CALDEY ISLAND INDEPENDENT SAFEGUARDING REVIEW

Some rather astonishing and – it seems – positive news below.  I’ll need to read it and absorb it fully and its implications but four points come immediately to mind

1)Congratulations to  Survivor Kevin O’Connell for fighting for this result.

2) I know the RLSS helped at an early stage. Whether they assisted in making this review happen, I don’t know. If they did, then they have shown their real value as a safeguarding organization. Certainly they are listed in the document below.

If they didn’t, it’s a useful role model for the RLSS to take note of for other religious reviews.

3) In particular, this is how reviews should act as a TEMPLATE  for long overdue reviews of CROOME COURT and for THE DE LA SALLES

And, I believe, the Ipswich KNIGHTS OF ST COLUMBA whose criminal behaviour towards children in the 60s and almost certainly beyond must be dealt with properly and vigorously by the RLSS.

4)Kevin O’Connell also implicated Catholic priests in organized pedophile rings connected with Caldey Island.

This tallies with at least  three other examples of UK organised Catholic pedophile rings, including my own experience as a boy.

Hitherto, everywhere on the planet has had numerous examples of organized, systemic Catholic sexual abuse of children – except for… Britain. Somehow it’s part of our British supposed ‘exceptionalism’.   

I was impressed by this statement by the monks:  ‘Caldey Island is under new leadership and they are committed to transparency, openness and healing.’

 If only that were true of the De La Salles, Croome Court and the Knights who all make similar claims, but purely as a PR exercise and they provably don’t mean a word of it.

Let’s hope these monks are different and for real.

One gripe already… They should not use the word HISTORICAL which it’s widely accepted now is inappropriate, outmoded and dismissive of the full impact of the numerous and terrible crimes against children committed by the Catholic Church.

I know ‘non-recent’ is a bit crap,too, so why bother with it at all. Or say ‘crimes committed in the 1960s/70s/80s’ as the case may be.

This was the email I received this morning.

Hi Pat,

Caldey Abbey has just announced it has commissioned an independent review into historical claims of child abuse. The review is being conducted by Jan Pickles OBE and all the details are in the attached press release, FAQs and terms of reference documents. Maria Battle, the former deputy Children’s Commissioner for Wales is the new safeguarding lead on Caldey and she is available for comment. She can be contacted at this email address (safguarding@caldey-island.co.uk) or on 07562 946894.

This review is focusing on the case of Kevin O’Connell and he as asked that you be contacted to let you know about the review.

Kind regards,

Caldey Abbey

I’ve opened the documents for fellow survivors of Catholic crimes to read. As follows:

PRESS RELEASE

9^th April 2024

Caldey Abbey Announces New Leadership and Commitment to Safeguarding 

Caldey Island, West Wales – Caldey Island Cistercian Abbey is pleased to announce the appointment of Father Jan Rossey as its new Superior. Father Rossey is committed to fostering openness and transparency within the monastery. As a central pillar of this approach, an independent review into historical claims of child abuse has been commissioned. 

“In common with many other organisations, Caldey Abbey has, in the past, received disclosures and allegations involving members of the monastic community about their behaviour towards children”, stated Father Jan. “We take these allegations very seriously and, in order to uphold our commitment to safeguarding, we have commissioned a leading Independent Safeguarding Consultant, Jan Pickles OBE, to conduct a thorough review.” 

“This review is about taking responsibility, learning from the past, and building a safe environment for everyone,” Father Rossey continued. “I have also appointed Maria Battle, formerly the Deputy Children’s Commissioner for Wales, as our new safeguarding lead. Maria is reviewing our safeguarding policies, practice and training to ensure all visitors to Caldey are safe.”  

“As we prepare to welcome visitors back to Caldey Island, we remain dedicated to providing a secure environment with effective procedures for safeguarding all who visit, live on, or work on the island.” 

The conclusions of the review will be made public after completion.

For More Information

Phone calls

• Religious Life Safeguarding Service (RLSS) on 0300 323 0096
• Police on 101
• Maria Battle on 07562 946894

Email

• RLSS –Safeguarding@religioussafeguarding.org
• Maria Battle (Caldey Island Safeguarding Officer) safeguarding@caldey-island.co.uk

End

CALDEY SAFEGUARDING REVIEW – FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS (FAQS):

Why is this happening now?

