Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:39, 15 November 2024

Welcome

Successful vs unsuccessful

Hi Flusapochterasumesch, I'm sorry you found the term "successful grooming" offensive. What I meant was exactly as you say: "completion". Smyth presumably had an end in mind, beating, and grooming was the method by which he aimed to achieve it. If he was able to beat a boy, he was successful in his grooming. When I was 15 or 16 and attending that school, Smyth took me to his Morestead house on at least two occasions for his infamous Sunday lunch, and although I didn't know it at the time, he was grooming me. I found him creepy, must have indicated that to him in some way, and so he did not achieve what he wanted. He groomed me, but he was unsuccessful.

On reflection, maybe I shouldn't have started editing this page at all, as I am way too close to the subject and it has made all sorts of unpleasant feelings rise to the surface. Maybe, too, I've also temporarily lost my powers of coherent and polite expression (as you seem to suggest), as I still feel so angry about it all. But when I read the page a couple of days ago it seemed to give no real idea about the extent and severity of what he did, and as I knew it would have 200,000 or so views in the proceeding days, I wanted to redress that by giving the relevant details. Best regards, Ericoides (talk) 07:18, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

I said I found the phrase "successfully groomed" "difficult to assimilate". Nowhere did I say it was offensive. And for you to claim that I 'seem to suggest that you've lost your powers of coherent and polite expression' is another instance of you taking an unjustified jab at me. Flusapochterasumesch (talk) 14:29, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

I assumed it was what you meant with: "The extent of Smyth's crimes may never be known & it's trivial and offensive to suggest only those beaten were groomed". Maybe I should have read it more closely and not so early in the morning. The "polite" remark connects to the "offensive" one, so if that's not what you meant then my apologies. I think we both probably agree with each; either I misunderstood you, you misunderstood me, or both. No jabs given, not from my side. Regards, Ericoides (talk) 15:24, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Hello Ericoides,

Thank you for this message. I noticed after I replied earlier that I had indeed used the word 'offensive' at the foot of my 'reasons for edit' spiel - so I made an error in what I wrote earlier and I apologise for that.

I also think (in fact I feel sure) that we agree with one another. It's an extremely emotive topic for anyone, and much much more so for you. My anger and emotion is directed at Smyth - and I know yours is too. I don't want to pretend to understand your personal experience - it annoys me when people tell others "I know what you're going through" when they didn't experience the thing that the other person did. But I can say sincerely that in the last few days I have been doing my utmost to try to imagine the horrific trauma that Smyth (and those who directly/indirectly protected/enabled him) caused to hundreds of children and young people.

When I made my edit and left my 'reasons for edit' notes, I was not consciously editing any particular person's text or intending to put across my retelling of someone else's story. I've never up until now considered that making a Misplaced Pages edit (involving a change rather than an insertion) meant I was actively changing someone else's words. I've just regarded the words I am editing as Misplaced Pages's words, not those of any specific individual.

I've never clicked the 'revert' tab to effect a direct reversal of someone else's contribution - but I have had that done to me. The very first edit I ever made was promptly 'reverted' and it seriously annoyed me because the editor who reverted was (objectively) wrong! This is trivial, but I'll quickly give the details. I edited the phrase "fortnightly" to "fortnight-long" - it was a matter of fact that what was meant was 'something that lasted two weeks', but "fortnightly" means 'happening every two weeks'. I angrily restated my rationale and the other person (one of those folk who clearly, in my opinion, felt the page belonged to him) accepted my second correction of his error with a "stern rebuke" (that I thoroughly disregarded) for being uncivil. In my mind the incivility was on his part for blithely reverting my correct-correction without proper consideration - in other words pig-headed arrogance.

Anyway, my point is that I've only regarded someone clicking that 'revert' tab to reverse someone else's edit as a consciously personal action - whereas up until now I've regarded my edits as me changing/contradicting Misplaced Pages (a faceless digital entity).

That's an excessively long winded way for me to admit that when I edited the phrase "successfully groomed", I believed I was aiming my disagreement/frustration at some bytes on a data-farm somewhere, not at any individual.

But in fact, rather obviously, I now see that I was changing another human-being's words, and that person was you. And now I know that you're not simply 'some random guy online' but in fact you're a survivor of that man's psychopathic abuse.

If I could undo the 'reasons for edit' I left, I would leave out the word 'offensive' and stick with "difficult to assimilate". I completely get it now. I understand what you were expressing and I respect you for doing so.

I'll be completely honest - the Archbishop of Canterbury (as a role) holds no significance to me and I have no respect for whomsoever is in that role. I have no respect for churches and virtually zero respect for clergywomen or clergymen of any church or of any level of "seniority". I've never sought out anything that Welby has to say (on TV, on the news, or in written media), but I have inadvertently had to listen to or read what he has to offer. And I've always regarded him as a loathsome little man, who cosplays in silk frocks, while delivering trite platitudes to ordinary people based on no real lived-experience. Like virtually all clergy/priests (in my opinion).

So when the story broke a few days ago I was angry and disgusted to see the role Welby played in enabling Smyth's abhorrent child abuse.

And I was disgusted when he said he refused to resign in the face of the revelations, because he felt he had so much more good work to do. While all the time knowing that it was only a matter of days before he resigned. Which he did.

I got more and more disgusted as I learned more and more about Welby's personal links to Iwerne Camps and Smyth. I was disgusted to learn that Welby went from lawyer and oil exec to Archbishop of Canterbury in no time at all. Extraordinary! I've always been disgusted by the way Welby has inserted himself into political discussions. Now I "wonder" if his political interests and his "amazing" rise from clergy-reject to AoC are at all related. Then there's the matter of Smyth being a QC. And Welby's long-term acquaintance with Smyth. And the whole thing just stinks to hell and back.

I've generally considered myself fortunate and "privileged" to have been born in the UK. When I look at the lengths that so many people go to, to come to the UK and achieve UK citizenship, I've often thought the happy accident of being born here and being British. Yesterday, more than ever before, I felt a sense of revulsion at being British and started thinking about going to live somewhere else.

Things like "Bishops" having seats in the House of Lords - not just the influence, but the endless money they draw down. Then there's the matter of those "Bishops" being former oil execs or child abuse apologists.

On the Smyth and Iwerne pages there are people who stubbornly insist on referring to 'public school boys', and vehemently reject saying 'private school boys' - even though the latter is unambiguous and the former is perversely contradictory. Someone compromised with "public schools (i.e. private schools)" - which is accurate but also ludicrous.

I must wrap up. I've been angry the last couple of days because of what I've learned about Welby, Smyth and their various establishments.

Some of that anger was wrongly, unknowingly and undeliberately experienced by you. And for that I apologise sincerely, and I wish you only the best.

F etc. (I've given up trying to write my username) Flusapochterasumesch (talk) 22:57, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

God have mercy on your soul Theologism (talk) 02:39, 15 November 2024 (UTC)