So you are a professional journalist and you personally don't like the social media platform, Twitter? Read on.......

IMAGE: The Wheeler Centre

University of Melbourne academic, author, writer, Tim Dunlop writing at Patreon, 19 September 2021:

The audience-journalism treadmill

 This post is out from behind the paywall for a few days. Feel free to share. If you find your way here via this article, please consider a paid subscription. It will give you access to the full archive and all future work. Thanks. (My Twitter travel hiatus continues.)

The best thing about Leigh Sales writing about abuse on Twitter, I was thinking as the story broke, was that it will likely bring forth a response from Margaret Simons.

Lo and behold.

Simons has a piece in The Age responding to Sales's piece at the ABC.

I want to say something about both, and the debate more generally, about why we keep going over the same old ground and what journalists who hate social media think the endgame might be.

Apologies if you've heard all this before.

The Sales' piece, as far as it goes, is compelling. It addresses a serious issue that needs regular reiteration, and it highlights a failing of social media that users––and owners––of various platforms need to acknowledge, that particularly for women, and maybe particularly for women journalists, such spaces can be sites of unforgivable and unrelenting abuse.

Honestly, read the article and take it to heart. Keep the tab open. We are all diminished by the abuse she documents.

The article is, though, a very partial take on what is a much bigger issue. I say this as a criticism, not just of Sales' piece, but of the way too many journalists continue to wear blinkers when it comes to social media.

We can all acknowledge the problems with Twitter, but if we are ever going to seriously address the underlying issues we need to engage with a few other things, and it is a constant failing of journalists that they don't. This is not to diminish their complaints; in fact, it is take them more seriously than they tend to themselves.

Neither Sales' piece (nor Simons') can be read in isolation from the previous two decades of exchanges between professional journalists and their post-digitisation audience, and one of the most frustrating things about the issue is the way in which various journalists reinvent the wheel every time they get annoyed with Twitter.

As often happens in the media, the controversy du jour is presented as just that, and little regard is given to history or wider context.

Even worse, insufficient attention is paid to matters of power and institutional structure, of the place of the media in society more generally, of the way in which public spaces like Twitter and Facebook are controlled by privately-owned corporations, and of the ongoing relationship between audience and media. Little or no reference is made to the endless pieces that have already picked these issues apart outside journalistic op eds.

We have been having this discussion since at least the turn of the century, since blogs, but to read Sales' piece is to start from scratch.

It is a huge failing, and no wonder nothing changes.

So, it is worth noting that Sales offers no structural analysis, makes no attempt to understand the wider issues in which the abuse she rightly criticises arises. She responds to precisely none of the, by now, extensive body of work that exists on the nature of journalist-audience interaction on social media. It is all reduced to personal anecdotes (powerful ones, I might add) and generalisations, an unfortunate combination.

Can we at least be honest here and recognise the problems she describes are not limited to social media, let alone to Twitter in particular. Racism, sexism, misogyny, all sorts of gendered and class abuse are stock-in-trade for other platforms and, for the mainstream media itself.

In an Australian context, News Ltd in particular has elevated bullying––the almost unchecked exercise of their own power––to a reflex, and Margaret Simons herself, along with any number of others, have been victims of this, and it is more damaging than any 'pile on', so-called, on Twitter.

Can we talk about that?

And don't tell me this isn't relevant to Sales' piece, or that she is making a more specific point. It is part of the same problem.

Let me let you into a secret: part of the reason people take to Twitter in the first place is because the media, its journalists, and editors, and its so-called regulatory bodies, fail to respond to the way in which the media regularly drops the ball, either in terms of accuracy or analysis, or, indeed, in terms of abuse. They create a vacuum into which an audience with access to social media is inevitably drawn.

Journalists will regularly invoke badly formed theories of free speech to defend their own shortcomings, but never extend anything like the same standards to "Twitter". To put it another way, they hold Twitter to a standard they don't apply to their own industry.

.........

Some people are running the line that the Sales' piece is about abuse she has received, not about other sorts of criticism, and that therefore––the logic runs––if you are upset about her piece, then you must have a guilty conscience.

This is disingenuous at best and goes to the heart of the problems we have in discussing these issues.

By which I mean, the line is not that easily drawn. Indeed, the difference between abuse and criticism is one of the matters at stake. Sometimes the line is obvious, other times it isn't.

Over and over, journalists write pieces like this and they respond to the most mindless abuse they receive, generalise that to all of 'Twitter', while ignoring more thoughtful criticism that comes their way. It is a lazy and self-serving approach.

Journalists are completely within their rights to complain about the way people respond to their work, but it would help everyone, especially them, if they acknowledged and engaged with the huge body of work that already exists on these matters. If they responded to the best of the criticism rather than the worst.

Only then are we likely to get off this treadmill.

Yes, Sales makes a valid and concerning case about the abuse directed at, particularly, women journalists. And yes, such abuse is cowardly, demeaning and indicative of broader issues of misogyny in public culture and should never be tolerated.

But now what?

Unless journalists also engage with the legitimate criticism they receive, they run the risk of conflating criticism with abuse, and that is what at risk in Sales' piece and other articles like it.

A double standard develops.

The people Sales blocks on Twitter include well-credentialed journalists who have criticised her, not abused her, and while it is entirely up to her who she does and doesn't block, can we at least acknowledge that lines are, at best, blurred.

Abuse on social media is given disproportionate attention by journalists, but the abuse, sexism, misogyny, and racism that is structurally embedded in the mainstream media is given little attention at all.