Caldey Island is under new leadership and they are committed to transparency, openness and healing. The first step to healing is listening and Fr Jan Rossey, the new superior of the Abbey, is conscious that people affected by historic abuse may not have been properly heard. He wants those affected to have a voice and to ensure that the lessons from the past are learned and to ensure everyone living on and visiting the island is safe.

Who is Jan Pickles OBE, the independent reviewer?

Jan is the former Assistant Police & Crime Commissioner for South Wales. She is an experienced social worker and has also worked in the third sector, probation service, government and the NSPCC. She is the director of a safeguarding advisory service to government, local authorities, NGO’s, education, sport, faith groups and the private sector. She has undertaken a wide range of similar reviews including Chelsea Football Club, Winchester College and for the Archdiocese of Birmingham. In 2022she chaired the Child Practice Review into the death of Logan Mwangi. She has held Ministerial appointments as a member of the National Independent Safeguarding Board of Wales and as a non-executive Director for an NHS Trust. She has been the Chair and remains a member of the Advisory Board for the Centre for Expertise in Child Sexual Abuse a Home Office funded UK wide based organisation which provides evidence-based approaches to the prevention of child sexual abuse and protection of victims. Jan Pickles had no previous connection to Caldey Island or the Abbey.

Will the results of the review be published?

Yes. The key findings and recommendations will be published.

How long will it be before publication?

The review is underway. We will give whatever time is needed to complete it so we can’t say just yet as this is up to the reviewer.

Is this a public inquiry?

No, this is an independent review. Requests for a public inquiry were not granted by the Welsh Government or the Children’s Commissioner for Wales. Caldey Abbey does not have the legal powers to hold a public Inquiry but the new leadership at Caldey Abbey is keen to take the initiative to listen to the evidence and act on the recommendations of the independent reviewer.

What will be reviewed?

The review will examine in detail the allegations made by Kevin O`Connell and the management of those allegations by Caldey Abbey and identify any learning. The terms of reference for the review have been agreed and are on the website.

How will the review be undertaken?

By considering all the written material kept by Caldey Abbey and the Diocese of Menevia and meeting with Kevin O’Connell to listen to him and consider any material he has and by interviewing all appropriate staff and others and relevant professionals. Other past cases will be considered as part of the context of the review however, it is not the purpose of this review to make any specific findings of fact in relation to other past cases.

Can I have an interview with Fr Jan Rossey now about the review?

Whilst the review is underway it is inappropriate for Fr Jan to comment as he should have the opportunity to consider the evidence and the findings of the review first.

Who can I speak to about the review then?

Maria Battle, the Caldey Island Safeguarding Lead would be happy to speak to you, although what she can say whilst the review in underway is limited as the evidence is still being gathered. You can also contact the Religious Life Safeguarding Service or the Police. Contact details can be found on the press release.

Is this review connected to the Caldey Island Survivors Campaign?

The independent reviewer is considering the allegations of Kevin O`Connell who leads the campaign However, the review is independent of both this campaign and of Caldey Abbey. 

Is it safe for me and my family to go to Caldey?

Yes. In line with best practice elsewhere all monks and staff have received safeguarding training. A new Safeguarding Policy has been adopted along with new processes and reporting systems. A new Safeguarding Lead (Maria Battle) has been appointed, who is a former Deputy Children’s Commissioner for Wales.

Is the review truly independent if Caldey Abbey is funding it?

Absolutely. Caldey Abbey does not know what the reviewer will find and will not be able to influence or modify its findings or recommendations.

What do I do if I have information that might be relevant to the review?

Please contact Maria Battle, the Religious Life Safeguarding Service or the Police (contact details are on the press release).

Caldey Safeguarding Review: Terms of Reference

Commissioned by Caldey Abbey

Background 

1. Caldey Abbey is committed to providing an environment in which there are effective procedures for safeguarding and protecting all who visit, live on or work on the Island.

