Chethams and the RNCM

[doversoul1]

But what can we discuss about a case such as this on a forum like this other than to show our sympathy for the family, and to hope that the matter will be dealt with thoroughly so that the same thing will not happen?

The King thread was, I assume, meant to be by the OP a question of priority and in particular, in the world of classical music. It could have been an interesting subject but we saw what happened. Personally, I can’t see any ‘issue’ to be discussed in this case.

[ahinton]

I'm not clear there's a distinction. Both allegations and accusations may result, or may already have resulted, in a charge. Once that happens, and before a conviction, you are likely to be in the realm of 'contempt of court' - jeopardising a fair trial. Members of the public are seldom aware of when a case becomes formally active rather than an investigation.

The safest thing is to discuss issues, rather than precise cases and circumstances. I think, for example, it was quite in order to discuss whether a particular (convicted) individual's recordings should be played on CD Review. It would not have been wise to have discussed the legal proceedings at the time.

That's very fair and eminently sensible and, of course, I and others know precisely which recording and by whom should or should not have been praised on CD Review (and it seems that the most offence here arose from it being warmly recommended there rather than whether it should have been ignored altogether); would you nevertheless seek to draw, in this particular context, any distinction (and, if so, what) between, on the one hand, those who draw attention to publication sources in which allegations and/or accusations have been made and, on the other, those who reveal their own experiences at named institutions at the hands of unnamed people as some have done on Mr Lebrecht's blog?

[ahinton]

But what can we discuss about a case such as this on a forum like this other than to show our sympathy for the family, and to hope that the matter will be dealt with thoroughly so that the same thing will not happen?

Well, quite a lot, I suspect - and without necessarily naming names or making or drawing attention to allegations and/or accusations that have yet to result in criminal charges, trial and subsequent conviction or acquittal; the issues here are not just about the abuse, sexual or otherwise, alleged or otherwise - serious as they indeed are - but also about
1. whether, how and to what extent those in positions of authority in academic institutions turn a blind eye to reports of certain criminal acts alleged to have been committed by members of staff of those institutions
2. how the police deal with cases of such alleged criminal acts when they're drawn to their attention, from reporting through investigation to trial (if they go that far)
3. how the judicial system (including CPS, barristers and judges) deals with such cases when they're brought to Court
4. the rôle of other professionals such as mediators, psychotherapists et al in such cases and the manner in which the conduct of those rôles is regarded by the police and judiciary.

There's quite a lot here that can be discussed without naming names, I think.

Given the case that's already been tried and the others that may be in future and the tsunami of publicity that this subject has already generated (and it's hardly likely to go away), I imagine that much of this will be debated in the forthcoming weeks, months and years and, especially in memory of Frances Andrade, one can only hope that all of this will bring about some positive and constructive results.

[french frank]

would you nevertheless seek to draw, in this particular context, any distinction (and, if so, what) between, on the one hand, those who draw attention to publication sources in which allegations and/or accusations have been made and, on the other, those who reveal their own experiences at named institutions at the hands of unnamed people as some have done on Mr Lebrecht's blog?

I think a public forum is quite the wrong place for anyone to discuss openly their own experiences of such a kind, whether a conviction has already followed or not.

The first case, I think, has been covered. If other, far more public, sources (and Lebrecht's blog falls into that category) have taken this up already and if there is fire in the allegations, they'll be continued in the press anyway. Just because a forum devoted to Radio 3 allows people leeway to discuss wider, topical issues, I don't think this extends to having a special 'duty of care' to all the members to ensure they know all about the case, just in case they might have had some sort of involvement but never watch the news or read a newspaper.

Rather, I would assume that no one here actually knows anything significant anyway. So what's to discuss - other than the general issues, not the case?

[doversoul1]

1. whether, how and to what extent those in positions of authority in academic institutions turn a blind eye to reports of certain criminal acts alleged to have been committed by members of staff of those institutions
2. how the police deal with cases of such alleged criminal acts when they're drawn to their attention, from reporting through investigation to trial (if they go that far)
3. how the judicial system (including CPS, barristers and judges) deals with such cases when they're brought to Court
4. the rôle of other professionals such as mediators, psychotherapists et al in such cases and the manner in which the conduct of those rôles is regarded by the police and judiciary.

But what is the reason/purpose/aim for discussing these issues? Without specialist knowledge, we can only express out outrage at the current state of the system or the organisations involved.

