I thought I had better provide a soundtrack to set the mood
Saturday, 27 August 2011
Kurt Josef Waldheim
UNICEF Milestones
1967-1976
1946-1956 1957-1966 1967-1976
1977-1986 1987-1996 1997-2004
see also Thematic Overview
Year Notes
1967 Executive Board reviews strategies, criteria and priorities to be followed for the best use of UNICEF aid, reaffirming and refining policies approved in 1961: UNICEF can help governments to establish
priorities for children and will support whatever is mutually agreed to be the best possible action to achieve them.
“Country approach” is emphasized. The goal is to move away from individual projects, as separate entities, to more comprehensive services for children forming an integral part of national development efforts. Emphasis is placed on need for innovative approaches to solving problems, new ways of training, and greater attention to eliciting local support.
The Board approves aid for family planning within the context of maternal and child health services.
1968 Executive Board reviews aid for education; agrees that UNICEF should continue to support strategic aspects of education programmes - teacher training, modernization of school curricula, emphasis on practical subjects such as science, vocationally-oriented studies, health, nutrition.
Aid is provided to mothers and children on both sides of the conflict in Nigeria and is approved for both sides in the Viet Nam conflict - as part of UNICEF’s philosophy of aiding all children in need, regardless of politics, creed, national origin, etc.
UNICEF and WHO introduce oral rehydration therapy (ORT) in 1968, a simple solution of sugar, salt and water to treat diarrhoeal dehydration. By 2000 one million children in developing countries are being saved each year by ORT.
1969 For the first time Executive Board meets in Latin America - in Santiago - and holds a special meeting on the situation of Latin American children. Decides to seek contributions from governments for specific purposes in addition to contributions to general resources.
1970 UNICEF’s annual income is now $59.4 million - exceeding the $50 million target set in 1966. Target of $100 million is set for 1975, Guidelines are established for allocation of UNICEF aid; the purpose is to give more to projects in the neediest countries.
Assessment is made of projects for education and training of women and girls for family and community life.
1971 Executive Board decides that increased efforts must be made to encourage deployment of financial support from multilateral and bilateral sources to benefit children.
Special forma of aid for services benefiting children in urban slums and shanty towns are approved.
1972 Kurt Waldheim (Austria) takes office as Secretary- General of UN, serving until December 1981.
Training of national auxiliary and para-professional personnel continues to be a major element in UNICEF aid with some 220,000 persons receiving training stipends. In addition, many thousands more benefit from material aid provided by UNICEF to training centres and institutions.
Increased emphasis is now given to responsible parenthood and family planning as a component of various health and social services.
Board adopts new policy guidelines for aid to education, with concentration on educationally deprived children of primacy school age, young adolescents who have missed schooling, education of girls, use of schools for health and nutrition education, education of parents in child rearing.
1973 UNICEF decides to expand aid for non-formal education (outside regular school programmes), particularly for rural children and youth with emphasis on the basics of literacy and numeracy as well as skills and knowledge.
UNICEF is now assisting some 70 countries with village water supplies; the purpose is to reduce child illness and death, and to lessen drudgery of mothers, improve quality of life in villages, encourage self-help community efforts.
UNICEF begins help for prevention of blindness in young children, through large doses of vitamin A.
Participation by UNICEF in UNDP country programming exercises provides new opportunities to promote systematic action in national development efforts to meet needs of children.
1974 Executive Board, concerned with serious threat to millions of children adversely affected by world economic crisis, inflation, natural disasters and scarcity of food, issues a “Declaration of Emergency" . Special efforts are authorized for children’s services in least developed countries and in countries “most severely affected”.
Board reviews efforts to give special attention to the young child (up to approximately six years of age) and agrees that emphasis should be on reaching the child by extending existing channels, including indirect services through mothers, families and communities.
First annual UNICEF pledging conference at which governments announce contributions for following year, is held in November.
1975 Executive Board appeals to special session of the United Nations General Assembly to encourage action to meet deteriorating situation of children in many countries.
UNICEF joins with WHO in approving a new strategy of assistance to primary health services to bring care to now largely unserved mothers and children and decides to strengthen action for more effective work to improve child nutrition.
Board approves an “advocacy-oriented” information policy designed to make public opinion, in both industrialized and developing countries, more responsive to action to meet children’s needs.
International Women’s Year accelerates UNICEF’s emphasis on programmes benefiting women and girls.
Following administrative survey, Board endorses Executive Director’s plans to strengthen the organization’s management.
UNICEF annual revenue now reaches a record level of $141 million; (but this is only a 7 per cent increase over 1974 revenues in real terms).
1976 Worst aspects of depression and its effect on children appear to be receding, but poorest countries continue to suffer from major economic changes. They need augmented assistance to help meet the
“quiet emergency” daily facing millions of children.
Board approves a goal of $200 million annual revenue. Economic and Social Council endorses this and recommends that United Nations General Assembly urge both developing and developed countries and
the international community to support basic services for children.
Emphasis is on extending the network of core services already developed in most countries to benefit the large number of their children now unserved.
Economic and Social Council recommends that the General Assembly proclaims 1979 as the “International Year of the Child”.
More than 100 non-governmental organizations now have consultative status with UNICEF. The Executive Board reviews ways in which UNICEF and the 30 National Committees for UNICEF can co-operate more effectively to serve children of developing countries.
Online Holdings
Historical Publications
UNICEF Milestones
UNICEF Leadership
Special Exhibits
UNICEF Celebrities
Research Requests
Using the Archives
Archives
Access/Services
Contact
Guidelines/Forms
UNICEF Documents Guides
UNICEF Links
UNICEF.org
UNICEF History
UNICEF 60th Anniversary
UNICEF Publications
Innocenti Research Centre
UN/UN Agency Links
UN Archives
Archives Worldwide
The views expressed or information presented do NOT
necessarily represent the official position of any person
or organization.
Please send any comments, questions or suggestions about these pages to
uyoung@unicef.org,
Kurt Josef Waldheim (German pronunciation: [ˈkʊɐ̯t ˈvaldhaɪm]; 21 December 1918 – 14 June 2007) was an Austrian diplomat and politician. Waldheim was the fourth Secretary-General of the United Nations from 1972 to 1981, and the ninth President of Austria, from 1986 to 1992. While running for President in Austria in 1985, his service as an intelligence officer in the Wehrmacht during World War II raised international controversy.
Contents [hide]
1 Early life
2 Military service in World War II
2.1 Overview
2.2 Service in Yugoslavia and Greece
2.3 Surrender
3 Diplomatic career
3.1 United Nations Secretary-General
4 Presidency of Austria
4.1 Election and Waldheim Affair
4.2 The International Committee of historians and allegations of Nazi War Crimes
4.3 Term of presidency 1986–1992
5 Later years and death
6 Media references
7 Further reading
8 References
9 External links
[edit] Early lifeWaldheim was born in Sankt Andrä-Wördern, a village near Vienna, on 21 December 1918.[1] His father was a Roman Catholic school inspector of Czech origin named Watzlawick[2] (original Czech spelling Václavík) who changed his name that year as the Habsburg monarchy collapsed. Waldheim served in the Austrian Army (1936–37) and attended the Vienna Consular Academy, where he graduated in 1939. Waldheim's father was active in the Christian Social Party. Waldheim himself was politically unaffiliated during these years at the Academy. Shortly after the German annexation of Austria in 1938, a 20-year old Waldheim applied for membership in the National Socialist German Students' League (NSDStB), a division of the Nazi Party.[3] Shortly thereafter he became a registered member of the mounted corps of the SA.
On August 19, 1944, he married Elisabeth Ritschel in Vienna; their first daughter Lieselotte was born the following year. Son Gerhard and daughter Christa followed.
[edit] Military service in World War II[edit] OverviewIn early 1941 Waldheim was drafted into the Wehrmacht and sent to the Eastern Front where he served as a squad leader. In December 1941 he was wounded but later returned to service. His further service in the Wehrmacht from 1942 to 1945 was subject of the international dispute in 1985 and 1986. In 1985, in his autobiography, he stated that he was discharged from further service at the front and for the rest of the war years finished his law degree at the University of Vienna in addition to marrying in 1944.[4] Documents and witnesses which have since come to light reveal that Waldheim’s military service continued until 1945, and that he rose to the rank of Oberleutnant, and confirmed that he married in 1944 and graduated with a law degree from the University of Vienna in 1945.
[edit] Service in Yugoslavia and GreeceHis functions within the staff of German Army Group E from 1942 until 1945, as determined by the International Commission of Historians,[5] were:
1.interpreter and liaison officer with the 5th Alpine Division (Italy) in April/May 1942, then,
2.O2 officer (communications) with Kampfgruppe West Bosnia June/August 1942,
3.interpreter with the liaison staff attached to the Italian 9th Army in Tirana in early summer 1942,
4.O1 officer in the German liaison staff with the Italian 11th Army and in the staff of the Army Group South in Greece in July/October 1943 and
5.O3 officer on the staff of Army Group E in Arksali, Kosovska Mitrovica and Sarajevo from October 1943 to January/February 1945.
By 1943 he was serving in the capacity of an ordnance officer in Army Group E which was headed by General Alexander Löhr.[6] In 1986, Waldheim said that he had served only as an interpreter and a clerk and had no knowledge either of reprisals against civilians locally or of massacres in neighboring provinces of Yugoslavia. He said that he had known about some of the things that had happened, and had been horrified, but could not see what else he could have done.[4]
Much historical interest has centered on Waldheim's role in Operation Kozara in 1942.[7] According to one post-war investigator, prisoners were routinely shot within only a few hundred yards of Waldheim's office,[8] and just 35 km away at the Jasenovac concentration camp. Waldheim later stated "that he did not know about the murder of civilians there."[8]
Waldheim's name appears on the Wehrmacht's "honor list" of those responsible for the militarily successful operation. The Independent State of Croatia awarded Waldheim the Medal of the Crown of King Zvonimir in silver with an oak branches cluster.[9] Later, during the lobbying for his election as U.N. Secretary General, Yugoslav leader Josip Broz Tito awarded Waldheim one of the highest Yugoslav orders.[10]
Waldheim denied that he knew war crimes were taking place in Bosnia at the height of the battles between the Nazis and Tito's partisans in 1943.[11] According to Eli Rosenbaum, in 1944, Waldheim reviewed and approved a packet of anti-Semitic propaganda leaflets to be dropped behind Soviet lines, one of which ended, "enough of the Jewish war, kill the Jews, come over."[12]
[edit] SurrenderIn 1945, Waldheim surrendered to British forces in Carinthia, at which point he said he had fled his command post within Army Group E, where he was serving with General Löhr, who was seeking a special deal with the British.
