Why it is all Simon Cowells fault.

Just to make it clear, I have not watched x-factor for many years, and apparently Cowell has mellowed. I have never seen BGT either. But I did watch x-factor for a number of years and gave up when I started to realise what it was.

The people who enter are split into two categories. The first one is those who have little actual talent, and will never make it in the music industry. For these, the show, the entire format is abuse. They are put up to be laughed at, nothing more. They are encouraged to think that they have more talent than they have, while everyone knows that they are not going to achieve much.

This is different form, say, The Voice - everyone on that who is shown could make it in the business somewhere. Every one is musically talented, even if they don't quite work for the particular show. But Cowell likes his freak show. That is one reason why I stopped watching.

The other category are those who do have some talent, who can sing, and who might achieve success in the business. Some of the winners are in this category, but not all.

The problem with them is that they are "Cowelled" - turned into standard pop song production machines. Even those who have real talent - like Alexandria Burke - are modelled to produce the "right" songs.  the reason is that Cowell - and his like - are interested in making money out of the music industry. They are not interested in musical heritage or real talent. He forms the winners to produce money out of the industry machine.

There is no way that any of the great icons of music would ever have come out of this process. On the other side, none of the x-factor stars will be musical legends of the future - they will not be the next Bowie, Iggy, Lake, Emerson, whoever. And yet flooding the market with the Cowell-clones inhibits the development of these real icons and geniuses.

The fact that Cowell has so demeaned the music market to simply make money from it is what annoys me, what angers me about what he does. He is not in the business of finding talent - he wouldn't know talent if it slapped him around the head. He is in the business of making money, pure and simple.

But there is more, of course. Why is everything his fault? Because the x-factor voting has affected us all. The idea of voting for the joke, because it seemingly annoys Simon. Of course, it didn't really - it helped the rating for the show, so he was delighted. The idea of voting for the joke seems to have spread to the political arena too - making the "protest vote", because this is fun, and doesn't really matter. Except that, of course, it does. Because, underneath it all, there is someone else manipulating the system to make themselves more money.

The problem with Cowell is that he has normalised abuse, monetisation and "votes don't really matter" attitudes. Of course, it is not purely him, not all his fault, but he has some culpability. So maybe he has mellowed, but the damage may have already been done.

Is this government a cult?

 A discussion on the Ship made me consider that this government might, in fact be a religious cult. Let me explain why I think this.

1. A charismatic leader. Well, some people think he is. A smooth talker at least. That is a good start, someone who seems to be able to convince people that black is white.

2. An unerring belief in their own ideas. Irrespective of how demonstrably wrong or mistaken they are, they still believe that the Tory Ideal for Britain. The problems are always something to do with either the precise implementation, or the refusal of other people to accept them properly.

3. Total dismissal of anyone who disagrees with their principles. We have most recently seen this in the gagging of government funded science, where scientists are not allowed to criticise the government if they are funded by them. But it is wider - they refuse to accept insight from anywhere that does not sign up to the Tory Way.

4. "It is the right thing to do" - I have heard this so often, it is becoming a Cameron mantra. But it is the justification for all sorts of things, and there is nothing to really say against it. "No it isn't" sounds like childish arguing, but often this is the appropriate response. It is a brilliant piece of strategy and a dangerous approach to governing.

5. "If you vote for anyone else, you will go to hell". We hear this - in various forms - so often. Labour will ruin the economy (like the Tories haven't already), anyone else is a waste, voting for the Tories is a vote for a Greater Britain. It is so like the language used in churches and cults - "Stay with us, however much we abuse you, because if you leave your worst nightmares will happen". It works in so many abusive relationships.

Cancellation - a short story

Mum was furious, of course.

“That’s unprofessional, cancelling at such short notice. What are we expected to do now?” Of course, what she did was work furiously to find someone else. But it was never going to be the same.

I had been looking forward to this for so long, because this was going to be a very special event. I know it was only opening the town fate, but he was going to be here, and I – as mums only daughter – would be in charge of him, look after him for the hours he was around.