[ahinton]

I think a public forum is quite the wrong place for anyone to discuss openly their own experiences of such a kind, whether a conviction has already followed or not.

The first case, I think, has been covered. If other, far more public, sources (and Lebrecht's blog falls into that category) have taken this up already and if there is fire in the allegations, they'll be continued in the press anyway. Just because a forum devoted to Radio 3 allows people leeway to discuss wider, topical issues, I don't think this extends to having a special 'duty of care' to all the members to ensure they know all about the case, just in case they might have had some sort of involvement but never watch the news or read a newspaper.

Rather, I would assume that no one here actually knows anything significant anyway. So what's to discuss - other than the general issues, not the case?

Thank you for this reasoned response. "What's to discuss" is something that I hoped to have outlined above and, as I mentioned, this can be done without naming names and, for that matter, it can also be done without reference to specific cases (although, if a case such as the Brewer / Andrade one is generally seen to have been a major catalyst for discussion of these other issues and as that case is now over bar the dispensing of punishment, it would seem relatively harmless to allude to it in passing when discussing those other issues).

[ahinton]

But what is the reason/purpose/aim for discussing these issues? Without specialist knowledge, we can only express out outrage at the current state of the system or the organisations involved.

Even without the benefit of professional legal and/or medical expertise, I think it possible to do more than that; we're all citizens, after all, who conduct our lives subject to the same laws and it would be rather sad, I think, if none of us had, or expressed, any views about such matters, especially because the police and judiciary are all public servants funded by the taxpayer and other professionals are also people whom some of us might wish or need to consult at some point. More importantly, though, such discussion might well bring forth useful and constructive ideas and pointers from members whose expertise in one field or another might enable them to bring them into the arena. If no one says anything, discusses anything or exchanges ideas about anything, one thing is certain - and that's the risk of the maintenance of the status quo. Such discussion can also be carried out without specific name or case references and, provided that it is in the spirit of encouraging appropriate action, then I see no obvious harm in it or reason why it should be avoided. What do you think? Would you prefer that we all back off from it or does anything that I've suggested here seem reasonable?

[doversoul1]

If no one says anything, discusses anything or exchanges ideas about anything, one thing is certain - and that's the risk of the maintenance of the status quo. Such discussion can also be carried out without specific name or case references and, provided that it is in the spirit of encouraging appropriate action, then I see no obvious harm in it or reason why it should be avoided. What do you think? Would you prefer that we all back off from it or does anything that I've suggested here seem reasonable?

I am probably a pessimist of the worst kind but I don’t trust a forum such as this to be a place for constructive discussion about certain issues or subjects. I have not thoroughly thought about what these ‘certain subjects’ are but the reason I don’t trust the forum or any forum of the similar nature is that it has no mechanism for controlling what is posted. As we know what we say here has no influence on our personal or professional reputations, we cannot expect everyone to be at the same level of seriousness. More importantly, as there are no membership criteria, we could be discussing an issue for completely different reasons. As I said, we can of course express out outrage but beyond that, I don’t think we can do anything constructive on a forum such as this.

[MrGongGong]

Rather, I would assume that no one here actually knows anything significant anyway. So what's to discuss - other than the general issues, not the case?

Sadly, some of us probably do
but wouldn't dream of discussing the details of these things on the internet

There are, however, wider questions particularly with regard to the RNCM and other similar institutions that some of us attended in the 1980's

[ahinton]

I am probably a pessimist of the worst kind but I don’t trust a forum such as this to be a place for constructive discussion about certain issues or subjects. I have not thoroughly thought about what these ‘certain subjects’ are but the reason I don’t trust the forum or any forum of the similar nature is that it has no mechanism for controlling what is posted. As we know what we say here has no influence on our personal or professional reputations, we cannot expect everyone to be at the same level of seriousness. More importantly, as there are no membership criteria, we could be discussing an issue for completely different reasons. As I said, we can of course express out outrage but beyond that, I don’t think we can do anything constructive on a forum such as this.

I see more clearly what you're getting at now; thanks for that.

Yes, there is indeed "no mechanism for controlling what is posted" other, of course, than action by moderators in respect of what has already been posted if that is deemed appropriate.