• In common with many other organisations, Caldey Abbey has, in the past, received disclosures and allegations involving members of the community about their behaviour towards children.  

• As part of the commitment to safeguarding, Caldey Abbey wishes to examine in detail the allegations made by KO and Review the management of these allegations by its community.

Review 

• The Abbey has commissioned a leading Independent Safeguarding Consultant, Jan Pickles OBE, to undertake this Review.  Her point of contact will be the Caldey Abbey Safeguarding Lead Maria Battle.

• The role of the independent Reviewer is to identify any learning for Caldey Abbey from this case.

Methodology  

1. Review all written material, correspondence and files kept by Caldey Abbey and the Diocese of Menevia relating to this case.
   1. Meet with KO and his support/advocate (if wished) to identify any material he may have in his possession related to the allegations and their handling of.
   1. Interview all staff and others who are deemed appropriate by the Reviewer.
   1. Discuss the case with relevant professionals to gain their insight into the events at the time.
   1. Prepare a written analysis of the material and prepare a high-level ‘key points’ report focusing on lessons learned and guidance for future best practice.

The Review process will be overseen by the Safeguarding Lead Maria Battle who will support the Review by facilitating access to documents and speaking with key staff about the purpose of the Review.

• Prior to the Review commencing, the Safeguarding Lead will liaise with the Dyfed Powys Police to ensure that they are content with the scope of this Review and the proposed methodology. 

• Bearing in mind the historical context other relevant bodies including the Children’s Commissioner for Wales should be informed of the Review. 

Limitations 

• This Review will encourage self-reflection with a focus on systems, policy and practice; it will be about learning and not attributing blame.  If the Review identifies any behaviours that are of a criminal or safeguarding nature Caldey Abbey will follow its safeguarding policy (currently dated November 2022 but a refreshed version is about to be finalised) and make a referral to the appropriate authorities.

• The Reviewer will also independently make appropriate referrals if the Review identifies any behaviours that are of a criminal or safeguarding nature.

1.  Where the independent Reviewer provides advice and recommendations during the Review, Caldey Abbey will consider and will act on these rather than wait for the conclusion of the Review. 

1. The Review will avoid ‘hindsight bias’ to ensure actions or the lack of action following allegations are viewed at the time they came to light.

1. This Review is not a legal inquiry.  Past cases will be considered as part of the context at the time of KO’s allegation; however, it is not the purpose of this Review to determine criminal or civil liability of individuals or to make any specific findings of fact in relation to past cases.

Final points

1. This Review is about Caldey Abbey taking ownership and responsibility for ensuring it learns lessons from the past and creates a safe environment for all today.  The output from the Review is the property of the Caldey Abbey.  The Abbey is, however, committed to sharing the output and recommendations with KO and the statutory partners where that would be helpful to do so.

1. Whilst this Review has been commissioned by Caldey Abbey and is being paid for by Caldey Abbey, the output and recommendations will be those freely and independently formed by the independent Reviewer.  

1. Any change to these Terms must be agreed by all parties in writing.

 Jan Pickles

21.02.24

DE LA SALLES – STILL WAITING FOR A RESPONSE

Several weeks have passed and the RLSS have still not got back to me with a response from the De La Salles on a proposed genuine apology and simple solution.

To reprise, in 2021 IIRC  the DLS initially offered APOLOGY A. This was a curt ‘sorry’  to all survivors that didn’t actually appear until after it was supposed to have done and drew the criticism of even the Tablet.  When it did appear, it was buried in the DLS website and was hard to find.

A DLS  investigation was then promised to the media – which was a lie.

A proper apology regarding Bro  Laurence, head of the DLS who was sacked, prominently featured in the media, was promised and never happened.

Also, curiously,  around this time there was a longer apology which I’ve called APOLOGY B. Dated October 2021. See below.

I only came across it the other day.

 I’m fairly certain it’s different to Apology A, but I’m too bored by the lies and prevarication of the DLS to track the original down somewhere in the depths of the DLS site – and they may have removed it.

