The Forum > Article Comments > Solid ground in inaction on child abuse for building name change at Churchie > Comments
Solid ground in inaction on child abuse for building name change at Churchie : Comments
By Amanda Gearing, published 21/4/2017It is only the firm leadership of Archbishop Phillip Aspinall that appears to be preventing the clock turning backwards on child abuse reform in Brisbane's Anglican Diocese.
- Pages:
-
- 1
-
- All
- Pages:
-
- 1
-
- All
Old Boys protest at the scapegoating of Dr Roberts, do not endorse sexual abuse or want to “turn back the clock.”
They have shown the School Council did not investigate the claims of abuse or talk to those including former Council chairmen who were there at the time.
There were two complaints made in the Roberts era, against Leslie and Wippell. He acted appropriately and with the full authority of Council and Archbishop. In the 1960s police would not have listened to uncorroborated complaints. It is fatuous to say Roberts should have gone to police, and morally bankrupt to condemn him for his proper actions.
The Hoskins crimes were not known or discovered until 2002. Whitehouse as rowing coach committed no offences against boys at the school. He was charged later for homosexual activities, then illegal, not child abuse.
The parents of the Leslie case victim were content that Leslie left to work for a member of the school council with the approval of the archbishop. We have a letter confirming this.
The demand for removing the name originated from and was organised by a former Roberts era student who had been convicted for murder as a life insurance claim fraud. He later attempted an international extortion, falsely claiming sexual abuse. The court documents indicate he faked a suicide and invented his claim of abuse by Wippell. He lied to the Royal Commission.
Old Boys have done the only comprehensive investigation of the facts of the case. They have proved that both the School and Aspinall failed in their duty to conduct due diligence into the complaints and allegations. They were prepared to trash the reputation of a fine headmaster, although warned not to.
The fact is the school and the church have been conned , manipulated by a criminal into a knee-jerk reaction to protect the archbishop’s reputation.
There was no vitriolic attack on Aspinall. He refused to accept the evidence put to him over many months. The 23 page letter simply set out the history of negotiations