[edit] Diplomatic careerWaldheim joined the Austrian diplomatic service in 1945, after finishing his studies in law at the University of Vienna. He served as First Secretary of the Legation in Paris from 1948, and in the Ministry for Foreign Affairs in Vienna from 1951 to 1956. In 1956 he was made Ambassador to Canada, returning to the Ministry in 1960, after which he became the Permanent Representative of Austria to the United Nations in 1964. For two years beginning in 1968, he was the Federal Minister for Foreign Affairs in Austria serving for the Austrian People's Party, before going back as Permanent Representative to the U.N. in 1970. Shortly afterwards, he ran and was defeated in the 1971 Austrian presidential elections.
[edit] United Nations Secretary-GeneralAfter being defeated in his home country's presidential election, he was elected to succeed U Thant as United Nations Secretary-General the same year. As Secretary-General, Waldheim opened and addressed a number of major international conferences convened under United Nations auspices. These included the third session of the U.N. Conference on Trade and Development (Santiago, April 1972), the U.N. Conference on the Human Environment (Stockholm, June 1972), the third UN Conference on the Law of the Sea (Caracas, June 1974), the World Population Conference (Bucharest, August 1974) and the World Food Conference (Rome, November 1974). However, his diplomatic efforts particularly in the Middle East were overshadowed by the diplomacy of then US Secretary of State, Henry Kissinger.[13]
On September 11, 1972, Ugandan dictator Idi Amin sent a telegram to Waldheim, copies of which went to Yasser Arafat and Golda Meir. In the telegram, Amin "applauded the massacre of the Israeli Olympic athletes in Munich and said Germany was the most appropriate locale for this because it was where Hitler burned more than six million Jews."[14] Amin also called "to expel Israel from the United Nations and to send all the Israelis to Britain, which bore the guilt for creating the Jewish state."[15] Among international protest "the UN spokesman said [in his daily press conference] it was not the secretary-general's practice to comment on telegrams sent him by heads of government. He added that the secretary-general condemned any form of racial discrimination and genocide."[15]
Waldheim was re-elected in 1976 despite some opposition. Waldheim and then-U.S. President Jimmy Carter both prepared written statements for inclusion on the Voyager Golden Records, now in deep space.[16] He was the first Secretary-General to visit North Korea, in 1979.[17] In 1980 Waldheim flew to Iran in an attempt to negotiate the release of the American hostages held in Tehran, but Ayatollah Khomeini refused to see him.[13] While in Tehran, it was announced that an attempt on Waldheim's life had been foiled. Near the end of his tenure as Secretary-General, Waldheim and Paul McCartney also organized a series of concerts for the People of Kampuchea to help Cambodia recover from the damage done by Pol Pot.[18] The People's Republic of China vetoed Waldheim's candidature for a third term, and he was succeeded by Javier Pérez de Cuéllar of Peru.
[edit] Presidency of Austria[edit] Election and Waldheim AffairWaldheim had unsuccessfully sought election as President of Austria in 1971, but his second attempt on 8 June 1986 proved successful. During his campaign for the presidency in 1985, the events started that marked the beginning of what became known internationally as the "Waldheim Affair". Before the presidential elections, Alfred Worm revealed in the Austrian weekly news magazine Profil that there had been several omissions about Waldheim's life between 1938 and 1945 in his recently-published autobiography. A short time later, the World Jewish Congress alleged that Waldheim had lied about his service as an officer in the mounted corps of the SA, and his time as an ordnance officer for Army Group E in Saloniki, Greece, from 1942 to 1943 based in files from the United Nations War Crimes Commission.[19][20] Waldheim called the allegations "pure lies and malicious acts".[21] Nevertheless he admitted that he had known about German reprisals against partisans: "Yes, I knew. I was horrified. But what could I do? I had either to continue to serve or be executed."[21] He said that he had never fired a shot or even seen a partisan.[21] His former immediate superior at the time stated that Waldheim had "remained confined to a desk".[21] Former Austrian chancellor Bruno Kreisky denounced the actions of the World Jewish Congress as an "extraordinary infamy"[21] adding that Austrians wouldn't "allow the Jews abroad to ... tell us who should be our President."
Part of the reason for the controversy was Austria's refusal to address its national role in the Holocaust (many including Adolf Hitler were Austrians and Austria became part of the Third Reich). Austria refused to pay compensation to Nazi victims and from 1970 onwards refused to investigate Austrian citizens who were senior Nazis.[22] Stolen Jewish art remained public property until well after the Waldheim affair.[23]
Because the revelations leading to the Waldheim affair came shortly before the presidential election, there has been speculation about the background of the affair.
Declassified CIA documents show that the CIA had been aware of his war-time past since 1945.[24] Some sources report information about Waldheim's wartime past was also previously published by a right wing Austrian newspaper during the 1971 presidential election campaign - including the claim of an SS membership - but the matter was supposedly regarded as unimportant or even advantageous for the candidate at that time.[25]
It has been asserted that his war-time past and the discrepancies in his biography must have been well known to both superpowers before he was elected UN secretary and there were rumors that the KGB had blackmailed him during his UN time.[26]
In 1994, self-proclaimed former Mossad officer Victor Ostrovsky claimed in his book The Other Side of Deception that Mossad doctored the file of the then UN Secretary General to implicate him in Nazi crimes. These allegedly false documents were subsequently "discovered" by Benjamin Netanyahu in the UN file, and triggered the "Waldheim Affair". Ostrovsky says it was motivated by Waldheim's criticism of Israeli action in Lebanon.[27] Controversy surrounds Ostrovsky and his writings and some of his claims are disputed. Many of them have not been verified from other sources, and critics such as Benny Morris and author David Wise have charged that the book is essentially a novel.[28][29]
[edit] The International Committee of historians and allegations of Nazi War CrimesIn view of the ongoing international controversy, the Austrian government decided to appoint an international committee of historians to examine Waldheim's life between 1938 and 1945. Their report found no evidence of any personal involvement in those crimes. Although Waldheim had stated that he was unaware of any crimes taking place, the historians cited evidence that Waldheim must have known about war crimes.[30]
In an account of the controversy, Simon Wiesenthal stated that Waldheim was stationed 5 miles from Salonika while, over the course of several weeks, the Jewish community which formed one third of the population there, was sent to Auschwitz. Waldheim denied any knowledge of this. Wiesenthal states:
I could only reply what the committee of historians likewise made clear in its report: "I cannot believe you."[31]
Wiesenthal stated the committee found no evidence that Waldheim took part in any war crimes, but was guilty of lying about his military record.[32] The International Committee in February 1988 concluded, with regard to Waldheim's ability to do something about the crimes he knew that were going on in Yugoslavia and Greece:
In favour of Waldheim is, that he only had very minor possibilities to act against the injustices happening. Actions against these, depending on which level the resistance occurred, were of very different importance. For a young member of the staff, who did not have any military authority on the army group level, the practical possibilities for resistance were very limited and with a high probability would not have led to any actual results. Resistance would have been limited to a formal protest or on the refusal to serve any longer in the army, which would have seemed to be a courageous act, however would have not led to any practical achievement. [33]
[edit] Term of presidency 1986–1992Throughout his term as president (1986–1992), Waldheim and his wife Elisabeth were officially deemed personae non gratae by the United States.[34] In 1987, they were put on a watch list of persons banned from entering the United States and remained on the list even after the publication of the International Committee of Historians' report on his military past in the Wehrmacht. He also was not invited to, and therefore did not, visit any other Western countries during his term as Austrian president. Waldheim therefore concentrated his state visits on the Middle East, the Vatican and some communist states.
[edit] Later years and deathAfter his term ended in 1992, Waldheim did not seek reelection. The same year, he was made an honorary member of K.H.V. Welfia Klosterneuburg, a Roman Catholic student fraternity that is a part of the Austrian Cartellverband (ÖCV). In 1994, Pope John Paul II awarded Waldheim a knighthood in the Order of Pius IX and his wife a papal honor.[35] He died on June 14, 2007, from heart failure. On June 23, his funeral was held at St. Stephen's Cathedral, Vienna, and he was laid to rest at the Presidential Vault in the Zentralfriedhof (Central Cemetery).[36] In his speech at the Cathedral, Federal President Heinz Fischer called Waldheim "a great Austrian" who had been wrongfully accused of having committed war crimes. Fischer also praised Waldheim for his efforts to solve international crises and for his contributions to world peace.[37] At Waldheim's own request, no foreign heads of states or governments were invited to attend his funeral. Hans-Adam II, the Prince of Liechtenstein, a neighbouring country of Austria, was the only one to be present. Also present was Luis Durnwalder, governor of the Italian province of South Tyrol. Syria and Japan were the only two countries that laid a wreath. In a two-page letter, published posthumously by the Austrian Press Agency the day after he died, Waldheim admitted making "mistakes" ("but these were certainly not those of a follower let alone an accomplice of a criminal regime") and asked his critics for forgiveness.[38]
[edit] Media referencesW. G. Sebald's novel The Rings of Saturn (1995; English trans., 1998) refers to Waldheim, though not by name.[39]
As a much-heralded invited guest on Dame Edna Everage's talk show The Dame Edna Experience, a dignified "Kurt Waldheim" began a grand entrance, except that halfway down the staircase, he abruptly fell through a hidden chute and disappeared: the band's fanfare stopped as Dame Edna explained she had decided at the last minute to "abort" Dr. Waldheim's appearance because it would have been "too political." The episode aired 12 September 1987.
A running segment on The Howard Stern Show is called Guess Who's the Jew and features Fred Norris portraying a Nazi Kurt Waldheim, Jr.[40]
Musician Lou Reed's 1988 "New York" album contains a song called "Good Evening Mr. Waldheim."
Harry Turtledove's 2003 alternate history novel, In the Presence of Mine Enemies, in which Germany won the Second World War, a "Kurt Haldweim" is the third Führer of Germany, and parts of Haldweim's biography closely parallel Waldheim's.
In a 1988 ice hockey film entitled Hockey, The Lighter Side, former New York Rangers goaltender John Davidson is explaining his fictional goaltender school and as hockey highlights play, he exclaims, "You'll have more shots taken at you than Kurt Waldheim".
In episode 3, series 2 of The Million Pound Radio Show, Andy Hamilton announces next week's special guest as Waldheim, "although he'll deny [his appearance on the show] in 40 years time."
In an episode of The New Statesman, aired in 1989, Alan B'Stard (Rik Mayall) attempts to blackmail an aged former Nazi officer, who complains that, "it's not fair; I'm living here in the tripe capital of Europe, while Kurt Waldheim is President of Austria- and he was beneath me!"
Friday, 26 August 2011
And talking of vicars ...