 I doubt hardly anyone has seen either Apology A or Apology B

A DLS Survivor had sent me a link

https://amethyst-maroon-4weg.squarespace.com/safeguarding

/wp:paragraph wp:paragraph

I’ve no idea what this amethyst site is, but it seems to be DLS connected. And I saw a further  link which I clicked on

---

Statement on recent social media activity GB

I call this APOLOGY B

Statement “The Trustees of De La Salle GB acknowledge social media posts alleging historic abuse in De La Salle school settings. The Trust is also committed to cooperating with the police in any investigation into any allegation made. We strongly denounce the abuse of children and those who commit such acts. We realise that only the victim can fully understand the nature of the hurt and the damage caused by their abuser, especially when it has occurred at the hands of someone who was in a position of trust, being responsible for their wellbeing. Where a Brother or member of staff at any De La Salle school was responsible for the abuse of any pupil we offer an unreserved apology. It goes against everything that compelled our Founder to respond to the needs and challenges of the young people of Rheims in the 17th century”. October 2021

It’s an empty facesaver  written in October 2021 and is meaningless unless it is backed by action which has not been forthcoming.

The DLS has sheltered and protected criminals which makes them an organisation with a proven criminal past .And the RLSS is today sheltering the DLS.

If I shelter a person who has committed serious crimes that makes me a criminal in the eyes of the law.

One thing is certain: the DLS has provably lost its moral compass – assuming it ever had one.

DE LA SALLES SAFEGUARDING – THEIR MISSION STATEMENT AND THE REALITY

I’m hugely indebted to a Survivor who took the trouble to go through what the De La Salles proudly claim about their own Safeguarding.

Their own Safeguarding is separate to the RLSS – Religious Life Safeguarding – who act as a filter and a way of protecting the DLS from us annoying Survivors.

AFAIK, no one has approached the DLS  Safeguarding directly without the filter of the RLSS.

The time may come when I may have to consider reaching out to them direct, but their mission statement doesn’t  fill me with optimism.

This sentence in particular took my breath away!

‘We will be open, transparent and accountable.’

Below is the statement in full and the Survivor’s commentary as follows:…..

Nothing much on the official DLS site, but I did find this safeguarding snippet, my own commentary in square brackets:

https://amethyst-maroon-4weg.squarespace.com/safeguarding

The De La Salle Brothers are fully committed to protecting children, young people and adults at risk from neglect and from all forms of abuse. This commitment is based on our Christian belief in the dignity and uniqueness of every person and in the recognition that each one of us is made in the image and likeness of God.

We abide by the safeguarding policies and guidelines provided by the Roman Catholic Church [note that it doesn’t mention this being aligned with the law of the land]. Each canonical jurisdiction of our District will work to shared approaches and standards, but with local guidelines [guidelines only?] where relevant and necessary, ensuring compliance with national policies and procedures for safeguarding [weak wording probably authored by a solicitor]. They will carry responsibility for implementation and hold localised accountability.

We promote the wellbeing of every child, young person and adult at risk by providing the highest level of respect, care and protection that we can offer.

For all those who work with us, or who are in our charge, we offer a safe, secure and welcoming environment, one that is free from discrimination, exploitation, harassment and maltreatment of any kind. [feels as if protecting themselves is higher priority]

We will take seriously and report immediately to the relevant civil authority any allegation of abuse, including any disclosure of abuse directed at a third party. [vague if this means abuse of staff of children]

We will be open, transparent and accountable. [!]

We will co-operate fully with any official investigation into allegations of abuse and we will work to ensure justice for those who are affected by abuse. [affected… victims being the perpetrators?]

We will respond to those affected by abuse with sensitivity, respect and compassion and endeavour to support them in whatever way is appropriate. [endeavour is a word that weakens the statement]

We will respond positively to anyone raising concerns about our safeguarding responsibilities, or the conduct of anyone holding office within our Trusts, or acting on behalf of the Trustees. [respond is insufficient, needs stronger words, it all sounds very reactive and nothing proactive]

We always seek to follow best practice in the matter of safeguarding by continuously learning and improving.

We ensure that the necessary resources are available to implement these policies.

