While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | It is requested that an image or photograph of Peter Ball (bishop) be
included in this article to
improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific
media request template where possible.
The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
What is the point of this Wikipedia entry, which reads like pure PR? It conspicuously fails to deal with the circumstances of the Bishop's resignation from Gloucester. In my view,the entry should either be full and honest or it should be removed. Carlos Iradier ( talk) 22:12, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Mr. Hill, Can you elaborate? Is the comment you feel either blames the victim or suggests the Bishop was lying when he accepted the caution is this one?: In his published memoirs ‘Shy But Not Retiring’ [9] Bishop Eric Kemp writes, “Although it was not realized at the time, the circumstances which led to his early resignation were the work of mischief makers.”
I would say that, as it stands, this comment is unhelpful hearsay. Is there more information and further comment in the Kemp book? If so, it should be added so that the reader can actually understand what Kemp was saying. As it is now, readers can, as Mr. Hill has done, conclude that unnamed "mischief makers" were responsible for the subject's resignation AND possibly that the subject was lying when he accepted the police caution. But I would note that "mischief makers" is not necessarily the "victim" -- we don't know who the mischief makers were, what they did or said, and how it was found out that mischief-making was involved, the nature of the mischief-making, and how reliably it is known that this is the case...
I appreciate user Litling's additional sourcing, but would agree that the tone of this biography continues to have the feel of forcing the reader to a conclusion, rather than presenting the facts and letting the reader get there on his own.
I also think it's unproductive to implicate the motives of editors and/or to use emotion-laden descriptions like "disgusting." Would it not be more helpful to assume that everyone is trying to improve the article in their own way? Some of these ways are more, and some less in tune with the Wikipedian objectives. It's the job of all wikipedia contributors to help get articles closer to those goals. Celia Kozlowski ( talk) 12:03, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
I have known the subject of the article for many years. I was sufficiently involved in the Gloucester Police investigation to know it leaves many questions unanswered. While naturally I have formed my own informed opinion, my overall aim in contributing to the article has been to put that one incident in a larger and more balanced context. I accept the point that my fulsome praise has sometimes gone beyond the limits of simple information and have tried to amend my contributions accordingly. I was surprised nonetheless that a cited source from the Sussex Express pointing to the disquiet many feel was removed. Initially I experienced difficulty inserting citations and participating in the talk section.
I do feel it pertinent to ask why, when for example, the record of a former Bishop of Durham’s convictions for importuning find no mention in his Wikipedia entry that this one isolated incident needs to be so contentious? When I removed it I was surprised at the strong reaction. Other senior clergy have transgressed, but one would not learn this necessarily from Wikipedia. It hints that Peter Ball has been singled out. I certainly do not wish the story to be glossed over at all. Would indeed that the circumstances around his spent caution were a matter of public record. Bring it on! His accusers were and are surprisingly coy about evidence. Bishop Kemp had an acute legally trained mind. He did not make his comment about mischief makers lightly, but like other editors I wish he had been more specific. Where possible, of course I have provided precise quotes. The article from which the ‘knife edge’ quote is taken does indeed say all those things, although I have conflated them into one sentence. Litling ( talk) 08:59, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for the edting advice. While I agree logic points to his guilt, there are precedents for confessions that for various reasons are not ‘safe’. A Wikipedia entry is not the place to speculate, even though I have inside knowledge and a plausible theory for the existence of the caution. Only when the evidence comes to light will it be added to this entry. For Peter Ball’s sake I would prefer this not to be posthumously. I was able to provide citation for the fact that I am not a lone eccentric in believing he may well be innocent but this was recently edited out. I am not aware of any other bishop whose criminal record has been contentious in this way. Even if he was guilty as charged it is to be regretted that some are seeking to imply that this long spent caution implies some deeper offence. To sum up, yes he may possibly have been guilty, but my background knowledge, while not admissible here, leads me to weigh reasonable probability in favour of his innocence. The best I can do is quote sources that might suggest or lead others to question for themselves. Litling ( talk) 10:52, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Latest information is that the fact that the review is being undertaken was leaked. Doesn't this constitute victimization of Ball? Other files were passed to the police and the fact only reported when they found cause to act on the information therein by making arrests. This seems prejudicial against Ball, doesn't it? Litling ( talk) 16:53, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
So why did the same spokesmen say nothing about the passing of Coles' and Rideout's files until the enquiries were complete? The subjects under investigation are not being treated consistently.In Ball's case guilt is implied before the files have even been opened. Litling ( talk) 05:54, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
I have asked, as it happens. It is embarrassing for the Police, but as Leveson confirmed there will always be some corrupt minor official prepared to be bribed. Whatever the motive, it was leaked, leaving Police and Church with no option but to issue statements. Dozens of us have lived under the same roof as Peter Ball and are united in mystification by stories that bear no relation to daily life in his household. There was nothing inappropriate, let alone worthy of police attention. The revelations that have come to light are a deeply shocking cause of shame. It would be extraordinary if Ball had not made genuine if naïve mistakes in regard to clergy who are now known to have been perpetrating acts of evil, but as you suggest it was Kemp who made policy decisions. Butler Schloss did not find Ball complicit in anything, whereas Benn does seem to have been aware and yet taken steps that directly maintained the situation, and perpetuated an unhealthy atmosphere of fear and suspicion. None of this should be whitewashed, but as yet any connection to Ball remains purely circumstantial.This may be pedantic, but is he a 'criminal'? Surely he can be granted the title of ex offender or reformed character, rather than such an emotive label. His caution was spent precisely because he is deemed not to have repeated a similar or indeed any other offence. Litling ( talk) 19:51, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
