LIE DETECTORS FOR PAEDOPHILES – A GOOD OR BAD IDEA?

Telegraph Reporters

Lie detectors have been used to send 160 sex offenders back to prison, Ministry of Justice figures have revealed.

Probation officers have sent paedophiles and convicted sex offenders back behind bars after flagging up concerns about their behaviour or the answers they gave to the polygraph tests.

The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) started using lie detectors on convicted sex offenders in August 2014 and around 50 people are tested on the machines every month.

Officials have the power to send sex offenders back to prison if the results of the cross examination on the lie detectors trigger concerns for public safety.

The £4,000 machines are hooked up to monitor the breathing, blood pressure and heart rate of offenders as they are asked a string of questions from trained inquisitors.

Since the high-tech machines have been introduced the MoJ have revealed 166 sex offenders who took polygraph tests have been returned to prison.

Details released by the MoJ show that of the first batch of offenders sent back behind bars last year there were people convicted of child sex offences, child grooming, rape and child pornography offences.

One case heard how one offender who was released on condition they didn’t use the internet was found by the test to be lying about not having logged on since his release.

Police then raided his home and found indecent images of children, which were downloaded from the internet, stored on hard drives hidden at his address.

The man was charged with more offences and sent back to prison. A spokesman for the Centre for Crime Prevention, said: “The length of time sex offenders spend in prison has increased by 50% in the last ten years, but these figures show a frightening number continue to be released while they are still a real threat to the public.

“We still have some way to go in toughening up sentences. It is very good news if technology is helping to detect some of them and return them to prison.”
A Ministry of Justice spokesperson said: “Public protection is our numberNews

—————-

Why giving polygraph tests to sex offenders is a terrible idea

Chris French The Guardian

Polygraphs are notoriously unreliable and easy to fool, and sooner or later sex offenders will discover the truth about them

It was recently announced that the government is keen to introduce mandatory polygraph testing for rapists and other serious sex offenders when they are released from prison, in the hope that this will reduce re-offending rates and thus protect the public.

A pilot study has been carried out in the East and West Midlands suggesting that the routine use of such testing would lead to offenders being more honest with their offender managers. Offenders undergoing polygraph testing made twice as many “clinically significant disclosures” as a control sample. CSDs were defined as “new information that the offender discloses, which leads to a change in how they are managed, supervised, or risk assessed, or to a change in the treatment intervention that they receive.” Examples included disclosures relating to increased access to children or contact with other known sex offenders.

It seems, however, that these encouraging results were based not upon the ability of the test to detect when offenders are lying, but instead upon the offenders’ belief that the test was capable of doing so. This raises serious issues regarding the wisdom of rolling out such a scheme on a mandatory basis across England and Wales.

Polygraphs are often wrongly referred to as “lie detectors”. In fact, all that polygraphs do is measure various psychophysiological indices of arousal, such as skin conductance, blood pressure and respiration. It is assumed that most of us, when we lie, become more emotionally aroused. Polygraph operators claim to be able to detect such tell-tale signs of arousal and use them to determine whether a person is telling the truth or lying.

There are several different techniques used in this context, but most rely upon the notion that liars will be more aroused when answering “relevant” questions compared with when they answer “control” questions, due to their fear that they will be detected.

Studies have shown that in general polygraph tests correctly identify about 85% of guilty individuals. This may appear to be impressive at first sight but it is necessary to take into account the proportion of innocent individuals who are wrongly classified as guilty. According to a report by the British Psychological Society in 2004, reviews suggest that between 12% and 47% of innocent individuals are also classified as lying.

Innocent people may be more aroused by the relevant questions than the control questions for a variety reasons. For example, suppose the suspect did not commit the crime in question but was engaged in some activity at the time that, although perfectly legal, he or she was ashamed of. Alternatively, it may simply be that the suspect is terrified that he or she will not be believed despite their innocence.

It is clear from the results of the pilot study that it was the sex offenders’ belief that the polygraph would detect deception that led to the increase in disclosures. Not only did most of the these disclosures take place during the polygraph session as opposed to during routine supervision, but they actually took place during the pre-polygraph interview before the test itself was carried out.

Indeed, a previous experiment by the lead author of this pilot study, Theresa Gannon, clearly showed similar effects among a group of child molesters. Those who were connected up to a convincing, albeit fake, “lie detector” gave more honest responses on a questionnaire than those who were not connected.