DE LA SALLE SITUATION PRESENT AND PAST

THE PRESENT

Currently I’m awaiting a reply from the RLSS to what’s happening with the DLS.

For nearly TWO YEARS the DLS have not responded to the most serious crimes their members have committed against children including child-rape and sexually abusing a child and then beating him up so badly he had to be hospitalized for an extended period.

The RLSS replaced the SCOE. This delayed matters and meant the new safeguarding organization wanted time to settle in.

The RLSS asked for my patience and assured me they were making real progress in getting the DLS to ‘do the right thing’.

After well over a year this does not seem like the case.

As I said to the RLSS yesterday:

‘This raises the question of, as they are still prevaricating, what steps can be taken to refer them (the DLS) to a higher authority as you said in the interview.’

Amongst the issues the RLSS should be addressing as a matter of urgency TODAY:

1. The De La Salles lying to the press about the investigation. A clear and unconditional apology to all of us is required.
2. Laurence apologizing to victims of his vicious beatings. When will that happen? It’s now years overdue!
3. Brother Kieran – an abuser who may still be alive. Why aren’t YOU – the RLSS and the DLS  – after him right now? Children could still be in grave danger. The confusion over his name is easy enough to resolve.
4. Acknowledging three of the DLS as  typical prime sexual abusers – Kevin, James and Solomon as I previously suggested as a solution to the deadlock.

RLSS, please see below for further information on these issues.

THE PAST

This email below gives the situation as of 15^th August 2022.

O’Connor is part of the RLSS.

As Survivors will know – there has been no investigation as Hudd below claims.

This means he – as the spokesperson for the DLS – has LIED to the media. And to Survivors.

Email to:

Safeguarding@religioussafeguarding.org  johnbiggins@lasalleigbm.org

15 August 2022.

Dear Stephen O’Connor and John Biggins,

Des Bill gave me your details when he told me the SCOE was defunct and I understand you are both taking over from him where my issues are concerned.

I would like to assume that he passed over my outstanding queries to you both, but, as I haven’t heard from you, I will reprise:

THE INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION

I asked Des Bill on June 22 as follows:

I wanted to see what the latest situation was regarding the numerous allegations of abuse by old boys, including myself, at the hands of the De La Salles. Not only at St Joseph’s Ipswich, but also Beulah Hill and elsewhere. As you know, they are all recorded on this website  (pat mills.wordpress.com)and have also been available in summary for an investigator’s convenience.

I’m aware that they have been sent to police Operation Hydrant, via yourself and Catholic Safeguarding, and I look forward to their response in due course. 

The DLS have also contacted Suffolk police  – see below – and this may be part of the Hydrant investigation or separate. It’s not been made clear and it would be useful to know.

It was also stated by the DLS spokesperson that an independent investigator would be commissioned to look into these allegations which he said were  ‘unheard of’.

‘ most of the accusations made on Mr Mills blog were “completely unheard of”, he (Hudd) said. 

See EADT December 11 2021

https://www.ipswichstar.co.uk/news/st-josephs-ipswich-abuse-monks-ask-police-8553626

“With regards to St Joseph’s, we’ve put the ball in Suffolk Constabulary’s court”, Mr Hudd said. “It’s up to them to work out what happened and if the abuse truly was systemic. 

“We’ve also hired our own independent and experienced child abuse investigator to assist the police. 

In fact ‘most’ allegations were ‘heard of’ and were familiar to the DLS as survivors of Brother Kevin’s abuse prove on my website. 

For the DLS to claim they were unaware of these allegations and more is unconvincing.

The DLS own records will confirm that ‘most’ were ‘heard of’ as I’m sure Hudd knows only too well.

Moving onto the investigation, I have not had any contact from an investigator. But how else are they to reach the authors of the various allegations on my site?

We have been waiting these many months and nothing has happened. Who the investigator is has not been revealed to us.

I have the strong feeling that the investigator -( now eight months later) – has done nothing.

Is that the case? And why not? 

BROTHER LAWRENCE HUGHES

To reprise on this matter, too:

Des Bill wrote to me on 15th July this year as follows:

I have been waiting for confirmation on the outcome to the investigation

following receipt of allegations made against Bro Laurence Hughes (LH).