Netcu Watch // The Truth About Gladys Hammond
Posted on March 2, 2009 by warn
Gladys Hammond
At the recent sentencing of the SHAC 7 the alleged theft of Gladys Hammond’s body from her grave was mentioned yet again despite having nothing to do with the SHAC campaign. The constant ‘resurrection’ of Gladys is clearly ‘used’ to convey to the public that all animal rights campaigners are callous fanatics. While most of the media have mentioned the grave-theft at one time or another none of them have made any effort whatsoever to authenticate the story.
The Alleged Grave-Theft
Allegedly it all began on the 6th October 2004 when the Staffordshire police would have you believe that two protesters visited the quiet countryside village of Yoxall in Staffordshire at the dead of night, armed with one fold-up spade, to steal Gladys Hammond from her grave. Anyone who has visited Yoxall will know that the graveyard is completely surrounded by houses. A female OAP was then said to have travelled some distance with the corpse before carrying it (dressed in a pink shroud) up four flights of stairs to the flat she shared with her Jack Russell, who was very partial to a bone ! Nineteen months later, in May 2006, Gladys Hammond was supposedly found on Cannock Chase.
Contradictions in the Alleged Grave Theft
1. An 84 year old was said to have noticed the “disturbed” grave whilst police photographs showed a professionally dug grave with precise sides and corners.
2. The vicar said the plaque was on the coffin lid whereas police photographs showed the plaque lying on the soil nearby and there was no coffin lid.
3. Police said bones were left at the grave which was a contradiction to what Janet Palmer (Gladys Hammond’s daughter) said. She stated she “was relieved that her mother’s body had been kept intact”.
4. Police said the gravestone was “smashed” yet police photographs clearly showed Gladys Hammond’s name on the complete gravestone.
5. The Forestry Commission reported the corpse could only have lain where it was found for a very short time whereas the police stated it had been there for a considerable length of time.
The OAP
The OAP was subsequently arrested on 1 December 2004 at 08.20hrs. She was totally unaware that her arrest had been headline news on the local news stations at 08.00hrs. As she was escorted from her flat by 3 detectives there were 6 police officers with large boxes waiting on the stairs to search her flat and seize her property. She was taken to the police station and questioned on and off throughout the day. The 6 officers found no trace of Gladys in the flat and the OAP was released without charge later that evening. The next day, despite making international media headlines as a grave-robber and named as a defendant in the High Court Application to ban all protests at the guinea-pig farm, the Judge allowed the OAP to continue her protests !
When the OAP eventually learned that the witness who had identified her as a “5’10” male with not dark hair seen standing as lookout at Yoxall cemetery in mid September 2004” and later changed her description to a “5’4” female with no hair” was the Rev. Jenny Lister vicar of Yoxall she couldn’t understand why a vicar would blatantly lie about her until she received a cutting from the local paper through the post which told of the arrest and charging of the Rev. Peter Lister (Jenny’s husband) for sexually abusing a 14 year old boy some years previously. She immediately thought what a great incentive for the vicar to lie if she could “do a deal” with the CPS to incriminate the OAP if they dropped the sexual abuse charge against her husband. This is exactly what the CPS did at his trial in Northumbria in 2005. Would vicars lie ? Well Jenny Lister certainly lied because the OAP had never visited Yoxall cemetery. Peter Lister also lied because the OAP has since met the person he sexually abused which means the two vicars have got away with horrific crimes whilst being aided and abetted by the Staffordshire police and the CPS. Meanwhile the OAP’s solicitors have been refused the legal aid she needs in order to clear her name because the Legal Funding Commission “do not consider her case to be in the public’s interests”.
Like this:
LikeBe the first to like this post. Filed under: 1 Tagged: | gladys hammond, SHAC
« National Anti Vivisection Society expose HLS cruelty and incompetence. Secrets, Spies and poorly forumlated lies. »7 Responses
Presence of Malice: UK Activists v. Lee Hall « Thomas Paine’s Corner, on March 23, 2009 at 7:03 am said:
[...] “The Truth About Gladys Hammond” http://netcu.wordpress.com/2009/03/02/netcu-watch-the-truth-about-gladys-hammond/ [...]
Reply
Presence of Malice: UK Activists v. Lee Hall « NETCU WATCH!, on March 23, 2009 at 6:40 pm said:
[...] Netcu Watch // The Truth About Gladys Hammond [...]
Reply
Churchvictims, on April 11, 2009 at 10:43 am said:
Here are a couple of web links to the Reverend Peter Lister case.
The case was stopped at Newcastle Crown Court due to ‘mysterious’ last minute evidence (police statements appeared to have been rewritten giving the wrong dates for the allegations).
The Gladys Hammond chain of events appear to have begun shortly after the evidence against Peter Lister was first presented to Northumbria Police.
http://bishop-accountability.org/abuse2005archives/011205.html
http://www.lichfield.anglican.org/news&NewsID=185
Reply
Churchvictims, on July 25, 2009 at 10:39 am said:
Further detail on timings of the allegations aginst Rev Peter Lister:
The allegations made against the Reverend Peter Lister (formerly of Morpeth, Northumberland, and Yoxall) were made verbally to Northumbria Police before October 2004, i.e. before the Gladys Hammond events began; the allegations were first raised against him in September and recorded on paper and on video tape in November 2004.
There was clear evidence against Rev Peter Lister, so the case was taken on by the Crown Prosecution Service to be heard at Newcastle Crown Court. The judge stopped it on the morning of the trial, in November 2005, saying that the events could never have happened.
A policewoman wrote up the allegations made by the victim against Rev Peter Lister; these allegations were of serious sexual abuse were then transcribed and written up by the policewoman as the victim’s statement.
At court, it became clear that something was wrong.
The policewoman somehow managed to put into the statement ‘the wrong dates’. She did this despite being told the correct dates (we have a CD copy of the verbal statement made to Northumbria Police that proves that the correct dates were given to the policewoman). It appears that she was somehow unable to type in the correct dates, but she did mange to put in the wrong ones.
This is how the Rev. Peter Lister managed to avoid trial at Newcastle Crown Court.
It is extremely unusual for a case to be aborted at the last minute in terms of the prosecution offering no evidence.
The evidence was there. That’s why the CPS took the case all the way to Crown Court.
During the investigation, the Police (Staffordshire and Northumbria) appeared to fail to arrest the Rev. Peter Lister until after Christmas 2004 as they, allegedly, ‘didn’t have enough police officers’.
2 Independent Police Commission Complaint investigations have led to the police denying every one of 20 or so charges of incompetence made against them relating to their investigation of Peter Lister.
The Gladys Hammond events happened in the church graveyard of the parish run by Rev Peter Lister and his wife the Rev Jenny Lister,. and occurred at the same time that the Rev Peter Lister was accused of sexual abuse against a child.
After the case of sexual abuse against the Rev. Peter Lister was dropped, he was reinstated as the Director of Education, Lichfield Diocese, looking after hundreds of schools.
He then took ‘early retirement’.
We believe that the Police investigation of the case aginst Peter Lister was flawed. They’ve admitted that they got the dates wrong yet refuse to accept liability. The roles of both the Police and the Crown Prosecution Service in the case of R. vs Rev. Peter Lister need to be reviewed.
The problems in reviewing the case are several, not least
1/ double jeopardy (the same evidence can’t be heard twice).
2/ The Police and CPS both investigate themselves – it is not an independent process.
3/ There is very little help and financial assistance for people who didn’t get a fair crack of the whip at the hands of the prosecution authorities.
We firmly believe that, for whatever reason, the police and the CPS in the investigation of the Rev. Peter Lister messed up.
Church Victims
Contact email: churchvictims@yahoo.co.uk
Reply
Churchvictims, on July 29, 2009 at 12:04 am said:
Important details about the discovery of the bodies, and 2 highly relevant media stories about the ‘discovery’ are now missing from the online archives:
Firstly, it is very interesting to note the dates of the discovery of the grave disturbance. The Burton Mail (Nermin Oomer) reports that Police believe ‘the grave (of Gladys Hammond) was dug up on Tuesday night or Wednesday morning…’
The BBC reports ‘Ms. Lister, who first reported the matter to police on Thursday…
So when was it reported?
Apparently, Jenny Lister was notified of the grave problem by a parishoner.
Unfortunately, the following media stories seem to have disappeared from the online archives. I have searched but they appear to be missing.
Report 1:
Burton Mail 9.10.04 OAP TELLS OF GRAVE FIND by NERMIN OOMER – A PENSIONER has told how she discovered the grave of an elderly woman which is believed to have been dug up by animal rights activists. Police and church leaders have condemned the ‘sick and despicable’ criminals who ‘seriously desecrated’ the grave of Gladys Hammond ? the mother in law of Newchurch guinea pig farm owner Chris Hall?. (story)
Report 2
The BBC story that appeared, possibly on the 8th October, in which Rev. Jenny Lister describes how a woman parishioner of outstanding (or was it ‘upright’) character alerted Jenny to the grave disturbance.
How strange that both stories are missing. There must be copies somewhere?
Reply
Churchvictims, on July 29, 2009 at 12:11 am said:
Important details about the timing of the discovery of the grave disturbance. Also 2 highly relevant media stories about the discovery itself are now missing from the online archives:
Firstly, it is very interesting to note the dates of the discovery of the grave disturbance. The Burton Mail (Nermin Oomer) reports that Police believe ‘the grave (of Gladys Hammond) was dug up on Tuesday night or Wednesday morning…’
The BBC reports ‘Ms. Lister, who first reported the matter to police on Thursday…
So when was it reported?
Apparently, Jenny Lister was notified of the grave problem by a parishoner.
Unfortunately, the following media stories seem to have disappeared from the online archives. I have searched but they appear to be missing.
Report 1:
Burton Mail 9.10.04 OAP TELLS OF GRAVE FIND by NERMIN OOMER – A PENSIONER has told how she discovered the grave of an elderly woman which is believed to have been dug up by animal rights activists. Police and church leaders have condemned the ‘sick and despicable’ criminals who ‘seriously desecrated’ the grave of Gladys Hammond ? the mother in law of Newchurch guinea pig farm owner Chris Hall?. (story)
Report 2
The BBC story that appeared, possibly on the 8th October, in which Rev. Jenny Lister describes how a woman parishioner of outstanding (or was it ‘upright’) character alerted Jenny to the grave disturbance.
How strange that both stories are missing. There must be copies somewhere?
Reply
b.clare, on October 28, 2009 at 8:35 pm said:
please send more info
Posted on March 2, 2009 by warn
Gladys Hammond
At the recent sentencing of the SHAC 7 the alleged theft of Gladys Hammond’s body from her grave was mentioned yet again despite having nothing to do with the SHAC campaign. The constant ‘resurrection’ of Gladys is clearly ‘used’ to convey to the public that all animal rights campaigners are callous fanatics. While most of the media have mentioned the grave-theft at one time or another none of them have made any effort whatsoever to authenticate the story.