It is clear that offenders only have to spend five minutes on Google to realise that experts generally agree that polygraph testing is in fact not a reliable technique for detecting deception. If such testing becomes mandatory, it is inevitable that this truth about polygraphs will become widely known among offenders. From then on, any effect that unfounded belief in the effectiveness of the technique had in terms of increasing disclosures is likely to disappear.

To make matters worse, techniques exist to beat the test. Once the underlying rationale of the test is understood, steps can be taken to either augment the psychophysiological response to control questions (eg via self-induced physical or mental pain) or else reduce the response to relevant questions (eg using mental training, such as meditation).

Vaughan Bell described the case of Floyd “Buzz” Fay, who was wrongly convicted of murder on the basis of polygraph testing. During his time in prison, Buzz found out as much as he could about the polygraph and used his knowledge to train other prisoners to beat the test. After a mere 15 minutes of instruction, 23 of 27 inmates were able to beat the test. It is highly likely that a sex offender who was motivated to beat the test and thus give the impression of being low risk would easily be able to do so.

There is another reason to be cautious about the results of this pilot testing, one that was noted by the authors themselves. In their words, “It is possible that polygraph offender managers may have felt more motivated or ‘expected’ to provide large numbers of CSDs compared to comparison offender managers.”
By its nature, the design of this study could not be double- or even single-blind and it is highly likely that this would have had an effect on the results. In other words, the managers’ body language and interpretation of offenders’ responses could have been subconsciously skewed.

The authors of the report estimated that polygraph testing would cost between £400 and £937.30 for each additional disclosure that resulted. Obviously, any intervention that might reduce offending is worthy of serious consideration. But we should be cautious about implementing an intervention that might only be effective for the short time it would take before the truth about polygraphs becomes common knowledge among offenders.

Perhaps even more worrying is the prospect that a motivated high-risk offender could probably beat the polygraph from the outset after just a little bit of background research.

PAT SAYS

On the one hand, anything that prevents or punishes child abuse seems to be a very good thing.

On the other hand convicting people on unreliable grounds is not good.

Perhaps lie detectors can play a role, but not a definitive role.

What do readers think?

90 thoughts on “LIE DETECTORS FOR PAEDOPHILES – A GOOD OR BAD IDEA?

  1. MournemanMichael 30th Jan 2020 — 12:16 am

    Society, greatly influenced by media, inclines towards simplistic answers to complex questions. And there’s none so complex as human behaviour.
    Polygraphs are not infallible detectors of lying. They are only another tool in the repetoire of those trying to understand behaviour patterns, motivation, offending triggers etc etc all with the aim of refining decision making concerning offenders.
    To regard them in isolation as an infallible panacea is greatly misguided.
    MMM

    Like

  2. A bad idea for paedophiles but a good idea for priests 🤣

    Like

    1. Actually priests should be attached to a lie detector during their homily on a Sunday morning to see if they actually believe

      Like

      1. 11.18: More pathetic stupidity. Obviously you are brainless…

        Like

      2. Obviously I have touched a nerve 🤣

        Like

  3. The results of polygraph’s are not evidence in and of themselves. They merely help identify lines of enquiry.
    What would be interesting though is a study on false negative results arising fron the use of, the Catholic moral concept known as, mental reservation.

    Like

    1. Lying is a way of life for psychos and narcs. Lie Detectors are useless in their regard. Their neural pathways have been habituated to lie as a default response.

      Like

      1. I lied all the way through my psychological assessment with yerman in inchicore.

        Like

      2. Who was the assessor 12:37 pm?

        Like

      3. @12:37 pm, Obviously based on your own comment it would be best to treat everything you say with incredulity.

        Like

      4. 9.35
        Lying is a way of life for many RC bishops, and for a goodly number of priests.
        Oh, sorry! You covered that, didn’t you, when you said ‘psychos and narcs’?

        Like

      5. 1:02PM, It was D O’D

        Like

  4. Why not all criminals be mucrochipped? Why just single out clerics? There are many criminals who should be mucrochipped, i.e. the drug lord merchants of death. Any person who poses as a threat to society, irrespective of profession, should be considered as subject for microchipping. While it may contravene personal human rights violation, is is worth a debate, even though it may appear extreme.