Of course, at school, this made me the centre of all attention. Everyone wanted to be my friend – except Jennifer Oswald, if I remember correctly, who though he was a creepy old man. But then, she was never one to go along with the crowd. I looked her up recently, and found that she had taken her own life many years ago. That shook me. I wondered when I read that.

And yes, I loved being the special one for a change. I loved all of the attention being about me – well, about him, but about me being the conduit to him.

When mum told me he had cancelled, my world fell apart. It might have been the last chance I had to meet him – he was doing less these days, and he was rarely on the TV. This was my one chance gone.

Needless to say, the day itself was an embarrassing failure, despite mum finding some soap star who could fill in.

It was a few years later that he died, and it all started. I couldn’t believe it when the rumours started, all those people telling lies about him. Why would they do that? Why would they say that stuff about him, my hero. Why would they tell all them lies about him? He would never do that – he loved kids. I couldn’t understand why so many people wanted to make him out to be a monster. Stupid cows – telling their stories for their minutes of fame.

Of course, now I realise the truth. Now I know what he was, I can see. It’s amazing what hindsight does. Now I realise that I had a lucky escape. I used to think that the weekend was my nightmare when I had missed my chance to meet Jimmy Savile. I now realise that it was my lucky escape from rape, abuse, a nightmare like Jennifer.

The virginity myth

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

What is abuse, and what isn't?

This seems to be far more complex question than it should be. The problem is that context is crucial in determining whether abuse - in particular sexual abuse - is occurring or not.

I think there is a distinction made between abuse and sexual abuse, that is not always helpful or significant. Sexual abuse is abuse with a sexual element, or driven by sexual urges. And yes the urges or drivers behind abuse of any sort are complex - and abuse is abuse, whether there is a sexual element or not. I would question whether drawing a distinction is that helpful.

I think an interesting starting point is rape. Rape is non-consensual sex, pure and simple. And while rape is generally considered sexual abuse, the drivers and urges are power, not sex. Consent is straightforward and yet complex, but in simple terms, consent should be obtained for a sexual encounter. In a long-term relationship, consent can be far less formal - I am not suggesting that a couple in a long term relationship should obtain written permission each time. But it should be clear that there is consent.

In early stages, consent is far more important, because it can be far too easily assumed, when it is not present. I shouldn't need to say it, but "dressing in a provocative way" is not consent. Nor is accepting a drink, being prepared to talk to you, or anything else that is not clear consent.

This should be straightforward: if you are not clear that you have consent, then do not engage in sexual activity. And sometimes it is unclear, sometimes it is confusing (especially in the heat of the moment, or after chemical enhancement), and sometimes mistakes are made. But not often, not is care is taken, not if respect if maintained. You may well regret it in the morning, but then, we all do things we regret.


Lets take this to the other extreme. In the discussions that occur on places like Twitter, or workplace banter, comments are sometimes made that would, in another context, seem abusive. In my view, comments like "I would" - the implication of "I would have sex with them" - are not abusive. This is a shorthand way of saying "I find them very sexually attractive", which is a perfectly reasonable opinion to hold. Bear with me - I will return to this in a moment.

Of course, in a workplace, saying "I would" about a colleague, and then leering at them suggestively is abusive. There should be a caveat to the statement, along the lines of "but it will never happen". In fact, the problem is more about "don't leer at work colleagues", because that is abusive. You see, this is where it start to become complicated and difficult, but a rule of not making those you have to work with, or meet in any sense, feel uncomfortable by your words and actions is part of life in a social environment.

The other problem is when this becomes talking about people, not to them, or treating them as purely sexual objects. It is abusive to treat ANYONE as a sexual toy - as if their only purpose is to satisfy your sexual desires. To treat any person as less than a fully rounded, complex human being is abusive. To dismiss any person as less than a human being is abusive. To say that they are sexually attractive, and that is all there is to say about them is abusive. To say "they only got the job because they are sexy/slept with the boss" is abusive, even if it may have an element of truth in it. If they were hired because of looks, or because of favours, they have already been abused, so adding to that is not helpful. They are more than a sex object. they are a human being, even if a damaged and abused human.