I also agree that members here could be "discussing an issue for completely different reasons" but, as long as there are differences of viewpoint, that is surely pretty much the same regardless of the medium within which such debate takes place; different agendas and sets of agendas are just one factor that might well account for the fact that debates in, for example, HoC, might be held between MPs for quite different reasons (and the membership criteria for MPs are not wholly dependent upon particular kind of expertise), but I don't imagine that the majority of us would wish to have this fundamentally changed.

The largest problem with what you write here, however, is, I think, that you admit to not having "thoroughly thought about what these 'certain subjects' are" although, even if you had done so, the ones that you'd list as unsuitable for such discussion would inevitably differ from those of the next member. There is, for example, one going on right now about the latest food scares / scandals / call it what you will; would everyone agree that this is or is not suitable for continued discussion here? Even if one were to single out any subject that is or might soon become the subject of litigation of any kind (which would almost certainly involve the food thread) would involve serious curtailment of what's left that can be discussed here. But never mind that; what does FF think about this?

[ahinton]

Sadly, some of us probably do
but wouldn't dream of discussing the details of these things on the internet

There are, however, wider questions particularly with regard to the RNCM and other similar institutions that some of us attended in the 1980's

There are indeed, but I think what FF is implying (and I expect to be corrected if I've misunderstood this!) is that there is a view that a forum such as this is not necessarily the best or most appropriate place for members to air certain personal experiences at such institutions; the first question to which such a view obviously gives rise is what would be the best and most appropriate places to do so instead, assuming that such experiences ought to be expressed somewhere and that there are deemed to be particular reasons to do so.

[french frank]

But never mind that; what doe FF think about this?

Well, since I last posted there have been various points:

1. ds asks what is the purpose of such discussion (here). I don't know the answer.

2. On the question of whether anyone has significant [sic] knowledge to contribute, MrGG replies 'Sadly some of us probably do.' Direct knowledge or hearsay? If significant, I'm saying this is not the place to air it, not that it should not be aired. As he seems to agree. If not significant, why bother to say it, here or anywhere? And do they base their comments simply on what they've read in the press?

3. I would prefer there to be self-censorship, rather than that anyone should be 'seriously curtailed' in their discussions here. Where there are alternative platforms for such discussions, these are likely to be more appropriate. As Mr Zucchini recently reminded me: I 'overestimate [the] fame and the effective reach of the forum'. Actually, I don't. But we are still technically a public place rather than a private club. And members do blur the boundaries between the specific (and potentially actionable) and the very general. [You don't have to mention named individuals to be charged with libel.]

[french frank]

the first question to which such a view obviously gives rise is what would be the best and most appropriate places to do so instead, assuming that such experiences ought to be expressed somewhere and that there are deemed to be particular reasons to do so.

If there are criminal implications, you go to the police and report them. And you discuss them with professionals.

[ahinton]

1. ds asks what is the purpose of such discussion (here). I don't know the answer.

OK, but I have tried to give one as best I can; do you think it reasonable?

2. On the question of whether anyone has significant [sic] knowledge to contribute, MrGG replies 'Sadly some of us probably do.' Direct knowledge or hearsay? If significant, I'm saying this is not the place to air it, not that it should not be aired. As he seems to agree. If not significant, why bother to say it, here or anywhere? And do they base their comments simply on what they've read in the press?

This may vary, of course and probably does, but the main concern that I have about this is the question of revealing what is not mere hearsay or regurgitation of what's been read in the press or even direct knowledge but direct personal experience, which is what I'd mentioned earlier; for the sake of proportionality, it's perhaps also worth noting in the context of RNCM that at least two pianists have been cited as having reported cases unsuccessfully to those in charge of that institution and one of these has revealed his identity in writing about it on Mr Lebrecht's blog.

[You don't have to mention named individuals to be charged with libel.]

True, but you do have to name something (such as institution).

Thanks for your continuing consideration of these issues.

[ahinton]

If there are criminal implications, you go to the police and report them. And you discuss them with professionals.

Indeed, but in some cases it has evidently been felt that reporting them to senior staff in authority at the institutions concerned before, or rather than, reporting them to the police; that said, I stated earlier that, when someone reports suspected or known criminal activity to the police, one reasonably expects to be able to do so in strict confidence, but neither such confidence nor appropriate and timely police action as a consequence always be guaranteed and this means that, among other things, the reporter's identity and what he/she's reported to the police might risk being leaked and then publicised.