A few people who read the blog have commented to me that despite often mentioning the fact that I'm a Roman Catholic, I've not written a single line about Peadophile priests or the abuse in Ireland. They've asked if I have a policy of ignoring the failings of the church, some have suggested darker motives. First, I'll explain why I mention I'm a Catholic, albiet a rather unholy one. I think that it's important to state interests if we have one. If I write about football, I say I support Manchester City. That way any United fans understand any bias. If I write about politics, I state I'm a Labour member, albiet a very lazy & inactive one. If I write about morality, I think it's only fair to say that I belong to a faith. Sometimes my views clash with those of the church (eg Birth control). It may on occasion open me to charges of hypocricy, where people say "How can you support the church if....". If I didn't state my interest, then you the reader would be unaware and that would be dishonest. In my eyes, that is worse.
Which takes us on to the issue of Peadophile priests. I've met good priests & I've met bad priests. The best ones have been inspirational, the worst - anything but. The one thing I've not had personal experience of are sexual advances from one. As such it is not an issue that has touched me personally. On top of that, some of the priests I've met have been extremely positive influences. As such, I've felt that putting the boot into the priesthood would not be fair or constructive, given that I believe that the bad ones are a tiny minority.
Having read some of the recent coverage of the situation in Ireland, I've come to realise that there is something seriously wrong with the institution of the Catholic Church. Whilst around the globe, individual priests are doing great work, the powers that be have systematically covered up endemic child abuse. Priests who should be in prison, have been moved from parish to parish. The church has used it's moral authority to silence parents. Abused children have been made to feel "responsible" for the dreadful abuse and have been permenantly damaged. As details emerge in Ireland, it has reached a point where it could destroy the church. The comments of bishops has displayed a terrible, head in the sand approach. There can be only one approach which will regain the confidence of the congregation. The files must be opened, the abusers must go to prison. Those who conspired in the cover up must be prosecuted. The church is unique in having the means to accomodate these paedophiles when they are realeased from prison. They should be sent to remote, sealed monastries, with big warning signs saying Paedpohile priest home. There they can while away their lives praying for gods forgiveness, on humdrum diets. Just to be completely clear about this, they'd be sent there after their release. Preferrably these monastries should be on remote islands, with no internet access. I'd not be unhappy for non priest paedophiles to join them. If they are truly sorry for their sins, they'd accept this without complaint. If the church did this, then maybe they would eventually recover the trust of the congregation. I was struck reading this by the words of a friend of mine who used to be the governor of the Maze prison during the troubles. I asked him about his view of Paedophiles and whether they could be reformed. His words were "In my experience, they only stop abusing when they are physically incapable of it or when they die".
Reading this coverage, I realised how much there was in common with the scandal regarding MP's expenses. Again, there are some MP's who do a great job and do not abuse the expenses. There are probably many MP's named in the Telegraph, who never dreamed before they entered Parliament that they'd behave like this. The reason they got embroiled was because they thought that there would never be any public scrutiny of their claims. A culture sprung up where the worst that could happen was that they'd get their claim knocked back. As such, many people were corrupted and encouraged in bad behaviour. They felt as if they were untouchable. Like the priesthood, they were wrong. Like the priesthood, they have lost public trust. Like the priesthood, radical measures are required to regain the trust of the public.
This leads us back to Barnet. As discussed above, the problems with priests and MP's have come about because matters were hushed up, discussed in private. Deals were done, problems coveredup. Where did it end up? In ruins. At Barnet Council, there have been repeated financial problems. These did not start under Mike Freer's regime. When Mike was in opposition, he was a keen advocate of scrutiny. Mike was a deadly inquisitor. Alison Moore, the leader of the Labour group once told me that being on the end of a Mike Freer inquisition was the most unpleasant moment of her political career. She admitted Mike Freer was a great opposition councillor. Her comments reminded me of John Prescott MP. In opposition, he was a fearsome opponent. If a train crashed, he'd turn up in his hard hat, berating the government. When it came to running the show, a different set of skills were required.
If you want good clean administration, you need open access to documents and good scrutiny. The best people to do this in the political arena are the opposition. Deals made behind closed doors, unminuted, undocumented and unscrutinised are bound to be flawed. In Barnet Council chambre, whilst discussing the Iceland debacle, the Lib Dems asked for the minutes of the meetings between council officials and Mike Freer, then head of the resource committee. Were these forthcoming? In fact the Lib Dems were criticsed by the Conservatives for putting pressure on council officers. As a result, the scrutiny committee and the people who pay taxes, ie us, are still unaware of how and why decisions are made.
As with the paedophile priests in Ireland and the MP's expenses, why are any of these decisions not being exposed to public scrutiny. This is the only way to ensure public confidence in the process. There is no earthly reason why the taxpayer shouldn't know why the Council decided to invest money in a certain way. I suspect that if councillors and officials knew that their decisions would be open to public examination, they'd be a bit more careful.
One thought for our Conservative councillors - where was "Freedom of Information" pioneered? In the worlds most successful economy - the USA.