    Like

  5. Lie detectors can be easily circumvented by psychopaths, sociopaths and narcissists who, because of either no or severely impaired consciences, do not exhibit the same anxiety levels as do people with consciences and therefore their neural and somatic indicators remain constant when lying.
    https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-22467640
    http://quozio.com/quote/414a668a#!t=1006

    Like

  6. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=9nSMaAxywkY
    Published on Apr 7, 2012
    Everything You Need to Know about Narcissists, Psychopaths, and Abuse – click on this link: http://www.narcissistic-abuse.com/faq
    The narcissist is prone to magical thinking. He regards himself in terms of “being chosen” or of “being destined for greatness”. He believes that he has a “direct line” to God, even, perversely, that God “serves” him in certain junctions and conjunctures of his life, through divine intervention. He believes that his life is of such momentous importance, that it is micro-managed by God. The narcissist likes to play God to his human environment. In short, narcissism and religion go well together, because religion allows the narcissist to feel unique.
    This is a private case of a more general phenomenon. The narcissist likes to belong to groups or to frameworks of allegiance. He derives easy and constantly available Narcissistic Supply from them. Within them and from their members he is certain to garner attention, to gain adulation, to be castigated or praised. His False Self is bound to be reflected by his colleagues, co-members, or fellows.
    (From the book “Malignant Self-love: Narcissism Revisited” by Sam Vaknin)

    Like

  7. Salem?

    Like

  8. You should distinguish the factual pillar from the psychological pillar of any cross-examination of a narcissist or deposition made by him. It is essential to be equipped with absolutely unequivocal, first rate, thoroughly authenticated and vouched for information. The reason is that narcissists are superhuman in their capacity to distort reality by offering highly “plausible” alternative scenarios, which fit most of the facts. On or off the stand, it is very easy to “break” a narcissist — even a well-trained and well-prepared one. (From the book “Malignant Self-love: Narcissism Revisited” by Sam Vaknin)

    Like

  9. When I read about the characteristics of narcissists, why is it that I keep thinking of Donald Trump?

    Like

    1. Trump doesn’t hold a candle to the likes of McCarrick, Maciel and all similar clerical socios/pychos/narcs.
      https://www.ncronline.org/news/accountability/parish-diary/confrontation-time-cardinal-mccarrick-and-me-2002

      Like

      1. Former Cardinal McCarrick betrays salient traits of a sociopathic narcissist: He presented himself as the face of the 2002 Dallas Charter for Protection of Children and Young People while knowing he had prolifically abused children, teenagers and seminarians.
        https://catholicphilly.com/2018/08/news/national-news/timeline-on-archbishops-life-ministry-abuse-claims-made-against-him/

        Like

      2. How in the good God’s name those Legionaries of Christ have not yet been suppressed is another indicator of the current moral malaise in the Church.

        Like

  10. Off with their mickies. Tis the only answer.

    Like

    1. You seem obsessed with that term because you’ve used it many times before on here including recently. It tells us much about what you keep thinking about.

      Like

    2. 1.03
      That was tried. Castration. Didn’t work.
      What, on the balance of probabilities, WOULD work is chaperoning the more recidivistic offenders. But governments won’t spend the money.
      Children really don’t matter that much to any of ’em. 😕

      Like

      1. Yes it would but…
        There are other things that parents can do to stop their children being abused.
        For example many parents get involved in the school, PTA, etc, mistakenly thinking that this will protect their children. They might try to get to know the teachers.
        These actions increase the likelihood their children will be targeted because a paedophile will also groom the parents and ensure they believe their alternative version of events, making sure they will even end up rejecting their own children’s account of being abused because they cannot believe it of the nice teacher. This is exactly how many priests have got away with it.
        Parents need to approach schools and teachers in a more detached way, because the children of cheerleader teachers are the first to be targeted.
        They also need to stop being naive. If a priest wants a boy to learn serving and be alone with him to learn it, parents should be suspicious.
        I am amazed at how naive people remain about trusted adults and in the past the licence people have allowed with clergy is frankly incredible.
        This doe not solve the problem but my point is that adults can do much more to protect their children without expecting the government to spend huge amounts on chaperones.
        Besides what kind of sick f@ck would apply for a job chaperoning paedophile?