Of course context is crucial. The recent video of a women getting catcalls as she walked through New York is a different context - and many of these comments are not acceptable. There is a huge difference between commenting on a persons behind in an environment where you are regularly talking, and they are free to tell you to piss off, and the same comments where they consist of the entire conversation, and they have no freedom to respond (or are unsure of how a response might be taken). In either situation, if they feel threatened, then it is wrong, and if you don't know or care if they feel threatened, then it is abusive. In particular, women having comments about their appearance thrown at them in the street are likely to feel threatened, not least because they don't know anything about the person making the comments.


OK, lets look into another complex area of abuse - the BDSM community. I should make it absolutely clear that the same principles apply here as anywhere else - consent is everything. While some of their practices may appear abusive, they are not as long as they are consensual.

I think one of the big problems is that some of these practices are more common than many might want to admit. At the least, they are part of the fantasies of some people, even if they cannot engage themselves (for all sorts of reasons). I think one of the problems with the 50 shades series - which I have not read, I should point out, this is based on comments of others who have read - is that the lines between legitimate BDSM behaviour and rape and abuse are blurred. It is not a case of a mutually fulfilling sexual relationship, but a case - once again - of a man abusing a vulnerable woman. It is the vulnerability of one partner that is problematic in this case, which means that consent is far harder to establish - I will touch on this later. What is more this is "romantic" fiction, not reality. To take the success of this as indicating that "most women like a bit of rough" is demeaning and abusive.

Actually, the BDSM community is interesting, in that they do have a set of rules governing practices - they should be "sane, safe, legal and consensual". Consensual is core to all sexual practice, but the others provide limits to what might be considered acceptable practice, and what would, even within this community, be considered abusive. There are sexual practices that exceed these limits, and no I am not going into details, but they are abusive. This community is well aware of abuse. I believe it is far less likely that abuse occurs within this community, while they stick within their own rules. Using their ideas and practices without the rules is, it would seem, abusive.


The issue of vulnerability of one partner leads onto the critical issue of children and abuse.Actually, the issue is, at core, one of a vulnerable partner and a powerful one. In the case of children and adults, the child is the vulnerable partner, and a vulnerable person cannot give informed consent. End of story, in many ways. But this is why matters like the age of consent are not the real issue here. In reality, it is no less abusive to have sex with someone on their sixteenth birthday (in the UK) as it is to have sex with them the night before. More legal, but no less or more abusive. What is abusive is having sex with someone who you have power over, because they are unable to give informed consent - if the options are "have sex with me or lose your job", maybe the sex seems like the better option, but that is not consensual, that is abusive.

Informed consent means that young children, animals, and even highly vulnerable people who have grown up in extremely abusive situations cannot agree. They may appear willing, but their lack of understanding means that consent is meaningless. So any sexual activity is abusive. Just don't.

Of course, there is a question about sexual activity between tow teenagers, who may be under the age of consent. I think this is a very complex issue, but it is not necessarily abusive. The concept of informed consent is crucial - are they both agreeing, knowing what they are agreeing to? If so, it is probably not abusive - still illegal, but I would want to be lenient with them. Others might disagree.


Finally (at least, you say - well, it is a big area to cover), I want to consider the issue of pornography.
From everything I have already said, it might seem that there is no issue here - there is, in fact, not sexual engagement involved here. Consent is hard to identify, but could be considered there by virtue of the images being available. Others would argue that in many cases, there has been abuse - or coercion - to achieve these images, and that constitutes abuse (it does). However, it is impossible to tell or to know. There is a parallel with prostitutes, some of whom - especially the higher class ones - may genuinely enjoy their work; others may find that they have been pressurised into it, and forced by economics into staying in the business.