De La Salle (DLS) in the near future will be making a statement about of the

outcome of the investigation and I understand this statement will contain an

apology to victims and will be published. I will ask DLS to make the

statement easily accessible, through their website or to others if/as

requested  

I understand that LH no longer holds any leadership or safeguarding role

within DLS.

……..

Des Bill did NOT respond to my several enquiries about the supposed independent investigation above.

So I – and other survivors would appreciate information about

1) The Independent investigation. Is it also defunct? And why? As it was announced to the press, if it is defunct, that, too, needs to be announced to the press. Or was it just a choice of words to give the impression of an independent investigation – as before with the similarly worded Hughes investigation –  but not the reality?  2)How matters are proceeding with Hydrant. 3) Brother Laurence Hughes. We have not seen the apology yet.

All as related above.

I will need to update survivors on my blog on these matters.

……..

I also want to bring to your attention recent allegations by  Old Boy SIMON against a BROTHER KIEREN. Or Kieron. Or Kiern 

See the attached doc below. He is alleged to have made boys play PE and swim naked. As he is described as young in 1986, he could well be still alive. He may still be in the DLS.

If he is alive, he could still be a current danger to children and therefore you will need to look at this, too.

I have Simon’s contact details.

Yours

Pat Mills 

HEAD OF THE DE LA SALLES: NAMED

I finally (!)  got a reply from the RLSS naming the current Provincial, the head of the De La Salles.

He is: BROTHER BEN HANLON

I’m relieved to say his name has never come up in any of the endless allegations against the De La Salles on this blog.

I have no desire to meet him unless there is actual real progress in the issues I and others have raised.

Too many Survivors have had private meetings with Catholic leaders which achieved nothing.

The RLSS also said that the Provincial is elected into his post and he may stand down this year or next and a new Provincial be elected. Apparently, this is quite normal.

I’m grateful to two Survivors for also pointing out Brother Ben is the Provincial.

One advised me that there are 5 charity trustees for the UK DLS and he is the Chair.  Although – confusingly – he’s called Brother Patrick Hanlon (his legal name), he is also Brother Ben Hanlon.

The date of his appointment also makes sense. That would have been when Brother Laurence, the previous Provincial, was suspended or sacked following revelations of his extreme violence towards children.

 
5 Trustee(s)

Name	Role	Date of appointment	Other trusteeships	Reporting status of other trusteeships
Rev Br Patrick Hanlon	Chair	29 June 2021	None on record

And I’m also grateful to another Survivor who also sent me this link naming Hanlon.Th

https://www.lasalleigbm.org/district-leadership

‘ Brother Visitor is both the canonical superior of the District’s Brothers and the chief executive officer of the District. The Team serves the Visitor, and by extension the District, in both advisory and administrative capacities.’

Brother Ben Hanlon is listed as the Brother Visitor as well as the Provincial. So they are not two different individuals as I had previously thought.  Although they seem to have been two separate jobs and two separate individuals in the past.

The link also lists a John Biggins as current DLS District Secretary.  His name will come up again in a subsequent post.

I’ve asked the RLSS – yet again – to tell me how their meeting with the DLS went, to which I’ve had, of course, no reply.

But I will be returning to progress chasing them after posting about some other DLS concerns.

WHO IS THE HEAD OF THE UK DE LA SALLES?

It’s a simple and reasonable question  for a DLS Survivor to ask and you would think it was easily answered. Especially by the RLSS who claim they believe in full transparency.

I’m afraid the RLSS currently fall very short of the high ideals they claim for themselves.

They have not responded to my requests to know the identity of this man.

For new readers, Brother Laurence was the Provincial, the head of the DLS, but was investigated and forced to resign a few years ago because of the efforts of Old Boys on this site. This was because of his extreme and well-documented physical violence. His promised apology has yet to happen.

Could that be the reason we do not know who Brother X is?

Are the DLS and RLSS afraid Brother X might be also recognised by Old Boys and not in a good way?

I went to the DLS website to see if I could find a reference to him.