        Like

      2. 2.53: This is about the only sensible comment which Mags has made recently as normally he is pervertly ‘priest fixated’. Now we are being realistic: at last. “Children don’t matter that much to any of em”. How true: The stories of abuse of chikdren in state institutions and the disregard for homeless children, children with special needs, children in state care, children being placed in adult psychiatric units….Indeed the state has failed and continues to fail children abysmally in modern Ireland! You got it right for once Magna.

        Like

    3. 5.47

      What sort of sick…?

      How about someone who cared for the welfare of children?

      Chaperoning is, by far, the most successful child-safeguarding technique. It has already been applied in Canada and it was highly effective; even some of the paedophiles involved in it were grateful for the assistance.

      As Richard Sipe was told by a health professional, some paedophiles have sexual urges up to forty times the strength of non-paedophiles. Some of them do want to change, but the urge for pre-pubescent sexual contact can be overpowering for them, negating even the strongest personal moral code and the highest intentions. This is not a defence of paedophiles, but a statement of the reality for some.

      How responsible are they for the terrible things they do?

      If society wants to make a positive difference towards the safety of children, it is going to have to deal with its natural revulsion at paedophilia and paedophiles. Anything less is a self-indulgent waste of time, and an added danger to vulnerable children.

      We could make a start by not referring to this category of abuser with the highly inflammatory ‘sick f@ck’.

      Like

      1. Lol! Magna, if you knew the kind of people drawn into prison officer work or forensic mental health you wouldn’t talk like that!
        I am happy to make an exception for probation officers, my experience of them has only ever been positive, despite their job being a living nightmare! 🌃

        Like

    4. 9.36
      I wouldn’t talk like what? (Er, lol)

      Like

  11. Pat Mullaney is for joining Ledwith at the Ramtha School of Enlightment sure t’will something a bit different says Mullaney Pat

    Like

  12. Fly on Th Wall 30th Jan 2020 — 1:16 pm

    Yr not wrong Pat O no yr not. O yes ya are! As you say anything that helps is good. Categorising crimes can be a negative bias Have a general policy and use discretion hi

    Like

  13. 11:19. Why do you feel the need to be so dismissive? People making posts are only stating what they believe regardless of whether you believe it or not. Indeed if RCC priests and bishops were to undergo a polygraph test I am of the firm opinion that they would be found lying. After all they belong to a lying cheating and abusing church. Go on tell me this is a rant if you want. It doesn’t change FACTS. Why would you ever be afraid of truth? Is it because truth and the RCC aren’t good bed fellows?

    Like

    1. Check out this prevaricating, dodge-the-question-at-all-costs Bishop Hoeppner while hiding behind a condescending smirk.

      Like

      1. I find these cowardly bishops repulsive and can’t bring myself to respect them. The penny hasn’t dropped that if they would only show some courage, integrity and transparency, people would start to respect them again.

        It’s doubtful that these clerics would be prepared to be martyrs for God if they run like rabbits from a few condemnatory lines in the media.

        Like

      2. No wonder why the Church is a laughing stock. It’s because of these spineless bishops. And no wonder so many socio/psychopaths feel attracted to the priesthood with such indecisive ditherers at the helm.

        The modern priesthood is a psychopath’s paradise.

        Like

      3. Cardinal ‘I can’t recall’ Mahony.

        Like

      4. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=1emjuaxHpWs
        In this Archbishop’s diocese accused priests were allowed to roam at will with stringent oversight protocols in place.

        Like

      5. Utterly despicable evil bastard Hoeppner

        Like

      6. stupid lawyer argues like a gurrier

        Like

    2. 1.33: Yes, another crazy rant. Crazy. I am not afraid of TRUTH but I am afraid of LIES and of people who spoof out facts, like yours, without any empirical research to validate your claims. Now, be intelligent and not a brainless spinner of LIES.

      Like

      1. @11:19 at some point you are going to have to face the *fact* (incidentally it is customary in Internet communication to use asterisks or some other symbol as I have here for emphasis, as the use of capitals indicates shouting and is bad manners) that the world outside your beloved church has changed and is no longer willing to give it the unconditional respect it once did. You also have to face the fact that this is because of clergy behaviour and whether or not you think that is fair is immaterial. You will also have to face up to being seen as another of those abusive clerics supporting a godless institution against all costs. If you are going to claim not to be a cleric, well you clearly are really, because you can only be a Cathbot who customarily has his tongue so far up the nearest priest’s *rse that you and he have become indistinguishable.

