    Where do you get sodomy from?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That phrase can connote either intercourse per tergo or per anum. I choose to believe the latter because
      [a] it gets under your skin, because it reminds you of your own repressed homosexuality
      [b] and, time and time again, you assert, in effect, that boasting about shagging a man's wife from behind is ok, whereas boasting about buggering her is not. That you have no idea of how big a hypocrite this makes you look re-affirms your nastiness and insensitivity.

      Delete
    2. "per tergo or per anum."

      Ha! Ha! Ha! You take the biscuit Detters. That's the best laugh I've had since I put salt in the Head's sugar bowl at the 1980 staff Christmas dinner.

      Delete
  9. I have never groped female colleagues. Produce evidence that I have written that I have.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. POSTED ON GENE, A VOICE IN THE WILDERNESS, Tuesday, 10 August 2021

      'New York Governor Andrew Cuomo has resigned after an inquiry found that he sexually harassed multiple women, prompting efforts to remove him.'


      Oh for God's sake! When is this sort of thing going to stop? Even if it turns out to be true his alleged misdemeanours are hardly crimes of the century are they? He was just being a man.

      I'm sure I have done worse myself. I have always been a bit tactile with the ladies. For example, in my teaching days if a new attractive member of staff joined us I would find a way to engage at a low level of sexual activity. My favourite ploy was to smoothie up on the way out of assembly or staff meeting and pat the young cutie on the backside in apparent avuncular fashion saying something like, "Settling in okay Sweetie?"

      Another ploy was to hug the young cutie to purportedly congratulate her on her, say, classroom wall display. Believe me no red-blooded middle-aged man gives a young gorgeous bit of stuff a hug with anything but lust his motivation.

      I have never had a complaint.

      Posted by GENE VINCENT at 13:04

      Delete
  10. And don't bother taking the post reproduced above down, you weaselly little creep. I screen-shot it the day it was published, and Tony Corish was both interested and appalled when I sent them to him. He has already contacted a number of female members of staff who were there when you were, and their responses have also horrified him. More than that, he contacted the family of the C of E busybody [RMcT, remember?] and they are busy reading her old diaries [both handwritten and computer] and copying relevant passages to return to him. All in all it's building up nicely into a dossier of professional misconduct and sexual harassment which is going to blow the lid off your reputation in due course. As you say, he is very overworked just now, so I imagine that little will happen before the summer holidays. At the same time, this will ensure that when the complaints are lodged with the GTC [the first step in the process] they are detailed and unanswerable.

    As I have said before, this year looks like a good one for something really horrible to happen to you. I can hardly wait...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 'All in all it's building up nicely into a dossier of professional misconduct'

      Bollocks! You seem to forget that I have retired.

      Delete
    2. And to think that you claimed to teach A level law.

      There is NO statute of limitations on offences of sexual harassment.

      Delete
    3. Yes, but you raised the issue of professional misconduct not sexual harassment..

      Delete
  11. PS, glad you have killed off the dreadful Sir Henry Rawlinson imitation. It began embarrassingly, became toe curling and ended bowel emptying. There was, thank God, only one Sir Henry and now, so far as anyone can tell, he has gone to meet his maker.

    ReplyDelete
  12. My favourite ploy was to smoothie up on the way out of assembly or staff meeting and pat the young cutie on the backside in apparent avuncular fashion saying something like, "Settling in okay Sweetie?"

    no mention of groping. Can't you read?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Groping is defined as fondling someone sexually without their consent. What you describe is groping, you dirty little sod. And that's what Tony Corish thinks too...

      Delete
    2. An avuncular Pat on the backside could never be described as groping. Talk sense.

      Delete
    3. Don't insult my intelligence: you give yourself away with the use of smarmy vocabulary like "smoothie up" and the sickeningly arch "cutie" and above all "apparently avuncular", which betrays your motives.

      That, and no mention of the young lady's rights [to bestow or with-hold consent to being touched sexually], needs [to go to work without being vulnerable to dirty old men] and wishes [to be allowed to choose who is allowed to touch her sexually - wishes that certainly don't include a clapped-out old drunk with appalling breath like you].

      What you did was groping, and you can't weasel your way out of it.

      Delete
    4. "What you did was groping, and you can't weasel your way out of it."

      No it wasn't groping. Good thing the Law was not your profession.

      Delete
  13. 'PS, glad you have killed off the dreadful Sir Henry Rawlinson imitation.'

    No imitation. You are living in fear of further Sir H comments.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Don't be ridiculous - frightened of a terrible imitation of a bogus poseur? Come off it.

      Delete
    2. Methinks thou doth protest too much.

      Delete