There’s nothing that I could discover and I found the site to be as archaic and impenetrable as it was some three years ago when the DLS` deliberately buried an obscure and abrupt ‘sorry’ to survivors deep within their site, which even the Tablet criticised them for.

Possibly if I spent all day on the web I could discover who Brother X is.

Unless anyone out there can help?

If he has an excellent and unblemished CV I’ll be very happy to say so. It would be great! I would be absolutely delighted! It would give Survivors faith that the DLS are changing.

Over to the RLSS? Are you going to tell us who Brother X is?

Or is there a reason why you are hiding this information from us?

Are you part of the DLS problem rather than the solution?

RESPONSES TO THE DE LA SALLE REPORT

Firstly, thanks to a Survivor of the De La Salles who studied their report and had this to say:

I picked up at Page 33. Para 41  ……… “so that all Lasallian institutions WILL be safe places……”

A careful consideration of the above infers that they were not safe places in the past, and more IMPORTANTLY  they are not safe places IN THE PRESENT.

Additionally they give themselves a generous 7 years to achieve this.

What about Stopping the Sexual and Bodily assaults IMMEDIATELY?

Secondly, an outsider observer who didn’t have the misfortune to go to a DLS school made some shrewd observations on the DLS report. As follows:

“That De La Salle document is more chilling and delusional than Scientology or the Raelians.That is a corporate rebranding exercise which, considering their truly dark legacy, is cynical beyond comprehension. They have consulted with PR people etc and they are gathering the flock, much the same as when bent coppers meet down the pub to get their stories straight. How  different  it would be if mainstream media approached the Catholic Church on the same level as the Process, David Koresh, Aum Shinrikyo etc, strip away the pretension and it’s the same bunch of delusional, repressed perverts clinging to some mad fantasy of sky gods, leaving nothing good in their wake.”

To which I would add that it does feel like a most expensive report, especially the layouts – even though it’s full of barely readable gibberish – which hardly mentions child abuse even though  the DLS have been frequently in the dock for their endless crimes against children in recent years.

It was as if the Mafia or the SS decided to rebrand themselves as good guys and employed suitable Pinocchios to do a corporate rebranding on them.

There’s no sign of penitence, humility and acknowledgement of all the terrible crimes the DLS have committed – including child rape – one of the worst crimes of all and the most common in the Catholic community.

Instead, it’s the same old clericalism loaded with arrogant self-preening and sense of divine mission that I remember so well from when I went to a DLS school.

THE DE LA SALLE REPORT ON THEMSELVES

I’m grateful to a De La Salle Survivor for finding and going through the 2022 De La Salle meeting and resolution.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rpszJyJWkRmwsTGmmpzsL7WkCtFW9a2b/view

He noted: ‘Out of 68 pages there are small references of abuse at page 15 and page 32’

I found the self-congratulatory, pious tone, the unnecessarily dense and pretentious text, and especially the photos of the DLS brothers in their familiar regalia quite triggering.  So if you’re a Survivor, you may want to be careful if you open the link.

But that triggering was valuable for me – it reminded me of the De La Salles vile and organized, systemic pedophilia, their lies and cover-ups of their crimes which continue to this day, and their extreme physical brutality.

The photo of the trio at the beginning of the report was particularly useful. It’s just how I recalled them.

THESE ARE THE ONLY (!!) QUOTES IN THE REPORT ABOUT THE DE LA SALLE  CRIMES AGAINST CHILDREN:

‘Asking forgiveness for the serious damage caused by the abuse of minors and vulnerable adults.’  (PAGE 15)

………….

‘We are called to…

Defend human dignity , especially through the protection and safeguarding of the rights of minors and vulnerable adults’  (PAGE 32)

……………..

I’m not sure who they are asking forgiveness of. As they haven’t reached out to Survivors, I’m assuming they are asking God to forgive them and I assume they believe he has.

But we haven’t.

So I would ask the RLSS who have claimed that they are making genuine progress in getting the DLS to ‘do the right thing’ – is that really happening?

Or are you prevaricating and misleading Survivors like myself, just as the De La Salles have done?

We would like to know.