        Like

      2. Now you try to be someone who respects others’ views and doesn’t scream lies every time you hear something you don’t like. Because you really don’t come across very well 😋

        Like

      3. At 5:56
        A point of order: the use of capital letters for emphasis is acceptable across a wide variety of literary contexts.
        The use of asterisks to do so is bizarre and idiosyncratic.
        Allow me to introduce you to quotation marks “double” or ‘single.’
        You sound like one of those U.S. posters.

        Like

      4. Hi Magna @ 5:56!

        Like

      5. @6:26
        Not in Internet communication.
        You are trad aren’t you?

        Like

      6. 7.30’s views are laughable. (S)he pontificates about ‘Internet communication’ as if it were homogenous and conformed to a style-sheet and as if (s)he had sufficient knowledge of the almost infinite variety of forms and practices, when in fact her/his familiarity with a keyboard is very likely limited to a single language.

        Like

  14. 1.33pm you sound like the perfect model of virtue and I recommend you for immediate canonization with the need for any miracles. What does it feel like to be so perfect? No need for God on judgement day when we have you instead.

    Like

  15. There are degrees of moral responsibility and culpability relative to vocation and position 2:23 pm.
    Please don’t hide behind the usual and infantile “thou shall not judge” smokescreen.
    Clerics of every rank are called to be irreproachable because of their office and fiduciary duty to their flocks.
    Instead of being faithful shepherds, many clerics have acted as rapacious wolves.
    Clerics chose to pursue their particular vocation. They, therefore, have to accept the burden of responsibility that goes with that choice.

    Like

    1. 4:36
      The major flaw in your argument:
      “Clerics of every rank are called to be irreproachable because of their office and fiduciary duty to their flocks.”
      No. Rather, Christians of every hue are called to be moral because of their membership of the human race, first and foremost, and secondly, because of their discipleship of Christ, whether lay or ordained.
      It’s regrettable for you that such a line of thought doesn’t permit you to occupy the moral high ground.

      Like

      1. “There are degrees of moral responsibility and culpability relative to vocation and position 2:23 pm.”

        I never said that lay Christians are not called to be moral 6:15 pm, I just pointed out the different degrees in responsibility. Read the start of my comment again at the top of this post.

        Clerics are given time during formation, freedom from worldly concerns during ministry, education that many laity do not have either the time nor money for, all to help them be wise, holy and responsible leaders of their flock whom they are meant to be sure guides of.

        The reason why Ireland is in a moral mess is because many in the modern clergy are derelict in their duty.

        Like

      2. @6:15pm, Clerics of every rank are called to be irreproachable! There is no flaw in 4:36’s argument. Where did the comment say that the laity are not called to be moral?

        Like

      3. Unfortunately, 6:15 pm, clerics have lost any right to claim any type of moral ground, high or low, because of the satanic behaviour of some in their class.
        It is no coincidence that clerics are now viewed with suspicion by many.
        I would not trust any priest until I have known him for a considerable length of time. I have experienced far too many dodgy ones to be gullible and overly credulous just because Fr X may come across as “nice” and “good humoured”, or the classic “sure you wouldn’t even think he was a priest”. The latter I would be particularly wary of.

        Like

      4. Did you ever read this Fr 4:36 on your travels?
        LUKE 12:48
        But the one who does not know and does things deserving punishment will be beaten with few blows. From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked

        Like

    2. Dodgy clerics love to hide behind the “do not judge” nonsense as a quasi-disclaimer for doing whatever they like.
      Nobody can judge the subjective state of another’s soul, which is for God alone, but our brains are making needed judgements every waking moment.
      Clerics are called be moral judges for lay people. Many of them, though, hate to be judged themselves when such judgements are medicinal and needed.
      Ezekiel the priest called to a watchman ( Ezekiel 3: 16 – 19):
      16 At the end of seven days the word of the Lord came to me: 17 “Son of man, I have made you a watchman for the people of Israel; so hear the word I speak and give them warning from me. 18 When I say to a wicked person, ‘You will surely die,’ and you do not warn them or speak out to dissuade them from their evil ways in order to save their life, that wicked person will die for[b] their sin, and I will hold you accountable for their blood. 19 But if you do warn the wicked person and they do not turn from their wickedness or from their evil ways, they will die for their sin; but you will have saved yourself.