The Alleged Grave-Theft
Allegedly it all began on the 6th October 2004 when the Staffordshire police would have you believe that two protesters visited the quiet countryside village of Yoxall in Staffordshire at the dead of night, armed with one fold-up spade, to steal Gladys Hammond from her grave. Anyone who has visited Yoxall will know that the graveyard is completely surrounded by houses. A female OAP was then said to have travelled some distance with the corpse before carrying it (dressed in a pink shroud) up four flights of stairs to the flat she shared with her Jack Russell, who was very partial to a bone ! Nineteen months later, in May 2006, Gladys Hammond was supposedly found on Cannock Chase.
Contradictions in the Alleged Grave Theft
1. An 84 year old was said to have noticed the “disturbed” grave whilst police photographs showed a professionally dug grave with precise sides and corners.
2. The vicar said the plaque was on the coffin lid whereas police photographs showed the plaque lying on the soil nearby and there was no coffin lid.
3. Police said bones were left at the grave which was a contradiction to what Janet Palmer (Gladys Hammond’s daughter) said. She stated she “was relieved that her mother’s body had been kept intact”.
4. Police said the gravestone was “smashed” yet police photographs clearly showed Gladys Hammond’s name on the complete gravestone.
5. The Forestry Commission reported the corpse could only have lain where it was found for a very short time whereas the police stated it had been there for a considerable length of time.
The OAP
The OAP was subsequently arrested on 1 December 2004 at 08.20hrs. She was totally unaware that her arrest had been headline news on the local news stations at 08.00hrs. As she was escorted from her flat by 3 detectives there were 6 police officers with large boxes waiting on the stairs to search her flat and seize her property. She was taken to the police station and questioned on and off throughout the day. The 6 officers found no trace of Gladys in the flat and the OAP was released without charge later that evening. The next day, despite making international media headlines as a grave-robber and named as a defendant in the High Court Application to ban all protests at the guinea-pig farm, the Judge allowed the OAP to continue her protests !
When the OAP eventually learned that the witness who had identified her as a “5’10” male with not dark hair seen standing as lookout at Yoxall cemetery in mid September 2004” and later changed her description to a “5’4” female with no hair” was the Rev. Jenny Lister vicar of Yoxall she couldn’t understand why a vicar would blatantly lie about her until she received a cutting from the local paper through the post which told of the arrest and charging of the Rev. Peter Lister (Jenny’s husband) for sexually abusing a 14 year old boy some years previously. She immediately thought what a great incentive for the vicar to lie if she could “do a deal” with the CPS to incriminate the OAP if they dropped the sexual abuse charge against her husband. This is exactly what the CPS did at his trial in Northumbria in 2005. Would vicars lie ? Well Jenny Lister certainly lied because the OAP had never visited Yoxall cemetery. Peter Lister also lied because the OAP has since met the person he sexually abused which means the two vicars have got away with horrific crimes whilst being aided and abetted by the Staffordshire police and the CPS. Meanwhile the OAP’s solicitors have been refused the legal aid she needs in order to clear her name because the Legal Funding Commission “do not consider her case to be in the public’s interests”.
Like this:
LikeBe the first to like this post. Filed under: 1 Tagged: | gladys hammond, SHAC
« National Anti Vivisection Society expose HLS cruelty and incompetence. Secrets, Spies and poorly forumlated lies. »7 Responses
Presence of Malice: UK Activists v. Lee Hall « Thomas Paine’s Corner, on March 23, 2009 at 7:03 am said:
[...] “The Truth About Gladys Hammond” http://netcu.wordpress.com/2009/03/02/netcu-watch-the-truth-about-gladys-hammond/ [...]
Reply
Presence of Malice: UK Activists v. Lee Hall « NETCU WATCH!, on March 23, 2009 at 6:40 pm said:
[...] Netcu Watch // The Truth About Gladys Hammond [...]
Reply
Churchvictims, on April 11, 2009 at 10:43 am said:
Here are a couple of web links to the Reverend Peter Lister case.
The case was stopped at Newcastle Crown Court due to ‘mysterious’ last minute evidence (police statements appeared to have been rewritten giving the wrong dates for the allegations).
The Gladys Hammond chain of events appear to have begun shortly after the evidence against Peter Lister was first presented to Northumbria Police.
http://bishop-accountability.org/abuse2005archives/011205.html
http://www.lichfield.anglican.org/news&NewsID=185
Reply
Churchvictims, on July 25, 2009 at 10:39 am said:
Further detail on timings of the allegations aginst Rev Peter Lister:
The allegations made against the Reverend Peter Lister (formerly of Morpeth, Northumberland, and Yoxall) were made verbally to Northumbria Police before October 2004, i.e. before the Gladys Hammond events began; the allegations were first raised against him in September and recorded on paper and on video tape in November 2004.
There was clear evidence against Rev Peter Lister, so the case was taken on by the Crown Prosecution Service to be heard at Newcastle Crown Court. The judge stopped it on the morning of the trial, in November 2005, saying that the events could never have happened.
A policewoman wrote up the allegations made by the victim against Rev Peter Lister; these allegations were of serious sexual abuse were then transcribed and written up by the policewoman as the victim’s statement.
At court, it became clear that something was wrong.
The policewoman somehow managed to put into the statement ‘the wrong dates’. She did this despite being told the correct dates (we have a CD copy of the verbal statement made to Northumbria Police that proves that the correct dates were given to the policewoman). It appears that she was somehow unable to type in the correct dates, but she did mange to put in the wrong ones.
This is how the Rev. Peter Lister managed to avoid trial at Newcastle Crown Court.
It is extremely unusual for a case to be aborted at the last minute in terms of the prosecution offering no evidence.
The evidence was there. That’s why the CPS took the case all the way to Crown Court.
During the investigation, the Police (Staffordshire and Northumbria) appeared to fail to arrest the Rev. Peter Lister until after Christmas 2004 as they, allegedly, ‘didn’t have enough police officers’.
2 Independent Police Commission Complaint investigations have led to the police denying every one of 20 or so charges of incompetence made against them relating to their investigation of Peter Lister.
The Gladys Hammond events happened in the church graveyard of the parish run by Rev Peter Lister and his wife the Rev Jenny Lister,. and occurred at the same time that the Rev Peter Lister was accused of sexual abuse against a child.
After the case of sexual abuse against the Rev. Peter Lister was dropped, he was reinstated as the Director of Education, Lichfield Diocese, looking after hundreds of schools.
He then took ‘early retirement’.
We believe that the Police investigation of the case aginst Peter Lister was flawed. They’ve admitted that they got the dates wrong yet refuse to accept liability. The roles of both the Police and the Crown Prosecution Service in the case of R. vs Rev. Peter Lister need to be reviewed.
The problems in reviewing the case are several, not least
1/ double jeopardy (the same evidence can’t be heard twice).
2/ The Police and CPS both investigate themselves – it is not an independent process.
3/ There is very little help and financial assistance for people who didn’t get a fair crack of the whip at the hands of the prosecution authorities.
We firmly believe that, for whatever reason, the police and the CPS in the investigation of the Rev. Peter Lister messed up.
Church Victims
Contact email: churchvictims@yahoo.co.uk
Reply
Churchvictims, on July 29, 2009 at 12:04 am said:
Important details about the discovery of the bodies, and 2 highly relevant media stories about the ‘discovery’ are now missing from the online archives:
Firstly, it is very interesting to note the dates of the discovery of the grave disturbance. The Burton Mail (Nermin Oomer) reports that Police believe ‘the grave (of Gladys Hammond) was dug up on Tuesday night or Wednesday morning…’
The BBC reports ‘Ms. Lister, who first reported the matter to police on Thursday…
So when was it reported?
Apparently, Jenny Lister was notified of the grave problem by a parishoner.
Unfortunately, the following media stories seem to have disappeared from the online archives. I have searched but they appear to be missing.
Report 1:
Burton Mail 9.10.04 OAP TELLS OF GRAVE FIND by NERMIN OOMER – A PENSIONER has told how she discovered the grave of an elderly woman which is believed to have been dug up by animal rights activists. Police and church leaders have condemned the ‘sick and despicable’ criminals who ‘seriously desecrated’ the grave of Gladys Hammond ? the mother in law of Newchurch guinea pig farm owner Chris Hall?. (story)
Report 2
The BBC story that appeared, possibly on the 8th October, in which Rev. Jenny Lister describes how a woman parishioner of outstanding (or was it ‘upright’) character alerted Jenny to the grave disturbance.
How strange that both stories are missing. There must be copies somewhere?
Reply
Churchvictims, on July 29, 2009 at 12:11 am said:
Important details about the timing of the discovery of the grave disturbance. Also 2 highly relevant media stories about the discovery itself are now missing from the online archives:
Firstly, it is very interesting to note the dates of the discovery of the grave disturbance. The Burton Mail (Nermin Oomer) reports that Police believe ‘the grave (of Gladys Hammond) was dug up on Tuesday night or Wednesday morning…’
The BBC reports ‘Ms. Lister, who first reported the matter to police on Thursday…
So when was it reported?
Apparently, Jenny Lister was notified of the grave problem by a parishoner.
Unfortunately, the following media stories seem to have disappeared from the online archives. I have searched but they appear to be missing.
Report 1:
Burton Mail 9.10.04 OAP TELLS OF GRAVE FIND by NERMIN OOMER – A PENSIONER has told how she discovered the grave of an elderly woman which is believed to have been dug up by animal rights activists. Police and church leaders have condemned the ‘sick and despicable’ criminals who ‘seriously desecrated’ the grave of Gladys Hammond ? the mother in law of Newchurch guinea pig farm owner Chris Hall?. (story)
Report 2
The BBC story that appeared, possibly on the 8th October, in which Rev. Jenny Lister describes how a woman parishioner of outstanding (or was it ‘upright’) character alerted Jenny to the grave disturbance.
How strange that both stories are missing. There must be copies somewhere?
Reply
b.clare, on October 28, 2009 at 8:35 pm said:
please send more info
AN INTERESTING LETTER
24th August 2007
Dr Williams. Most Rev. and Right Honourable the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury
Lambeth Palace
London
SE1 7JU
Copies: As per attached list
Dear Dr Williams,
Re: The Court of Arches Judgement of 31st July 2007 and the Policy of Church of England relating to the installation of mobile phone masts in church premises
I wrote to you on the 8th February 2007 relating to the Church of England’s policy, set out by the Archbishops’ Council in 2002, providing a model licence for churches to adopt, for the installation of mobile phone masts on their premises. The reply that I received stated that no comment could be made, because at that time the matter was sub judice. This is no longer the case, following the recent decision of the Court of Arches.