THE DE LA SALLES – MYSTERIOUS AS USUAL

Below is my last email to the RLSS

I don’t intend to zoom or meet anyone until there’s some hard evidence of progress.

I’m indebted to a DLS Survivor for telling me about ‘The Visitor’. Rather than call their investigator with a modern term we can all understand like  ‘Senior Safeguarding Officer’  or ‘Investigating Officer’, the DLS use a name which smacks of clericalism and gives them a faux mystique with its medieval connotations.

I didn’t know about ‘The Visitor’ and I suspect most Survivors don’t and yet it is presumably very relevant to us.

According to Wikipedia:

In the Catholic Church, a canonical visitation is the act of an ecclesiastical superior who in the discharge of his office visits persons or places with a view to maintaining faith and discipline and of correcting abuses. A person delegated to carry out such a visitation is called a visitor. 

As you’ll see below, there’s still considerable mystery created by the DLS and yourselves about whom we should contact. Is this because they are scared? Arrogant? Or as a way of playing for time?

My guess is all these reasons and the RLSS has not helped by allowing the DLS to maintain their mysteries and being indifferent to the needs of Survivors.

My further comments below my email to the RLSS:

Where the DLS are concerned, IIRC you said you had a recent meeting with them.

I’m guessing they managed to prevaricate further.

Meantime, it’s of concern to me and all DLS survivors that we don’t know the name of the new DLS Provincial who replaced Laurence.

And I’ve just been told by a DLS Survivor about ‘The Visitor’. As follows:

In Catholic Lingo a “Visitor” is generally somebody who is sent to investigate 

“matters”

I would speculate that this is the case. A glimmer of hope? I doubt it.

Distrito IGBM – Segundo nombramiento del Visitador

So there are three people at the DLS who appear to be in relevant control for responding to Survivors allegations. 

1)The non DLS spokesperson who talked to the local press about setting up a DLS investigation into these ‘unheard of’ allegations. And who lied. This needs acknowledging.

2) The DLS Head/ Provincial  – a man with no name.

3) The Visitor

Presumably it’s the Provincial you’re dealing with?  I think you need to clarify matters for Survivors.

None of the foregoing reflects well on the DLS and whether the RLSS have finally got them ‘to do the right thing’, as you hoped, a year or so ago.

I  would add to the above to the RLSS:

The De La Salles behaviour – from the above and previous examples – is classic  and wilful obfuscation.

The very opposite of transparency we should expect today and which the RLSS are meant to stand for.

Let me remind the RLSS  that we are talking here about  the De La Salles committing the most terrible sexual offences against children, some of which may be recent crimes.

And at least one of these vile DLS abusers is still alive. (That’s apart from members of the DLS in prison.)

By allowing them to prevaricate for over a year, the RLSS is in grave danger of becoming part of the problem rather than the solution.

I provided a simple way forward which I suspect the DLS are not going to respond to.

If the RLSS  assist them in their prevarication, then the RLSS  is guilty of covering up crimes.

The RLSS said in their video interview with me that if a religious organisation endlessly prevaricated, there were several mechanisms whereby they could be reported and dealt with by a higher authority.

I think that time is long overdue, don’t you?

I can appreciate confidentiality and discretion, but it can also be used as an excuse to do nothing and I believe that’s what’s happening here.  The level of mystery around the DLS – where we don’t even know their leader’s name – is straight out of the Inquisition!

The optics on it are appalling!

I don’t want to talk by zoom about all the problems the RLSS may have bringing these slippery customers (its paid clients) to justice.  That’s just delaying matters and is an overused and very Catholic technique to sooth and mollify angry Survivors. You’ll be aware of many past examples where Survivors talked or met with clerics and were tricked into believing there was progress, when in fact it was just a cynical photo opportunity.

That technique has had its day and won’t work with me.

I and other DLS Survivors need written statements of progress.

The RLSS really must stop protecting the most vile and disgusting criminals!

Over to you.

ANOTHER SURVIVOR OF ST JOSEPH’S COLLEGE IPSWICH

A really encouraging story on his blog. Here’s the link – it’s well worth a read!

https://birkfieldstory.blogspot.com/2024/02/give-us-closure.html?m=1