      Like

      1. You are almost as bad as Carta Magna for quoting scripture out of context. Perhaps you are he under an anonymous handle. That passage in Ezekiel is the introduction to his treatment of personal responsibility where he impressively dismantles the belief that descendants suffered for the crimes of their ancestors.
        It’s far from being a licence to make generalised judgements.

        Like

      2. Dear 10:08, I was merely pointing out to you that priests, like Ezekiel, are called to make sound moral judgements and be good guides to their flocks.

        That is another valid application of the quoted text.

        Like

    3. 6.15
      Priests are expected to obey their bishops, and through these the institutional Church.
      Do not confuse this with moral irreproachability.

      Like

    4. 10.08

      You again. 😁

      My disturbed, jealous stalker who thinks he not only knows Scripture, but is its exegetical wizard.😅

      You haven’t the faintest idea of biblical exigesis and hermenutics.

      And every time you’ve attempted to invalidate any biblical critique or exposition by me, you’ve ended with egg all over your face.😆

      Like

      1. He/she doesn’t know as little about ‘hermenutics’ (sic) as you do.

        Like

  16. 2:23 and 2:44. My but you are so defensive. Like every other human being g I am imperfect. However, I am not claiming to be onto!logically changed. Neither am I abusing children, not covering it up. I also WORK for a living and do not sponge off others. I do not live in luxury and I don’t think I I am better than anyone else. As for sainthood, sure doesn’t one have to be declared a saint by, as Magna so eloquently puts it, the Roman strumpet? Er no thank you. Peddling lies? Ask your priest about that one

    Like

    1. Hi Magna!

      Like

    2. 5.00: Sir, neither do I abuse children and NEVER have nor do I cover up. EVER. Any evidence I’ve had I brought to relevant authorities. I also work for my living (as a dedicated, conscientious priest with many imperfections). I do not live in luxury (some might: I don’t). Yes, some may tell lies but thankfully my parents instilled good, God-like, Christian values in us, honesty, truthfulness, integrity, a deep sense of moral right and wrong, kindness to others and fidelity to God. It’s typical of people like you to jump on a nasty bandwagon of generalised judgment and to use any article on this blog that gives space to smash all priests. It’s wring, unfair and unjust. The article tiday is about whether all paedophiles should be subjected to a lie detector tests but you have chosen the tooic to fling your poisoned arrows at priests. If it gives you happiness and contentment, good for you! Indeed, it’s LIES which you perpetuate that’s despicable and repugnant.

      Like

    3. 5.00

      Thanks for the acknowledgement.

      The poster @ 6.07 thinks that you are I.

      Perhaps you’ll realise how often I am wrongly identified on this blog from your experience.

      Like

  17. My my, you should get that big massive chip on your shoulder sorted out mate at 5pm. It’s obviously eating away at you. As for not thinking you’re better than anyone else then that’s the biggest chuckle I’ve had today. Mr judgemental is alive and kicking in you – get it sorted out pal.

    Like

    1. 6.31: Mr. Angry Begrudger is full of inner angst. His words reveal a twisted malcontent with many unresolved psychological wounds which he hinges on his very negative view if priests. Perhaps, like Magsy Carty, he was flung out of a seminary and is full of vengeance at the sight of priests or he is just a serial hater of all things Catholic. Pity about him. Thank God for our kind, good and dedicated priests.

      Like

      1. If he was flung out of Gaynooth I would say fair play to him.

        Like

      2. 7.17
        I was never expelled from seminary, much less ‘flung’ from one.
        Are you a priest or a cathbot? Maybe both?
        You do know that calumnising someone is a sin?
        Do you take that stuff seriously? The Ten Commandments?
        Do you realise that the prohibition of bearing false witness against a person is one of The Commandments?
        Can you prove that I was expelled from seminary?
        Or are you content to remain in your sin?

        Like

      3. 8.57
        A pseudonymous personality has no case against calumny.

        There’s something hugely incongruous about the perpetrator of vulgarity, lies, and disgusting insulting language protesting about being calumniated.