There is another way of looking at this, which brings us back to one of the earlier discussions - pornography is about objectifying other people, using them as object to satisfy your own sexuality. In the end, failing to treat them as people, as human beings who are more than their genitalia, is abusive. There is a danger that pornography changes the users attitude to other people, into purely sexual objects. OK, this can also be said of Hollywood and the gaming industry at times, and is more about the user controlling their own behaviour. I would accept this, however I still consider that pornography is abusive, because there is a lack of explicit consent. If this is not there, the engagement is abusive.


Abuse is a huge topic. I hope that I have explored a number of areas that are relevant, and my conclusion is that a lack of explicit, informed consent means that there is a high chance of abuse, and abuse is wrong. the truth is, many of us have engaged in abusive behaviours, without it being deliberate. The challenge is to stop, and the bigger challenge is to ensure that more deliberate abuse is avoided. I don;t say that everyone should be perfect. I say that we should always respect other people as full, complex, divinely-created human beings.

Jane Austen

When the news first broke, I didn't take much notice. The Bank of England had decided to change the character on a bank note, meaning that there would be no women on UK bank notes. It was a disappointing item, more so because there was only one woman on bank notes to start with. I don't think much of it.

Then some people I knew on twitter (@VickyBeeching for example) who were determined to fight for a change, and to make a difference. I was behind the campaign, especially as it seemed to be gaining some chance of success, and there were some really good arguments for appropriate people to be on the note. The campaign was - quite rightly - being led by women for their right to be acknowledged.

And, of course, that argument was won - and quite right. We still need more women on our bank notes, but Jane Austin is good progress. While the aim was serious and important, the campaign was done with a lighthearted edge, Vicki dressing up as Boudicca for the presentation of the signatures. Good for them, and well done for achieving the aim.

And then, this week, one of the people leading this campaign, Caroline Criado-Perez, was subjected to some of the most horrendous abuse on twitter. I followed her, and read some of the abuse that she re-tweeted - it is not for the faint-hearted. One of those abusing her was arrested and charged, but there are many - hundreds - of others.

In case you assume that this is light-hearted, gentle abuse, people telling her to "calm down" or that she is stupid, don't be fooled. The comments have been threats to rape her, comments that she deserves raping, and she is going to get raped. There have been several twitter accounts deliberately set up for the purpose of sending rape-abuse comments to her.

This has, finally, appalled me. It is unacceptable, it is vile, offensive, sickening behaviour towards anyone (her gender is irrelevant in terms of the abuse - this level of abuse towards anyone is wrong). It makes me ashamed to be male, to be on twitter.

There is something very sickening in all of this. The level of sickness in so many people is enough to make anyone wonder about people. That is, until you also see the level of support that Caroline has. So many of those that I follow express the same level of disgust as I feel. Many many others are also tweeting in support of Caroline, who, on the basis of the tweets today, seems to be holding up well against the onslaught. I wish her all the best. I hope that the social media can find appropriate ways of dealing with this sort of abusive behaviour.

Somewhere, there is a spiritual lesson here. Social media can show the best and worst of people. In this case, it is showing both - showing that the depths of depravity that some people show are quite shocking, and the love and care and support that people can show to someone under attack is also immense.

We should not forget that these depths and these heights are achieveable by everyone. The Christian message is not that all Christians are nice people, but that all people can reach to the heights, as well as sink to the lows.

Abuse - endemic in the church?

I posted a comment on a discussion along the lines that "abuse - of power or position - is endemic in the church". The response was along the lines of "what a ridiculous assertion". I don't think it is ridiculous, because of what I have experienced, and what others have told me, but I want to explore this a little more here.

Firstly, I have just finished watching a documentary about the sex abuse allegations in the Catholic church. A number of things have become clear in this scandal - which has been rumbling for half a century or more. Firstly, when it was originally raised, the response was "priests would never do that" which enabled the abuse to remain hidden for many more years. Then, once the accusations were made to the hierarchy, the response there was to protect the priests involved, not consider the victims.