Could someone please clarify; what are the 'inappropriate external links' being referred to? 83.67.100.220 ( talk) 19:50, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above seems to have addressed some of the critical issues. I would now invite those who feel the page reads like advertising to do the edits needed to allow us to remove the 'advertising' label on the page. Many thanks to everyone. P.S. I don't think it is either kind, appropriate, or correct to refer to the subject as a "Criminal." He has accepted a police caution, which as I mentioned before, means that he accepts that the police have enough evidence that he could be convicted of a minor offense. If he had committed a dire offence, he would have been charged with a crime. He was not. He was cautioned. The caution is spent. Celia Kozlowski ( talk) 13:17, 9 November 2012 (UTC) Thank you. Following some just criticism I have become careful to keep my language factual and it can now be seen that all my contributions are cited and often word for word quotes. There is a great deal of positive material to balance with the circumstances of the resignation that are a preoccupation for some, and this should be allowed to speak for itself. It is on the actual entry page that reference is made to external links. For some reason my username Litling did not appear when I last signed a post 83.67.100.220 ( talk) 08:51, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Please do not read anything into this, but did not Bishop Peter found a community of men and women at Litlington where they could explore their vocation to monastic life or otherwise. I know very little about this, but I feel the article would be improved with this. I wonder whether it has been omitted due to the current situation regarding Peter Ball. I hope not. I too find this entry somewhat hagiographical. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.10.149.103 ( talk) 21:20, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
There was a community called the little brothers and Sisters of Christ, the concept was the same as the "give a year to God" scheme but was envisaged to be a 3 year commitment creating a re-generating monastic community. The first group of people's commitment was heard by the Bishop of Chichester around 1986/87. I doubt you'll find any quotable source on the subject so I don't see how it can be added to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.131.191.193 ( talk) 15:54, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
The subject was erroneously placed in an inappropriate category, according to the definition on the category page in question. Please note the Crown Prosecuter's comments, "It is extremely important that there should be no reporting, commentary, or sharing of information online which could in any way prejudice these proceedings." Inappropriate categorization could result in a contempt of court citation, as well as being libellous. Please, please be careful my dear fellow Wikipedians Celia Kozlowski ( talk) 15:50, 28 March 2014 (UTC).
The page was reverted and subject was again inappropriately listed on a page where it states: "This category has the following 2 subcategories, out of 2 total. ► English people convicted of child sexual abuse (1 C, 29 P) ► English rapists (1 C, 13 P)." The subject does NOT fall into either of these categories and it is prejudicial and libellous to categorize as such, in my opinion. The police caution, since expired, was not for either of these serious offences, but for "gross indecency." Celia Kozlowski ( talk) 17:42, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Is there a reference for him now being a priest rather than a bishop? How can someone resign bishop orders? Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk 21:45, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
(Note: Here is a copy of the current state of the BLP noticeboard discussion.) GroupCohomologist ( talk) 22:50, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
The list of nine publications by 'Peter Ball' under Selected Works refers to at least eight books that are most definitely NOT written by the convicted bishop. They are in fact written by Canon Peter Ball, a retired Canon of St Paul's, now in his 80s, who lives in retirement in Ramsbury, Wiltshire. I know this because he is a friend of mine. You can check his entry in Crockford's. To my knowledge Bishop Peter Ball did not write at least eight of the nine books you list on this page. Please would you amend this? Thank you Simon Winn
(End of copied discussion) GroupCohomologist ( talk) 22:51, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
The other Peter Ball is Peter William Ball (born 1930), Canon Emeritus of St Paul's Cathedral ( see here). Here is what I have been able to find out about those nine works by "Peter Ball":
So Simon Winn (the OP) is correct to assert that eight out of nine works were by the canon, not by the bishop. I should like to thank him for drawing our attention to this unfortunate misattribution. Following the edits by Jahaza and myself, the Selected Works section is now correct. I am going to mark the BLP noticeboard report as resolved. GroupCohomologist ( talk) 09:42, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
The "Reviews" section needs some work to make it clearer that the 2017 independent review is indeed the Moira Gibb review. This press release and the review itself should be linked. Unfortunately I don't have the time to do it myself. -- GroupCohomologist ( talk) 11:41, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
Could someone who knows the subject matter better please check whether the supposedly minor edits starting on 18 November were appropriate? To me it seems slightly unusual to label the deletion of 623 bytes (including some references) as a "minor" edit. -- GroupCohomologist ( talk) 07:17, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
If any of the edits are wrong, then feel free to correct them with the relevant sources? 2A00:23C4:216:7400:50E0:FAF4:CEDF:E3D2 ( talk) 20:28, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
It was said on the news on July 27 2018 that Prince Charles felt he had been deceived by Ball after letters between him and Ball had been read out at an enquiry into sexual abuse. Vorbee ( talk) 18:03, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
the article mentions twice that he founded the Community of the Ascension and would have contact with young boys as novice monks, which comes from the linked article. Well, not young boys. But apart from that, the cases of abuse mentioned here are after he became bishop, and there is no mention of him having abused anyone in the Community. I suggest the mentions be deleted.-- 142.68.180.60 ( talk) 21:07, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
The section "Trial and conviction for sexual abuse" has a lot of background material before it gets on to the case of Ball, some of it of questionable relevance and possible Original Research. cagliost ( talk) 12:43, 17 December 2023 (UTC)