        Like

    2. 10.00
      I wasn’t speaking in legal terms.
      A lie is a lie.
      I AM real, despite the username. And I am ONE person.
      Your point falls flat on its fallacious face, since the other person clearly treated me as real and lied accordingly.
      But I give that poster another chance: prove that I was ‘flung’ out of seminary.

      Like

  18. Changes in Armagh!!!!!

    Like

  19. 5.00: Isn’t it interesting how when any cleric seeks to debunk myths and lies, they’re accused of being defensive! Using that overused word ‘defensive’ is a way of saying priests shouldn’t be allowed opinions or the space to defend their individual integrity. Thank God we live in a democracy.

    Like

  20. 6:38 Mr conscientious priest with integrity!! And tell me Mr priest how do you exercise this integrity? By serving your bishop or serving God. You know, as a conscientious man with integrity Mr priest that you cannot do both. I’d be interested to hear your thoughts Mr priest and would also invite you to share the name of your diocese

    Like

    1. 8.18: At this stage Mr. Sir, it’s pointless arguing with you. You are deliberately being supercilious. Your questions have been already answered. Can you not accept my beliefs, truths and integrity? If you cannot do so, that, dude, is your problem. You are engaging in semantics. I know my conscience before God and that is my priority. I live as true to God’s ways as is possible, often with immense struggle. Priesthood has never stopped me from serving God first and foremost. The narrative of “they’re all the same…” is patently false. Mr. Dude,the Diocese I belong to is irrelevant but be assured my voice IS heard.

      Like

      1. Why do all the priests who comment here never publish their names? I will tell you why: Because you are scared shitless that your bishop may see you! Simple. Fact. Don’t try to tell me otherwise.

        Like

      2. And, dear 9:08, who are you scared shitless of – to use your own vulgar expression – that you don’t publish yours?

        Like

      3. @9:51 pm, I am not making claims regarding my moral actions as you are.

        Any “priest” can claim to do this or that under an anonymous tag. If you can’t back them up, why should you be believed?

        Like

      4. Fr 9:51 pm
        As a priest your name is no doubt on your parish website; you probably post moral platitudes and other “safe”, “politically correct” comments on the parish Facebook page. But yet you won’t publish your name here to back-up your claim that you are one of the few brave priests who speak out against corruption in the Church?!

        Like

      5. At 10.30 p.m.
        I’m not a priest. Better not to rush to conclusions without any evidence.

        Like

      6. @11:16 am, please then explain: “Priesthood has never stopped me from serving God first and foremost.”

        Another liar.

        Like

    2. 9.08

      Spot on!👍

      Some of these LIARS actually have tried to convince blog readers that they have been open and vocal in their protestations of clerical child-sexual abuse and its concealment by RC bishops.

      But the fact that not one of these gutless bastardos has posted here under his own name gives the lie to their claims.

      These parasites are Christ-betrayers. They are watching their own backs rather than those of children. (Jeez! What a horrible mental image I’ve just conjured.)

      These priests have sold their souls to an institution ‘corrupt, and riddked with corruption’.

      Like

  21. 6:43. This blog is open to everyone but I do have to challenge your assertion that priests are trying to debunk lies on this blog. The lies lie at the heart of the RCC with its pretentious titles and practices. No amount of whinging by affronted clerics can debunk truths. How can anyone, conscientious or not keep peddling the crap that the RCC practice. Lies? Is it a fact that many many priests are living double lives whilst pretending to be living a virtuous life? Is it a fact that they take an oath to serve their bishop? Is it a fact that a great deal of their number have committed the most heinous crimes against children whilst pretending to live a virtuous life? Is it a fact that the RCC has attempted to cover these up? Is it s fact that a great deal of clerics are bullies, mysoginist and liberal with the truth? Need I go on? In your narrow view you may think that this is lies. I’m sorry sir/madam but these are facts that cannot be “debunked”. Now let me turn to one other point- tarring all priests with the same brush. Interesting one this. I’m not so stupid to believe that they are all the same. However they ALL pledge allegiance to the same rotten system, namely the RCC and they are leading people astray from Gods truth.

