Prince Charles Misused Influence to Shield Cleric, Abuse Inquiry Reports
I’m not a monarchist, but this piece in the NYT just shifted me far away from any kind of support. I shouldn’t be surprised, maybe I’m naive that I am. But we’re done. This is filthy, and is not in the mainstream UK media.
You can guess what the sexually predatorial and abusive priest was up to. How anyone, let alone an “heir” in waiting, let alone a mainstream media figure, could lend support is beyond me. Condoning child abuse.
Can you? My imagination must be rather more pedestrian, I certainly did not expect the details to be what they are.
Which I suspect is part of why he got away with it for so long. It all sounds so odd.
Yes, it is. And it has been for some time. It’s kind of old news at this point. Which is not to minimise but rather to emphasise that it has been reported on extensively for some time.
…is a very small selection.
Personally, I think Prince Charles deserve all the criticism you muster although I have some sympathy with the argument that given everyone else who was saying that Peter Ball was a saintly figure who could never do anything of that kind with improper motives and the Church’s active suppression of information about him, his actions are at least understandable.
I mean if you want to criticise people (and we should) the list is by no means confined to Charles. The list of very definitely “establishment” figures who supported Ball is extensive and most of those could have the same excuse of lack of knowledge.
But quite how George Carey could possibly have acted the way he did given the knowledge he had is beyond me. Same goes for Bishop Kemp.
The full inquiry report is worth a read, if depressing (and enraging).
At this kind of profile, a little due diligence is easy and warranted. I’m sure it was done, and a gamble made on whether the situation could be passed off as “but he didn’t know”.
Or simply a sloppy prince waving his influence stick vaguely in the direction of anyone connected.
Vague, sloppy, influential, deceiptful, inappropriate use of power, perpetuation of the privilege, etc etc.
I doubt that very much. I doubt the thought of needing to justify his intervention ever entered his royal head.
He simply thought “Here’s a chap I know and admire being put through the wringer by nasty, vicious little people. I must do something to help him.”
I think that’s the real horror of these situations.
You don’t need cabals of pedophiles protecting each other or shadowy establishments deciding that “yes, A did it but we have to cover it up” (although clearly that happened within the Church), just people deciding that “A is ‘one of us’ and his accuser B is not. Therefore, I believe A and B is a nasty rotten liar/poor deluded unfortunate”.