As the respondent in the Court of Arches appeal, I can only say that having read the judgement, it is my respectful opinion that it is fundamentally flawed both in law and in principle. I do not mean to appear discourteous, however this is an important issue and one where errors need to be rectified at the earliest possible opportunity. The judgement has clearly set a precedent, which opens a legal gateway for the Church of England to become involved in the distribution of pornography and also the distribution of child abuse images for indirect financial gain.
I have a single request that is made at the end of this letter. However, firstly I shall explain why the judgement of the Court of Arches is flawed. I present these flaws under 6 sub-headings as follows:
1. The Judgement is contrary to the Law of this Country and Ecclesiastical Law
Within the submissions that were made to the court and during the hearing itself, clear arguments were made by the respondent which demonstrated that it is wrong in law for a Church of England church to gain financially from being involved in the pornography industry and also that it is wrong in law for it to be involved in the child abuse image industry.
The Bible states clearly in St Pauls letter to the Ephesians Chapter 5 verses 3 – 4 that,
“among you there must not be even a hint of sexual immorality, or any kind of impurity, or of greed, because these are improper for God’s holy people.”
There are additional passages, which were referred to by the respondent in the case, that reiterate the Bible’s position on such issues. These included:
1 Cor. 6:12; 1 Cor. 6:18; 1 Cor. 10:8; 2 Cor. 12:20; Gal 5:17; Col 3:5; 1 The 4:3.
Their worships have not referred to any of these passages in their judgment and have not even attempted to reconcile their decision with them.
Section. 1 of the Care of Churches Ecclesiastical Measures Act. (1991) states clearly as a “General Principle” that,
“[a]ny person or body carrying out functions of care and conservation under this Measure or under any other enactment or rule of law relating to churches shall have due regard to the role of a church as a local centre of worship and mission.”
It is clear, that the commercial sale of child abuse images or pornography is not consistent with the “worship and mission” of the church in accordance with the law of this country.
If this is not enough, Canon F15, para.1 makes it expressly clear that, “[t]he churchwardens and their assistants shall not suffer the church or chapel to be profaned by any meeting therein for temporal objects inconsistent with the sanctity of the place..”
In the case of Re St Peter’s, Stockton, Holy Trinity Churchyard (1986), it was stated that, “[c]onsecrated land is to the Consistory Court what an infant is to the Secular Court, something where there are overriding interests which can be encroached upon only in exceptional circumstances.”
It is clear therefore that the judgement made by their worships is not only wrong in law but wrong through Christian principles and teachings.
The strangest part of this case is that Mr Charles George QC who represented the appellants, appears to have fought a case which is contrary to his own position. He quite reasonably stated in an article in the Ecclesiastical Law Journal that certain secular uses of a church should be permissible. However even he drew the line by stating that in his view, uses which should be impermissible should be those which:
1. prevent the primary use of the church being for the purpose of worship. I am told by the Vicar of All Saints Hereford, that he celebrates mass at mid-day three times a week in the lady chapel, whilst meals are served 40 feet away in the adjacent restaurant.
2. involve activities which are unsuitable in a church, either because of some conflict either with the teaching of the church, or because they would be unlikely to be regarded as acceptable by right-thinking members of the Church of England. This would preclude a Mosque, or as a bookshop run by the Secular Society, also also various activities which involve noise or violence or disorderly conduct.
2. Errors Within the Judgement
In my view, their worships have made a number of errors, which unfortunately appear to indicate a desire to make the judgement fit a desired end, rather than applying the law impartially.
On page 10 (para 34) of the judgement it refers to the approach adopted by the court of “balancing interests”. There is a reference to ecclesiastical law and the power of consistory courts to grant a faculty with or without conditions. It states that, “[t]he exercise of that power involves consideration of all the circumstances of a particular case and the balancing of factors for and against the grant of a faculty. This may necessitate balancing public interests against church-related interests.” The paragraph then goes on to provide two precedents. The first is re St Edburga’s Abberton (1962) in which the court decided “on a balance of factors” in favour of the removal of a spire of a church owing to the potential risk to aircraft from a local airfield. The second was re St Mary the Virgin, Woodkirk (1969) in which the Deputy Auditor allowed part of a churchyard to be used for the road improvements in spite of the fact that nearly 200 graves would be disturbed and many human remains would be exhumed. In that case he had to be satisfied that, “the public interest outweighs the interests of the objectors and the public interest that consecrated land should continue to be used for the sacred use to which it was dedicated.”
However, neither of the precedents that are cited, involve the departure by the church from a fundamental Biblical principle. In other words, there is nothing in the Bible to suggest that aviation or travel is per se wrong. Equally there is nothing in the Bible to suggest that the building of roads is per se wrong. Therefore it was clearly right and proper in those cases that the “balancing of interests” took place.
In this case however, the Bible is clear that sexual immorality is not consistent with the worship and mission of the church. It therefore follows that the church should not have an involvement in it and clearly should not be benefiting financially from it. It was emphasised by the respondent in this case that, were the court to attempt to “balance interests” with such a fundamental Biblical principle, it could ultimately lead to a position of hypocrisy. Obviously this is what has occurred.
(In para. 35 the judgement also refers to the recent re Emmanuel Church Bentley case with respect to the need for a “balancing exercise”. However, it must be noted that Dean Shiela Cameron was also the Dean in charge of the Court of Arches for that case and therefore it does not provide a particularly strong precedent in terms of judicial independence.)
On page 11 (para. 36) there is reference to the House of Lord sitting in the case of Belfast City Council v Miss Behavin’ Ltd where it was stated that “the balancing of arguments” was the correct approach. However, it is clear that the House of Lord is a secular court and does not have a legal obligation to make decisions which are consistent with Biblical teaching.
Other cases that were referred to in this respect were previous consistory court decisions where faculties for 3G mobile phone masts were granted. These were, re St Margeret Hawes (2003) and re St Barnabus Heaton (2004). In my opinion these judgements are erroneous for the reasons set out above. Clearly Chancellor Pulman QC was not obliged to follow erroneous consistory court decisions as another consistory court is not bound by the precedents that they set.
3. Lack of Understanding of the Inadequacy of Existing Measures to Protect Children from being abused
On page 14 (para 48) of the judgement there is reference to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. Detailed information was presented to the court which illustrated the inadequacy of existing laws and measures to protect children from abuse as a result of the new industry of using the Internet as a means of selling child sexual abuse images. It is perfectly clear that the Internet, despite all of its benefits, is a medium which is out of control and can be extremely harmful, especially to children. The court failed to properly recognise this and claims in (para 48) that, “[i]t would not be inconsistent with the Convention for a mobile phone installation to be placed in the tower of SS Peter and Paul’s church subject to these existing safeguards with the addition of filtering techniques mentioned by Professor Ramsdale.”
However, the judgement refers on page 8 (para. 28) to the book Child Sex Abuse and the Internet: Tackling the New Frontier, by Martin Calder (Ed.). This book also details the extent of child abuse which is taking place through the medium of the internet. Martin Calder is an expert in the field of the psychology of offending of child abuse on the Internet uses a system to grade the severity of the child abuse pictures which are found. This is as follows:
1. Indicative Non erotic and non-sexualised pictures showing children in their underwear, swimming costumes , etc, from either commercial sources or family albums; pictures of children playing in normal settings , in which the context or organisation of pictures by the collector indicates inappropriateness.
2. Nudist Pictures of naked or semi-naked children in appropriate nudist settings, and from legitimate sources.
3. Erotica Surreptitiously taken photographs of children in play areas or other safe environments showing either underwear or varying degrees of nakedness.
4. Posing Deliberately posed pictures of children fully, partially clothed or naked (where the amount , context and organisation suggest sexual interest).
5. Erotic Posing Deliberately posed pictures of fully, partially clothed or naked children in sexualised or provocative poses.
6. Explicit Erotic Posing Emphasising genital areas where the child is either naked, partially or fully clothed.
7. Explicit Sexual Activity Involves touching , mutual self masturbation, oral sex and intercourse by child, involving an adult.
8. Assault Pictures of children being subjected to sexual assault, involving digital touching, involving an adult.
9. Gross Assault Grossly obscene pictures of sexual assault, involving penetrative sex, masturbation or oral sex involving an adult.
10. Sadistic / Bestiality a) Pictures showing a child being tied, bound , beaten, whipped or otherwise subject to something that implies pain.
b) Pictures where an animal is involved in some form of sexual behaviour with a child.
The author of the book reminds us that each photograph of a child being abused is a photograph of a crime scene. Even since my letter to you in February there have been numerous cases in the media, either of individuals downloading child sexual abuse images from the Internet or of children who have been abducted by paedophiles. From my own work as a legal adviser at police stations, I can testify to the huge problems that exist within this field. The literature on this subject, especially that of recent research, for example from the COPINE Project, (see the above book) illustrates how the viewing of child abuse images can lead to the commission of offences which involve direct contact with children.
Information presented to the Court of Arches illustrated that the problem of child sexual abuse and the internet is a huge and growing problem. For example:
Roger Darlington the former head of the Internet Watch Foundation (IWF) (referred to in the judgement), states that, “[a]lthough so far in Britain the main problem relating to child abuse has been the downloading of child pornography, experience from the United States suggests that we will have a growing problem of child contact via the Internet.”
He states that,
Although the problem of sex on the Net revolves mainly around children, there is an element of adult pornography that rightly causes deep concern and that is material which depicts non-consensual sex, such as violence against women – including rape and murder – and necrophilia. This issue became particularly prominent in the UK in February 2004 with the conviction of Graham Coutts for the horrific murder of teacher Jane Longhurst. The court heard how Coutts had repeatedly accessed Web sites depicting violent sex and how elements of his actions mirrored what he had seen on-line. Some of the sites mentioned in the trial were “necrobabes”, “hangingbitches” and “deathbyasphyxia”.
Darlington attempts to answer what difference the Internet makes to the issue of pornography. He states that,
[o]f course, as long as we have had pornography, we have had child pornography. What is the difference when a child pornography is on the Internet? There are at least three differences.
1. The Net makes finding child pornography much easier. Someone who wishes to access such material does not have to find someone in their own social circle who can provide such images or somewhere in their locality where such images are available. Instead he – it is usually a he – can go on-line and be in contact with thousands of individuals in dozens of countries with enormous volumes of the material.
2. The Net makes accessing child material more anonymous. There is no need to visit a friend or a shop or to mail a supplier with the attendant risks of discovery or detection. Instead the user of this material can access it from the privacy of his own home 24 hours a day 365 days a year.
3. The Net provides legitimisation. In the physical world, most people that one meets find child pornography utterly repugnant. However, in the on-line communities of certain newsgroups or community groups, users of child pornography and paedophiles can join a virtual world where the use of child pornography and the abuse of children are considered acceptable and even normal.
All these factors would tend to suggest that the volume of child pornography on the Internet is going to increase. Indeed the growing number of reports to hot-lines, like the Internet Watch Foundation in the UK and elsewhere, and the evidence of police operations, like Operation Cathedral and others , would appear to confirm this.