    Like

  22. 8.35: Sir/Madam: Interestingly, I share your assessment of the Church with its corruption, waywardness from Christ’s gospel, criminality of abuse and cover us, its lack of truth and accountability. I share your view that some of the teachings of the Church produces misogyny and bullying and a sense of entitlement, disgracefully, sinfully and wrongly. I accept that this culture is deeply hurtful and painful for many and is the complete antithesis to God’s ways and the gospel of Christ. It is imperative that every priest (and others) condemn all such abuse and when necessary to report to relevant authorities any evidence of abuse of any kind. I am no more perfect than you or anyone else but I do have a moral sense of right and wrong and a sense of justice. I attribute these qualities to my upbringing and try to bring them into my life. It may seem incredulous to you but I condemn all lies and abuse wherever I find it. Each day I face my God (not my Bishop) in the honesty of my conscience and mostly I end up asking for his mercy and forgiveness for MY sins and failings.

    Like

  23. Dude (quite like that) 30th Jan 2020 — 9:25 pm

    8:57. Mr priest, I do not know you personally so am therefore unable to offer any opinion of you. However, I do believe that the church you belong to and serve is rotten at its core. This belief is because of experiences I have lived through and witnessed. Can you not accept my beliefs? If your voice is heard are you sure it is being acted upon? Given the mess that unfolds with each passing day it would appear that your voice is one in the wilderness. I sincerely wish you well if, as you say, you continue to speak out. I struggle, however , to accept that in all sincerity you still pledge allegiance to this outfit

    Like

    1. This is the nub of so many arguments on here. My own view is it is impossible to pledge allegiance to the outfit. Also bishops saying they are listening to complaints while quietly shuffling the abuser round, is a classic diversionary tactic. Once you have seen the rottenness of the church you can’t go back.

      Like

    2. Welcome to the human race! It sounds as if you have just arrived here.
      9.25

      Like

    3. 9.25: I think we should desist from personalizing our arguments and differences. (I accept my responsibility). I have to accept your truths. They belong to you. I have struggled with the many questions you ask. After much personal searching through desert retreats, group reflective discussions, spiritual direction and counselling I am able now to focus only on what I believe God expects.

      Like

  24. At the current UK minimum wage for over 25 year old 24/7 chaperoning would cost over £70,000 a year per person in salary alone. Last years figures from the government give a cost to keep one prisoner for a year around £26,000. Your idea of chaperoning is unlikely to happen any time soon, because it’s the cost of staff that makes things expensive. One to one care is often used in mental health but alternative care without a continuous staff member present will always be considered – again, because of the cost. In reality it is cheaper to lock them up when they offend, despite this approach plainly not working to prevent child abuse.

    Like

    1. As I said, children, and their welfare, clearly do not matter to government.

      Governnent will always find the money to fund political war, but never psycho-sexual war on children.

      Children are not valued by government, because children are not economically productive.

      Like

  25. This topical post gets to the heart of the question of whether we really value truth, transparency and the safeguarding of children.
    Our starting point is that justice in the UK is at best ephemeral and at worst exists to protect vested interests instead of protecting the Public Interest.
    How could we fall so far from grace, when a more effective lawful remedy is available?
    Statistically, polygraph testing by experts only works.
    The key for success is that it requires experts who are trained to properly administer and evaluate the data.
    The nae-sayers, are a mixture of luddites, lawyers or Statists, people with a vested interest to protect.
    The science is that it depends on the autonomic nervous system. i.e. Nervous system responses that cannot be faked or controlled.
    Some would say that our State court system will give you a 50% chance of success even if you have a 100% prime facie case, with the evidence not in dispute.
    The technology that exists and is soon to be ubiquitous is creating a tipping-point to provide us with truth, transparency and accordingly the return to personal accountability.
    Bring it on!
    The other sympathetic remedies to be adopted along with polygraph testing, provide us with a suite of techniques to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that people are telling the truth or not.
    They are psychometric testing, statement analysis and eye-tracking software, all administered by experts.
    Who should take the new paradigm of testing techniques?
    All people coming into regular contact with children; priests, bishops and cardinals, State employees, doctors, nurses and police.
    This should be adopted as part of a regular testing methodology to screen for personality disorders and for people posing a risk to children, if we are serious about safeguarding children.
    Given that these technologies are oven-ready now, it is now the reasonably practicable best practice to be adopted by organisations to ensure that they have proved compliance.
    On cost benefit analysis, it is a no-brainer and will become the silver-bullet-solution for Insurers, to ensure that our children are protected, which after all is the most important consideration, if we are sincere.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this:
search previous next tag category expand menu location phone mail time cart zoom edit close