The response of the "system" was to protect the "system". The risk of people losing faith in the "system" was higher than the risk of letting abusers continue. And, I hate to say it, but I understand their position. They are wrong, but I understand - if the church is the representation of God on earth, then people who lose faith in this institution will lose faith in God.

The problem is that the church - the system - is not the representation of God on earth. It is a human institution, populated by humans who are fallible, but an institution which, at its best, seeks to enable people to engage with the Divine.

The TV documentary made a very significant point - that priests are considered by the church and the people to be a higher form of person. They are raised onto a pedestal, and treated as the embodiment of God, and so if we believe this is what they are, they have to be above criticism. It is unfair to everyone, and the system - the belief system under-girded by the structural system - requires priests to be what they are expected to be. Very few people can live up to that.

I predict that the sex abuse scandal in the Catholic church is not over yet. I suspect that it is far wider than has been discovered even yet - maybe not children, but abuse nonetheless.

The problem is that this problem is endemic in the Catholic church because of its ecclesiology. The concept of what the church is means that this problem will not go away until the church changes how it sees itself. That is what I mean by endemic.

But what of other churches? Surely the protestant churches don't suffer from the same problems? What of the Orthodox? Well, they don't have the same "system", the same core problem with their identity of church and God. However they do very often have the same problems of raising the clergy or ministers onto a pedestal, and it is that problem which tends to cause abuse.

If clergy are viewed as beyond reproach, they criticisms of them will be unacceptable. Even when they are not explicitly seen as "Gods messengers", they are very often treated preferentially, because they are "doing Gods work", and so can be forgiven for occasional lapses or failings.

All of which is crap, of course. Until we stop treating clergy or ministers - whatever we want to call them - as "special", they will be able to abuse their positions. Until we stop giving other people power over us, they will continue to abuse that power.

Endemic? Yes, because churches are organisations that make paternalistic power structures into something unchangeable, because they are "ordained by God". What is more, within most church structures, "the system" is present in some form, and the people who could make changes are very heavily invested in "the system", not least because they are paid by it.

So yes, abuse is endemic in the church. This does not mean that all clergy are abusive, wrong, dangerous or broken. There are many who work within the system to do good work. But the system itself is wrong, and it needs to be changed.

I just cannot see this happening without a revolution.

Spiritual Abuse

There is a lot of news about abuse of various sorts these days, but there is a type of abuse that fills my twitter timeline, but doesn't seem to make the news. That is spiritual abuse, and particularly spiritual abuse in mainstream churches. There is, every so often, a story of some strange cult that is abusing people, but I want to explore the issue of abuse within normal, ordinary, Christian churches. And the issues are common across churches, denominations, theologies, countries.


There are, I think, two aspects to spiritual abuse that are linked but distinct. they are "this is what you should believe" and "this is what you should do/not do". Let me explore these one at a time.

I was in a church when the preacher - admittedly, a student at the local vicar factory - told us that PSA was the only acceptable understanding of atonement. I nearly walked out. The problem is that, with most of the important doctrines of faith, if you think you have understood them, you have not yet started on the path to understanding them. The concomitant errors of thinking you can explain them in 5 minutes of a sermon, and your certainty that this is the sum of the explanation, merely result from this initial error. MacQuarrie has outlined over 20 ways of interpreting atonement, and they are not all compatible. I would argue that they are, nonetheless, all partially true, all containing some aspect of the deeper truth about what this actually means.

This is the beautiful paradox of faith. If it was something we could understand with our limited minds, then it would be, in my view, less than divine. Theology is not a science, where we have to seek to find the One True Explanation - it is a journey, where we have to accept change and difference. Everybody doesn't drive the same sort of car, on the same route, and some people use trains, bicycles and feet. The same is true of the life of faith. Sometimes, I walk, sometimes I drive, and sometimes I drunkenly stagger from the train.