Darlington states that this is important because inter alia every picture image of child pornography is the result of actual abuse of a child. He states that,
During the fiscal year 1997, the USPIS (United States Postal Inspection Service) began compiling statistical information on the number of child pornography suspects that were also child molesters. Of the 1,207 individuals arrested by Postal Inspectors since 1997 for using the mail and the Internet sexually to exploit children, actual child molesters were identified in 36% of cases. Since the USPIS frequently target those with prior convictions for sex offences, it may bet that this figure somewhat overstates the proportion of users of child pornography as a whole who are likely to engate in actual abuse, but it is still a worrying statistic.
More recently, in 2005 the report, “Child-Pornography Possessors Arrested in Internet-Related Crimes: Findings from the National Juvenile Online Victimization Study,” was authored by researchers Janis Wolak, David Finkelhor, and Kimberly Mitchell from the University of New Hampshire’s Crimes against Children Research Center, with funding from the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children and U.S Department of Justice.
The report found that 40% of arrested child pornography possessors were “dual offenders”, who sexually victimized children and possessed child pornography, with both crimes discovered in the same investigation. An additional 15% were dual offenders who attempted to sexually victimize children by soliciting undercover investigators who posed online as minors.
Here in the UK, David Findlater – director of the Wolvercote Clinic which provided sex offender treatment before it had to close – told the “Observer” on 20 October 2002: “I am sure the Internet could lead to a substantial rise in offences. It delivers materials into the home, putting ideas into their heads. At Wolvercote, we learned how quickly, using the Internet, men moved from fantasising about abusing adolescents through to baby abuse and bondage. The fact that what they were watching is an abuse actually taking place can make them think about doing it themselves.
In the 2003 book “Policing Paedophiles on the Internet”, there is a chapter by Joe Sullivan and Anthony Beech entitled “Are Collectors of Child Abuse Images A Risk to Children? Sullivan is principal therapist for the Lucy Faithfull Foundation and works extensively with sex offenders and Beech is Reader in Criminological Psychology at the University of Birmingham and a lead researcher with the Sex Offender Treatment Evaluation Project. Having examined three contemporary models of sexual abuse, they conclude the chapter with the following assessment: “We do not believe that everyone who masterbates to indecent images of children has or will inevitably engage in contact sexual abuse of children, but in our opinion, this process will have the effect of reducing the collectors’ inhibitors to contact sexual offending, and therefore make it increasingly more likely they will seek to act out their fantasies.
Research carried out by the NSPCC states that, child pornography is not a separate genre oustside of other forms of child sexual abuse and exploitation, but one practised within a cycle of exploitation. It states the problems of this industry include inter alia the feelings of intense powerlessness that children feel and also the fact that they are aware that the sexual abuse that they endured to produce the pornography can be distributed commercially or non-commercially for the arousal of others. They are also aware that it can be used to groom and abuse other children. Children suffer as they know that there is a permanent record of their sexual abuse, which can subsequently prevent, delay or exacerbate the fear of disclosure.
The Save the Children Fund stated in an October 2006 report that,
[i]n a society where child sexual abuse is shrouded in secrecy and denial, the vast majority of abused children and adult survivors remain silent about the abuse they have suffered. Coercive techniques (grooming) of child sexual abuse offenders and the failure of child protection systems to protect victims and support disclosure exacerbate this situation. The abuse continues when photographic evidence of child sexual abuse is circulated through new technologies and child protection systems fail to coordinate their actions to identify and protect their victims.
It also stated in an earlier report that governments should implement regulation where self regulation has failed. And that Internet Service providers should consider the possibility of blocking access to websites in parts of the world where legislation is seen as being ineffective in stopping the proliferation of child pornographic websites.
The Save the Children fund provide an insight into the way that child pornography can be found on the Internet. They state that
[f]ew commercial child pornography web sites exhibit abuse images on their start page. The start page usually shows legal “child erotica” with manipulative advertising suggesting that “stronger” material, will be available if you subscribe. The character reports to Save the Children hotlines indicates that the number of such pay-sites has grown explosively during 2001-2002. It appears that many of these new sites in Eastern European countries (typically hosted in Russia) is of great concern to Save the Children. It is imperative that Europol extends co-operation with Eastern European countries. It is important to remember though , that just because a website is physically hosted on a site in, for example Russia, this does not necessarily mean that the owners are Russians.
In Lindsay Tanner’s article in the Christian Post, she refers to research carried out into the effects of exposure to pornography on children.
University of Chicago psychiatrist Sharon Hirsch said exposure to online pornography could lead kids to become sexually active too soon, or could put them at risk for being victimized by sexual predators if they visit sites that prey on children.
“They’re seeing things that they’re really not emotionally prepared to see yet, which can cause trauma to them,” Hirsch said.
Exposure also could skew their perceptions about what constitutes a healthy sexual relationship, said Janis Wolak , the study’s lead author and a researcher at the University of New Hampshire’s Crimes Against Children Research Center.
Ethel Quayle M.Sc, Psych. D and Max Taylor Ph.D (C, Forensic Psychol) of the COPINE Project have carried out extensive research into the relationship between those who have a sexual interest in children and the seduction of children on the Internet and the use of Internet child pornography. They have written extensively on this subject over a number of years. In the journal Cyber Psychology and Behaviour, they provide details of their research. In relation to the commission of contact offences they state that,
[f]or some respondents, the commission of a contact offense without production of child pornography was argued to be an extension of online behaviour, where the fantasies engaged with online were acted out in real life. The cognitions that supported contact offenses made reference to the pictures reflecting others having engaged in similar behaviour, along with passive acceptance by the child.
“..I was finding more and more explicit stuff on the computer and I was looking at the computer and thinking oh… they’re doing it.. it can’t be that bad… it’s there you know…I’m not doing any harm and she doesn’t seem to mind… and it just gradually built up over a period of time” (KQ p7)
“cause by the time I had those images yes so I’d look at those erm… and all I wanted to do was abuse her really … make sure she was asleep in bed, stalk her on the stairs and keep watching… to make sure she was asleep and then I abused.”(DX p24)
In relation to the grooming of children on line, they give other examples of the effect that the availabilty of children online had on their behaviour. They state that,
[c]hatting to others as if he were a child allowed this respondent to justify his behaviour, as then the activity was taking place between children rather than between an adult and a child.
“And that this 13 year old … 12 year old… found that attractive… I was living in that sort of fantasy as well…And even … and even the fantasy of two boys falling in love and having sex… I found that an attraction …erm probably in the repsec that I just… that that justifies my abuse erm…”
John Carr the Chairman of the children’s charity NCH, London, England wrote a research paper for UNICEF’s 2nd World Congress on Commercial Exploitation of Children, which took place in 2001. In it he quotes leading researchers in the field. He states that,
Rachel O’Connell formerly of the COPINE project at the University of Cork, now with the Cyberspace Research Unit at he University of Central Lancashire, has examined extensively the behaviour of child sex abusers in the online environment and she confirms in her most recent study that the organized exchange of child pornography can “legitimate and normalize” adult sexual interest in children.
He states that even in 2001,
police forces across the world have also noted that child pornography has moved on to the Internet in a major way. Previously child pornography was often quite hard to find, requiring the person to take a number of risks in order to obtain it, e.g. by going to certain sex shops or video stores in particular parts of town, where one might be seen by people who know you , or you risked being seen by the police. Alternatively, and equally risky in terms of the possibility of discovery or exposure, there would be mail order companies that might keep your name and address or bank details in their files. But the arrival of the Internet can make much of this unnecessary for those who can access it, and with the removal of these old barriers or inhibitors, early signs are that more people are being tempted to become involved.
Recognition of the problem of paedophiles “grooming” children on the Internet has naturally brought about responses from the Home Office. Responses occurred after a number of serious cases where children had been “groomed” via the Internet. This is where a paedophile makes contact with a potential victim and uses a range of techniques to gain their trust and develop a relationship with the intention of sexually abusing them. Relationships may be established over a period of months or even years. The Home Office established good practice models for industry, however these have not been sufficient to stop the problem.
One particular problem of the fuelling of the child pornography industry as a result of the Internet is that research shows that people who have been abused as children themselves, sometimes go on to become abusers or fall into prostitution. The inter-denominational Christian charity CHASTE (Churches Alert to Sex Trafficking Across Europe) states that, “around 80% of women in prostitution have been sexually abused in their childhood.”
Additionally Barnardo’s have been working to raise awareness of other aspects of child abuse which are occurring through the internet. They state that,
For the past nine years Barnardo’s has been highlighting the needs of children abused through prostitution and campaigning for more pro-active policing of those who “pimp” young people or pay to sexually abuse them. Over the past 18 months we have become aware that children are being advertised or sold for sex via chat rooms and bulletin boards on the Internet. Not only are children being “pimped” in this way but these Internet sites also inform the enquirer of “how good a purchase” the child is by rating them from 1-10.
The use of the Internet has both national and international implications. Barnardo’s has become increasingly aware of the interconnections between abuse through prostitution, trafficking and the Internet. The Internet gives traffickers an easy tool both to find vulnerable young people and also to sell them for sex to others.
In fact Barnardo’s note a variety of problems including that of children downloading sexually abusive images of other children from chat rooms.
Clearly the issue here is that the existing methods of protecting children from abuse through the medium of the Internet are completely inadequate. The Court of Arches failed to address this issue properly. It could have adjourned and requested that experts from the Internet Watch Foundation or the Metropolitan Police be called but it did not do so. Mr Bishop, the amicus lawyer pointed out the weaknesses in the current system. Therefore as long as the existing regulations are failing to protect children, they are failing to satisfy the requirements of the Convention on the Rights of a Child. This convention does not state that only certain children have the right to be free from sexual abuse but that all children should be.
What the judgement then does is accuse the respondent of taking an unreasonable approach. The judgement states on page 15 (para 49) that, “Mr Turner refuses to recognise that a balancing exercise has any relevance here. He takes a purist line that no mobile phone installation should be placed in the church unless and until all pornography is excluded. Whilst he is entitled to his view, it totally ignores the advantage to adults and children of having a good reception when communicating by mobile phone. Between parents and children it is, for example, a valuable means of keeping in touch when travelling, and for adults it is time-saving and of economic value for that reason alone.”
What the judgment fails to recognise is that the church has a moral responsibility to protect the interests of children who are being abused. (The Church of England’s own Child Protection Policy states that, “The Church of England, in all aspects of its life, is committed to and will champion the protection of children and young people both in society as a whoel and in its own community….” The judgement erroneously claims that without a mast in the spire of SS Peter and Pauls’ Parish Church Chingford, that adults and children will not have adequate mobile phone reception in that area. The truth is that there has been adequate mobile phone reception in that area for many years. The difference that the 3G mast would make, would be that it would provide the facility for people not only to make calls on their mobile telephones, which they can do at the moment, but also to gain access to the internet on their mobile phones. This advantage to the community is not one that the church is bound to provide and it should not do so at the expense of providing a medium, which can cause enormous harm to children and families.
The respondent submitted to the court that a mast which did not transmit child abuse and pornography et.c (i.e. a 2G mast) would, in respect of “content” at least, be legal.
4. Errors in the Conclusions
The conclusions in the judgement are unfortunately similarly erroneous. Clearly Chancellor Pulman had made an accurate and insightful judgement relating to the issue of the use of a church for the transmission of pornography. However, the Court of Arches states erroneously on page 18 (para 52) that he should have carried out a balancing exercise. As has been explained above, it is wrong to carry out a balancing exercise when dealing with fundamental Christian principles, as the outcome can be a result which compromises those principles and puts the church in a position of hypocrisy. Unfortunately the Court of Arches did not appear to take this on board and has fallen into this very problem.
Page 18 (para. 53) of the judgement gives a false impression. In fact the decisive issue that was made clear in Chancellor Pulman’s judgement was the fact T Mobile sell their phones with a built in filter. This filter is supposed to stop any “adult” content material from being received on that particular mobile phone. That filter can be lifted by the owner of the mobile phone if that person is over the age of 18. Therefore adults are able to have access to the wide range of pornographic materials that are available on the Internet. The Court of Arches either failed to understand this or were unwilling to acknowledge it within their judgement. It is a crucial fact and it is a massive failing of the judgement that it has been ignored. Chancellor Pulman quite rightly recognised that if it is possible to have a filter on a mobile phone handset to stop under 18 year olds from accessing pornography, it is also possible to maintain such a filter to stop over 18 year olds from accessing pornography. The faculty that had been applied for did not incorporate such a condition of the phone company. Therefore, it was clear that the faculty that had been applied for, would be promoting pornography for the over 18 year age group. Chancellor Pulman’s judgement could not have been more clear in expressing this and yet the Court of Arches have published a judgement which suggests, unfairly, that he had failed to properly address the issue.
On page 18 (para. 54) Chancellor Pulman receives further unfair criticism. The judgement states that, “[p]art of the role and duty of a judge is to act with complete impartiality however strongly he or she feels about a particular issue. This applies no less in consistory courts than elsewhere.” However in the very next paragraph, the judgement of the Court of Arches does precisely the thing that it is accusing Chancellor Pulman of doing. It states that the Court of Arches believes that it is necessary to make a distinction between adults and children in terms of access to pornography. Clearly Christian teaching and the Bible does not make such distinctions. Christian standards are very high on this issue. The Bible teaches that all forms of sexual immorality are wrong not just those relating to children. Therefore the Court of Arches has committed the very mistake that it is accusing Chancellor Pulman of making. The Court in applying their own views and not those based on sound Christian principles did not, “act with complete impartiality.” The Court of Arches has applied only secular standards and not Christian standards. In fact, it was Chancellor Pulman who did conduct his role properly by applying Christian standards as the ecclesiastical courts are obliged to do.
In fact the problems associated with adult pornography are massive and have been overlooked by the Court of Arches. This is an incredible oversight.
The link between pornography itself and the influence that it may have upon adults who have viewed it, has been commented upon by senior clergy too. For example the Right Rev. Bishop Richard Harries stated on BBC’s Thought for the Day in 2004 that, “something like 40% of the population now watch pornography on the Internet.”
Of course the recent Church of England General Synod itself recently warned that the spread of hard-core sex and violence in films is “fatally eroding” standards. Revd Moy stated that, “standards of human behaviour are being fatally eroded by constant subjection to images via the media promoting the exploitation of other human beings.” The Bishop of Manchester, the Rt Rev Nigel McCulloch acknowledged, “the current tendency to exploit the humiliation of human beings for public entertainment.” The Synod voted in favour of more research and fuller debate on media standards by 217 votes to nil.
According to Anthony Barnes and Sophie Goodchild of the Independent newspaper, relationship agencies have reported that as many as 40 per cent of couples with problems believe pornography has contributed to their difficulties. They state that, “Christine Lacey, a senior counsellor for Relate, said: “For many women, the reaction is exactly the same as if they discovered their partner is having an affair. They may not be having sex with someone else but the effect is the same if it is detrimental to their marriage.”
Quite apart from the effect that it can have on individuals and relationships, it is important to consider that often the pornography industry is exploitative of vulnerable women. These are further reasons why the Church of England should not be involved in the distribution of adult pornography or any type of pornography if it is to remain true to its purpose.
The judgement refers to adult pornography on page 19 (para 58) but fails to show a proper understanding of the deep harm that it can do in society. It is obviously correct that the Christian message is one of forgiveness. However, it fails to acknowledge that by becoming a key component in the supply of pornography, the church will become a part of the modern pornography industry itself. Every industry requires suppliers; organisations who will supply their goods. The Church of England in providing for the supply of pornography, effectively would make itself a delivery boy for the modern pornography industry. However, the Court of Arches claims that there would be benefits to the public generally if the church were to install such masts. The truth is, that the public can already have access to the Internet and they already have a service on their mobile phones. The only additional advantage to the public would be greater access to the Internet on mobile phones or mobile receivers. It is my view that there is really very little additional benefit to the public. The disadvantage to the Church of England to allow such masts to be installed will be that it completely compromises its principles in doing so. I believe that the comments relating to “balancing interests” are made to confuse the unwary, in an attempt to disguise the fact that the court merely wishes to support a policy put forward by the Archbishops’ Council in 2002, to reap the financial rewards of granting licences for mobile phone masts to be installed in churches without paying proper heed to the hypocrisy that such a policy brings.
5. Partiality of the Court
Naturally questions have to be raised about the partiality of the Court of Arches. Clearly this issue is tied in very closely to the 2002 policy of the Archbishops’ Council relating to mobile phone masts. Clearly the Court of Arches have remained loyal to that policy. However the Dean of the Court also has an administrative function as a legal adviser within the Church of England and as such could lack the independence to make impartial judgements on such issues.
6. Failure to Take into Account the effect on the Ministry of the Church
Finally, the Court of Arches has failed to take into account or even acknowledge the harm that could occur to the ministry of the Church of England if it persists with this policy.
As a result of taking such a position it is inevitable that many will see the Church of England as hypocritical. This would mean that the everyday mission of the Church will be hampered..
Bishop Harries spoke out in 2004 for example, about the effects that pornography can have on peoples’ minds. How will it be possible for him to go to the BBC and minister effectively on this issue when he knows his position is undermined because his very own church is part of the distribution side of the modern pornography industry.
Imagine a curate or a youth minister who is trying to talk to young people. Imagine the situation where he meets with a young person who has pornography on his or her mobile phone. How can that minister, effectively communicate with that person about the message that the Bible teaches relating to such issues. That young person is likely to turn round and say, “you’re having a laugh aren’t you, this stuff is helping to pay your wages.”
Imagine how difficult it will be for ministers up and down the country to give pre- marriage counselling to young couples in relation to sexual purity when the Church of England is openly benefiting financially from providing images of sexual impurity.
Effectively for the church to agree to such masts, would leave the clergy hamstrung as it would be impossible for them to minister effectively on certain issues.
Imagine the situation where parents of a child who had been kidnapped and abused by paedophiles need counselling. How difficult it would be for the clergy to carry out that role, when they know that their own church had provided facilities for paedophiles.
How can the General Synod of the Church of England take a lead on issues relating to the effects of the content of the media, and the effects on the behaviour of individuals, if the Church of England becomes part of the very problems that they seek to address?
Imagine also the effect that such a move has on the relationship between the Church of England and leaders from for example the Moslem, Hindu, Jewish, Sikh and other communities, many of whom have strict standards relating to sexual purity. How will the Church of England be regarded by them. It is possible that their credibility will be seriously undermined as those communities will see that the Church of England had deviated from sound Christian principles purely for financial benefit.
The Church of England has an Ethical Investment policy, which states that it will not invest in companies involved in pornography. Obviously to allow any of its property assets to be used for the transmission of commercial pornography would amount to an investment of those assets for the use of such an industry. Therefore it is clear that such a move would be contrary to its own ethical investment policy.
Rather than winning respect, it will foster greater division between Christians and those of other faiths. Is it not the case that those of all faiths should be working hard and working together to fight child abuse. For the Church of England to give in on this issue means that it loses a great opportunity to show leadership amongst the wider community on something extremely important.
The policy is already causing deep divisions within churches up and down the country as communities come into conflict as to whether or not masts should be installed in their churches. This is unhealthy for church communities and their relationship with the wider community.
It is also an insult to the many Christians around the world who really do suffer for their faith. The people who live in countries where Christians are persecuted, get beaten up, murdered and put in prison for remaining true to their faith. It is an insult to them that the moment the Church of England, is offered a financial benefit, it considers deviating from sound Christian principles so that it can walk away with the money. It is also an insult to those Christians around the world who live in developing countries in abject poverty but hold firm to their faith all the same.
Above all, this issue provides a great opportunity for the Church of England to demonstrate what it really cares about. It provides an opportunity for the Church to become engaged with the government on the issue of the child abuse and pornography issues and show real leadership in bringing about change in the way that the Internet is currently used and regulated. The Church of England however can only seize this opportunity and bring about real change if it is strong enough to refuse the temptation of the money that is being offered to it.
Right now, in places around the world there are children who are suffering because they are being abused, sometimes by their own families. They often have nowhere to turn. I would respectfully submit that the Church of England should be part of the answer to their prayers and not a part of the distribution and encouragement of the problem.
My request
It is clear that if the Church of England continues with its existing policy, it will become an integral part of the modern child abuse image and pornography industry.
It is also clear that there have been well-publicised cases in the last 12 months of mobile phone masts that have been dismantled and moved as a result of the incidences of cancers amongst people living nearby.
It does not make sense for the Church of England to build its house on sand. In other words why become dependent on an income that has the potential of disappearing owing to the problems that mobile phone masts face.
It is possible for the Church of England to consider many other ways of making money. For example, given the pastoral strength of the church, it could be possible for it to enter into the care home business. This is one which would be wholly consistent with Bibilical teaching and one which could be incorporated within the work of individual churches. (In fact it would be refreshing to have such an organisation, given the failings of some care homes to provide properly for the elderly that they are supposed to look after.)
Unfortunately, the 2002 policy and the recent Court of Arches judgement place the Church of England, perhaps unwittingly, in a position of deep hypocrisy.
Therefore my request is, that in the light of the recent judgement and in the light of the health risks posed by mobile phone masts, that you consider reconvening the Archbishops’ Council in an open and transparent manner to reconsider the policy that was set out in 2002 relating to mobile phone masts and to consider a less divisive and more wholesome way of making money for the Church of England.