I have no problems with someone telling me that "this is what I believe to be the truth". I only have a problem when I am told that disagreeing is wrong. When I am told - usually implicitly - that disagreeing means that I am putting myself outside God, outside truth, outside hope. Because I think that the opposite is actually true - this questioning, this disagreement, this desire to continue to seek is the real path of God, of truth. Seeking to stop people exploring their faith in a manner that is true for the is spiritual abuse. I see my role in life as being to help people explore their faith in whatever way is right for them, to help them question, challenge, learn and grow. I am saddened that so many in church leadership - one presumes including this particular student - seem to feel the opposite.

The other aspect of spiritual abuse is being told what you can and can't do, or should or shouldn't do. By this, I don't mean the Commandments of your Church - Thou shalt not Drink; Thou shalt not Swear; Thou shalt not Use the Bible in an Argument. Actually, these are simply outworkings of the first type of abuse. What I am talking about here is far more serious.

There are certain stereotypes of people in churches, and these are regularly reinforced. A young mother will, of course, want to be involved in the creche. Someone 5 years younger than anyone else in the main congregation will want to work with the young people. Someone who plays an "acceptable" instrument will want to be involved in leading worship.

If you have a vision for doing something, especially something that doesn't fit with your stereotypes, then there is a good chance that you will encounter some resistance. So, you want to set up a coffee shop? Well, interesting idea, but I am not sure that this is the way our ministry is taking us these days. You want to preach? Well, I am not sure that this is the appropriate ministry for you in this church. You want to not come to church on Sunday mornings? Well, I think you will find that Sunday Morning Church Attendance is one of the crucial marks of a spiritually mature person. Why don't you look at volunteering for the Sunday School?

The thing is that a lot of church energy is spent on Continuing To Do The Things We Already Have. Very little is spent - mostly - on Doing New And Radical Things. Even less is spent on Stopping Doing Things That We Can No Longer Maintain. So the church continues to put people who fit into roles that exist, and people who don't fit will never be able to change the church.

In fact, if you don't fit, the chances are you will get the message that you are not really working for the Kingdom, you are a Problem, you are Wrong or Mistaken. And yet it is the people who don't fit who are the most important. these are the ones who might be hearing Gods newer directions, new ideas, new front lines.

I have spent most of my time encouraging people to do things, to try things out. More recently, I have not been able to, because I have been prevented by the churches and the church structures I have been involved in. This is one reason why I got out. We are so often concerned about things being good, things been smooth, things working well, that we don't like to let people try things. So often our systems seem to be more important than people.

This is abuse. Telling people that they haven't heard from God (when you have no clue whether they have or not) is abuse. Telling people that you have heard from God, when in fact you have just heard from the childrens work leaders about their lack of people is abuse. It doesn't have to be the words about hearing from God, but the message is the same.

If you want to do something, go ahead and do it. Yes, take the consequences. Yes put the work in yourself to make things happen. It is nicer if a church organisation can get behind you, provide some support, some insight, some expertise, but if not then you will probably find it much harder. That does not mean it was wrong. Yes, use other people to ensure that you are not just being a deluded idiot. But don't let people tell you what you can and cannot do.

You can do anything.

Jimmy Savile

Well I thought it is about time to discuss this, as it has been rumbling for a while now. I have changed my position on this as more of the stories have emerged.

I should point out that everything so far has been accusations. There is a need for investigation, to ascertain whether the accusations are actually true or not. This sounds like I am accusing the victims of lying. I am not - I just think that it only fair for everyone that the accusations are properly investigated, that the truth emerges and people are not condemned by accusation.

Let me clarify this. If I accuse you of something, that means nothing until it is properly explored and investigated, and the truth identified. Even if I get other people to support my accusations, they are still only claims until they have properly been assessed. The truth is important, whatever it is.

I was initially skeptical of the claims against Savile. To be fairer, I thought that it might have been more a case of star-struck young girls, and a hyper-star who didn't resist. We forget in this celebrity-cynical times exactly how big and powerful these people were at the time. That is not to excuse him, but to apply 21st century morality to the 1980s is wrong - people did things then that would be clearly considered unacceptable, but were considered part of life then. As an example, the sexual revolution was different before we became aware of AIDS, which changed attitudes. That doesn't mean that they were right, just that their ethical boundaries were different

What is more, and needs to be considered, is that Jimmy Savile did a lot of excellent charity work, raised a whole lot of money for Stoke Mandeville and other charities. He also raised the profile of celebrities doing charity work, and putting real effort in - not just random appearances at events, but running marathons, putting real effort into his fund raising. He raised millions that has been productively used in helping people.