I look forward to your considered response. I would also welcome a response from any of the other recipients of this letter.
Yours Sincerely
Dr Stephen Turner
Joel Schumacher
Joel SchumacherFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaYou have new messages (last change).
Jump to: navigation, search
Joel Schumacher
Schumacher in Taormina during the Taormina Film Fest in 2003, for the Italian premiere of Phone Booth
Born Joel T. Schumacher
August 29, 1939 (1939-08-29) (age 71)
New York City, New York, U.S.
Occupation Director, screenwriter, producer
Years active 1972–present
Notable works The Lost Boys, Falling Down, Batman Forever, A Time to Kill, 8mm, Tigerland, Phone Booth
Joel T. Schumacher (born August 29, 1939) is an American film director, screenwriter and producer.
Contents [hide]
1 Early life
2 Career
2.1 The Brat Pack
2.2 John Grisham
2.3 Batman
2.4 Post-Batman career
3 Sexuality
4 Recurring collaborators
5 Filmography
5.1 Director
6 References
7 External links
[edit] Early lifeSchumacher was born in New York City, the son of Marian (née Kantor) and Francis Schumacher.[1] His mother was a Swedish Jew, and his father was a Baptist from Knoxville, Tennessee, who died when Joel was four years old.[2] Schumacher studied at Parsons The New School for Design and The Fashion Institute of Technology in New York.[3] After first working in the fashion industry, he realized his true love was in filmmaking. He moved out to Los Angeles, where he began his media work as a costume designer in films such as Sleeper and developed his skills with television work while earning an MFA from UCLA. He wrote the screenplay for the 1976 low-budget hit movie Car Wash and a number of other minor successes. He also wrote 1978's The Wiz, an adaptation of the stage play of the same name. His film directorial debut was The Incredible Shrinking Woman in 1981, which starred Lily Tomlin, and he quickly made more successful films, including two "brat pack" works.
[edit] Career[edit] The Brat PackSt. Elmo's Fire and The Lost Boys, considered to be archetypal movies of the 1980s, were two of Schumacher's biggest hits. Their style impressed audiences and their financial success allowed studios to trust him with ever larger projects. He states in the director's commentary for St. Elmo's Fire that he resents the "Brat Pack" label, as he feels it misrepresents the group.
[edit] John GrishamSchumacher has also directed two adaptations of the books of John Grisham, The Client (1994) and A Time to Kill (1996), the latter as the personal choice of Grisham.
[edit] Batman This section needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding reliable references. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (June 2011)
Schumacher would later replace Tim Burton as the director of the Batman film franchise due to the reaction by parental groups to Batman Returns (1992). He directed Batman Forever (1995), replacing Michael Keaton with Val Kilmer; the film would go on to score the highest-grossing opening weekend of 1995, and would finish as the second highest-grossing film of the year.
Inspired by this success, Warner Bros hired Schumacher to direct a sequel, Batman & Robin, in 1997. But after scathing reviews and a drop in ticket sales from the first film, Warner Bros put the series of movies on hiatus, canceling Schumacher's next planned Batman movie Batman Triumphant. On the DVD commentary, Schumacher has admitted that his movie disappointed fans of darker Batman adaptations, saying that the film was made intentionally marketable (or "toyetic") and kid-friendly. He claims to have been under heavy pressure from the studio to do so; however, he admits full responsibility and, at one point, apologizes to any fans who were disappointed. Schumacher, however, is a devoted Batman fan himself and actually would have personally preferred an adaptation of the comic Batman: Year One.[4]
Schumacher also served as the director for the music videos of two songs appearing in the franchise, "Kiss from a Rose", by Seal and "The End Is the Beginning Is the End" by The Smashing Pumpkins (co-directed with Jonathan Dayton and Valerie Faris).
[edit] Post-Batman careerAfter back-to-back Grisham and Batman films, Schumacher decided to reinvent his career with darker, lower-budget fare like 8MM with Nicolas Cage, and Flawless with Robert De Niro. In 1999, Schumacher also directed the music video for "Letting the Cables Sleep" by English rock band Bush. In 2000, Schumacher directed the Vietnam-era boot camp drama Tigerland, which introduced Hollywood to a young Colin Farrell. Kirk Honeycutt of The Hollywood Reporter praised the film as such: "Tigerland lands squarely in the top tier of best movies about America's Vietnam experience."
Schumacher returned to big-budget Hollywood with Bad Company starring Anthony Hopkins and Chris Rock. The film was originally slated to be released in November 2001 but because of the September 11 attacks, it was pushed back to the summer of 2002 because of its theme about terrorist attacks in New York City. The film was panned by most critics and was a box office failure. In 2003, he released the controversial Phone Booth, which reteamed Schumacher with Farrell. The film was also delayed months not only due to 9/11, but later, the Beltway sniper attacks. It received generally positive reviews, earning a 71 percent "Fresh" rating on the review aggregator Rotten Tomatoes.[5] Buoyed by Farrell's recently new-found fame, the film would earn $98.7 million worldwide.
In 2002, he directed Cate Blanchett in the Jerry Bruckheimer-produced biopic Veronica Guerin. It is about the eponymous Irish journalist, who was murdered by drug dealers in 1996.
Schumacher directed a film version of the musical The Phantom of the Opera in 2004, an adaptation of Andrew Lloyd Webber's original stage musical. Despite mixed reviews, the film earned $154.6 million worldwide (Schumacher's biggest hit of the 21st Century to date) and was nominated for three Academy Awards, as well as three Golden Globes including Best Motion Picture-Musical or Comedy.
The director has since filmed The Number 23, which was a critical flop but a financial success.
His next project was vampire thriller Blood Creek, which filmed in the spring of 2007 in rural Romania.
In August 2008, Schumacher directed the music video for American rock band Scars on Broadway, for their upcoming single "World Long Gone".[6]
In August 2010, production began on his next film, Trespass. The action-thriller will reunite Schumacher with stars Nicole Kidman and Nicolas Cage.[7]
[edit] SexualitySchumacher has been openly gay through most of his career.[8] In Liz Smith's memoir, Natural Blonde, she states that "He called himself 'A Sexual Outlaw'".
Batman Forever, and to an even greater degree its 1997 sequel Batman & Robin, generated controversy for what conservative fans considered to be homo-erotic innuendos.[9]
[edit] Recurring collaboratorsSchumacher often casts the same actors in different films. Kiefer Sutherland, Colin Farrell, Shea Whigham are among his more frequent acting collaborators.
Harry Gregson-Williams often composes the music for his movies and Mark Stevens often serves as editor.
Actors and actresses
Karina Arroyave
Arian Ash
Chris Bauer
Patricia Belcher
Nicolas Cage
Jim Carrey
Michael Paul Chan
Lynn Collins
John Diehl
John Enos III
Colin Farrell
Maile Flanagan
Brenda Fricker
John Glover
Michael Gough
Beth Grant
Anthony Heald
Ciarán Hinds
Pat Hingle
Doug Hutchison
Chris Huvane
Tommy Lee Jones
Nicky Katt
Nicole Kidman
Tory Kittles
James MacDonald
Jim McMullan
Gerard McSorley
Amy Morton
Benjamin Mouton
Chris O'Donnell
Oliver Platt
Julia Roberts
Luis Saguar
Elizabeth Sanders
Kimberly Scott
Peter Stormare
Kiefer Sutherland
Nico Tortorella
Shea Whigham
Bob Zmuda
Film crew
Andrzej Bartkowiak - Cinematographer
Robert Brown - Editor
Jerry Bruckheimer - Producer
David Buckley - Composer
Marion Dougherty - Casting Director
Mali Finn - Casting Director
Beau Flynn - Producer
Stephen Goldblatt - Cinematographer
Elliot Goldenthal - Composer
Akiva Goldsman - Screenwriter
Harry Gregson-Williams - Composer
James Newton Howard - Composer
Jessica Kelly - Casting Director
Ted Kurdyla - Producer
Andrew Laws - Production Designer
Matthew Libatique - Cinematographer
Barbara Ling - Production Designer
Marci Liroff - Casting Director
Peter Macgregor-Scott - Producer
Benjamin Melniker - Producer
Arnon Milchan - Producer
Eli Richbourg - Second Unit Director/Producer
Jan Roelfs - Production Designer
Suzanne Smith - Casting Director
Mark Stevens - Editor
Michael Uslan - Producer
Dennis Virkler - Editor
[edit] Filmography[edit] DirectorThe Incredible Shrinking Woman (1981)
D.C. Cab (a.k.a. Street Fleet) (1983) (also Writer)
St. Elmo's Fire (1985)
The Lost Boys (1987)
Cousins (1989)
Flatliners (1990)
Dying Young (1991)
Falling Down (1993)
The Client (1994)
Batman Forever (1995)
A Time to Kill (1996)
Batman & Robin (1997)
8mm (1999) (also Producer)
Flawless (1999) (also Producer and Writer)
Tigerland (2000)
Bad Company (2002)
Phone Booth (2003)
Veronica Guerin (2003)
The Phantom of the Opera (2004) (also Writer)
The Number 23 (2007)
Blood Creek (2009)
Twelve (2010)
Trespass (2011)
[edit] References1.^ Joel Schumacher Biography (1939-)
2.^ Weinraub, Bernard (March 3, 1993). "With 'Falling Down,' Director Savors A New Success". The New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/1993/03/03/movies/with-falling-down-director-savors-a-new-success.html. Retrieved May 6, 2010.
3.^ Joel Schumacher Biography at Yahoo! Movies
4.^ "Long ago, when this whole thing started, Batman: Year One... was always my favorite, and I was always hoping that I would do that one. There was no desire to do that the first time around, and there was definitely no desire to do that the second time around." – Joel Schumacher, Shadows of the Bat Part 5: Reinventing a Hero, Batman Forever Special Edition DVD
5.^ Phone Booth Movie Reviews, Pictures – Rotten Tomatoes
6.^ SCARS ON BROADWAY Taps JOEL SCHUMACHER For 'World Long Gone' Video Shoot - Aug. 19, 2008
7.^ Nicole Kidman and Nicolas Cage to co-star for first time in Trespass The Guardian. June 16, 2010
8.^ "Gay directors bring home the bacon". The Advocate. May 13, 2003. Archived from the original on November 21, 2007. http://web.archive.org/web/20071121192436/http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1589/is_2003_May_13/ai_102453324. Retrieved July 8, 2007.
9.^ Joel Schumacher, Peter MacGregor-Scott, Chris O'Donnell, Val Kilmer, Uma Thurman, John Glover, Shadows of the Bat: The Cinematic Saga of the Dark Knight Part 6-Batman Unbound, 2005, Warner Home Video
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)