However, that does not excuse him. Some faiths work with a balance approach, that your good deeds will balance your bad deeds. Christianity does not take that approach, and, to be honest, most people don't accept that his good deeds balance of his bad deeds.

I have become convinced that there is a case to answer. There are too many accusations from too many places to ignore, although none have yet been proven, I have been convinced that there was something going on, that Savile had, at times, acted inappropriately towards underage girls. He abused his power over them. That is a disgrace.

The truth is that this is not just something from one person in the past. Churches and clergy today do the same - abuse their power over people, use their position of power to tell people what to do. Sometimes, use their positions of power to sexually abuse children. What is more this abuse is  continuing, and is not just in the past.

The actions of Jimmy Savile - whatever they were - were reprehensible. Doing a lot of good does not justify this. But maybe we should also focus on current and ongoing abuses of power, because - dare I say it - doing it in the name of God is even worse than doing it in the name of celebrity.

Rochdale and Eastborne

This last week has seen two interesting stories relating to children. They are quite different but both have some interesting insights.

Firstly, the story of Megan Stammers, who ran away with her Maths teacher, Jeremy Forrest. There is still some doubt over exactly what went on, but they are back, which is good. The problems I have are the betrayal of trust that Forrest showed, because his job is to look after the children in his care, not to abduct them.

If that is what happened. Of course, Megan might have been far more willing than "abduction" sounds. And, as others have said, she will be seen as the victim, and get all of the support, he will be seen as the perpetrator and be demonised. But, at this point, we do not know exactly what went on.

Now I do accept that Megan is 15, and so is the victim, but Jeremy may also be a victim. And all of those who are so insistent that at 15, Megan is still a minor, remember that she is just a few months away from the age when she can expose her breasts legally in the Sun. That does not justify it, but it shows that the age of consent is not some clear fixed point, but a randomly determined age at which every child is determined to be an adult, at least partly.

What of Jeremy? Recently married, and yet runs away with one of his students? The oddity of this makes me certain that there is more to this than we have yet heard. It is, I am sure, more complex than seems to be assumed. We - myself included - are often too quick to just to assumptions, but I think there is something more in this story than we yet know.

Rochdale is a completely different story. Here, young girls were abused, raped and pimped out systematically, and - to me the most shocking part of the story - when they told the authorities, they were dismissed. the official position was that they were willingly engaging in sexual activity, and were working as prostitutes.

The fact that this activity could continue - they were being picked up outside school - without anyone picking up that this was an issue shows a lack of oversight. The fact that they were not listened to is a disgrace - the accusations should have been investigated, even if they proved false. This dismissal of the complaints, without ascertaining their veracity, makes this the more sickening of these two stories.

Just his weekend, accusations have come out about Jimmy Savill, also about child abuse. It is interesting that, given these accusations, the BBC says that it has investigated in depth and found no complaints raised, and no basis of these accusations. It is interesting to see that when a celebrity is involved, the investigations are done properly.

"Suffer the little children" said Jesus. Not in this way though. When we fail to nurture and enable our young people, we are failing our society and our faith. This is not an easy or simple thing to do, but I understand it as meaning trusting and respecting our young people. It means listening to them when they talk, it means ensuring they are safe when with others. This does not mean simply CRB checking their group leaders.

It does mean treating them as thinking people, especially as they hit their mid teens, and allowing them to think for themselves. It means listening to them, trying to help them work out their problems, not just spoon feeding them our answers. If we can enable them to act responsibly, think through their faith, grow up to be mature members of society, who know what they believe and can discuss it, then we are doing them well. My experience is that too many churches do not do this.