Sales is on strong, if anecdotal, ground when she highlights abuse. She is less convincing in some other matters, and it is a shame she didn't offer a more in-depth analysis.

For instance, she writes, 'Let's not duck the common thread here — it is overwhelmingly left-leaning Twitter users who are targeting ABC journalists for abuse.'

Given the way in which the ABC is targeted by News Ltd, the IPA and the Liberal Party (a point Sales notes in passing) I would like to see some data that supports the claim that abuse is 'overwhelming left-leaning'. It may well be true of Sales's experience, but as I say, it would be good to see some evidence that this 'fact' extends beyond that.

The plural of anecdote is not data, as they say. And the use of 'left-leaning' as a descriptor is itself hardly an example of precise labelling.

My own experience is that most abuse is from the right and from the centre (yes, also imprecise terms), not to mention from the mainstream media itself––particularly true in the days of blogs––but I would try not to say this amounted to a common thread, let alone present it as an overwhelming fact of Twitter or any other social media platform.

Let's look at the Simons' article.

Margaret Simons is one of a relatively small number of established journalists who were trained and came to professional maturity in the pre-digital age who have meaningfully adapted to the changes wrought by digitisation and rise of social media. In fact, she is a leader in the field, and has written extensively and wisely on the topic. From the beginning, she has engaged with the new landscape and has tried to make sense of how, not just the industry, but the craft of journalism has changed. (And yes, she is a friend, so I am biased.)

She is simply one of the best journalists out there, with a love of, and dedication to, public interest journalism that shines through everything she does, and that she enhances with her own use of social media, as anyone who followed her Twitter coverage of the lockdown of the Flemington public housing towers in 2020 can attest.

In her hands, Twitter is a powerful tool, and her journalism on the platform has won her plaudits and a dedicated following amongst those other journalists dismiss as the Twitterarti. Her example puts the lie to the idea that the site is nothing more than a sewer.

Beyond all that, she is journalism educator, most recently as the head of the Centre for Advancing Journalism at the University of Melbourne, where she has nurtured some of the best young journalists in the country.

And this is one of the things I keep wondering as journalists continue to bag and rubbish social media: from a purely pedagogical standpoint, what message are they sending to young journalists who will inevitably have to work in this environment?

Maybe a Leigh Sales or a Chris Uhlmann or a Chris Kenny can excuse themselves from such platforms, but it is a privilege not available to most journalists, especially newbies.

Simons' response to Sales is measured, but with steel in it.

She acknowledges the problems with bullying; she concurs with Sales' concerns about accusations of bad faith. 'Nevertheless,' she writes, 'I think she fails to draw a distinction between abuse and legitimate critique.'

She calls Sales bluff on journalists not being thin-skinned, and writes: 'Journalists ARE thin-skinned, sometimes ridiculously so, when they are criticised in public.'

Simons makes the point that simply withdrawing from social media is not good enough, arguing, 'Journalists who do not interact are missing a professional opportunity.'

Many journalists dismiss Twitter as unrepresentative of broader society in order diminish its relevance, and Sales says it is not 'anything remotely representative of the Australian public.'

But as Simons points out, Sales is underestimating the number of people who use Twitter:

Leigh Sales quotes data from the ABC’s Australia Talks survey to assert that only 6 per cent of Australians use Twitter regularly. The University of Canberra figures suggest that is closer to 18 per cent – but these general figures obscure important details.

The Digital News Report data shows Twitter users are particularly news-aware and engaged.

They are more likely to use Twitter mainly for news, whereas Facebook and YouTube users come across news incidentally.

 

Twitter users are more likely than other social media users to follow mainstream media outlets and journalists, and less likely to get their news from social media personalities and “influencers”.

Importantly, at a time when persuading people to pay for news is crucial to the survival of serious journalism, Twitter users are much more likely to be already paying subscriptions.…

By comparison, only 14 per cent of Facebook and YouTube users pay for news, although the user bases are much larger. (Park emphasises that sample sizes are small once cross-tabulated, so the data should be treated as indicative rather than precise.)

In other words, the more serious contributors on Twitter are exactly the kind of people serious media organisations most want to attract.

I would make a further point: the fact that Twitter is not representative of the broader population is a feature not a bug. Used properly, as many have found, it can be an endless source of useful information and, what's more, can offer insights not available elsewhere.

In other words, by virtue of the engaged and learned nature of many participants, Twitter users are often ahead of the game precisely because they are not beholden to the same echo chambers and self-reinforcing problems of journalists who talk only to their own kind.

I know this flies in the face of a lot received 'wisdom', but so be it.

Users on the platform saw the end of Malcolm Turnbull long before the gallery did. They saw the relevance and power of the Gillard misogyny speech while the press gallery was churning out Tweet after article dismissing it as a gimmick.

To say you don't want to deal with the most engaged edge of your readership/viewership is a limiting professional decision.

For most people––for the representative Australian public Sales invokes––politics is completely mediated, known only by the way it is reported. Twitter, on the other hand, is full of people who interact with politics more directly and it therefore offers, as Simons says, a tremendous resource for any journalist who is smart enough to take it seriously on its own terms.

There is another inconsistency here. If Twitter users are as small and irrelevant a section of the population as Sales claims, and if your intention is to make a stand against bullying and abuse, then why is Twitter given so much journalistic attention and the mainstream media itself so little?

There is a glaring double standard here.

Again, this has all been pointed out before.

In the early 2000s, when blogging took off, it was inhabited by engaged amateurs, often with expertise in various areas, and it was noticeable how the tone shifted––from a deliberative space to one of gotchas and, yes, abuse––as more and more mainstream journalists started to use the space.

When I blogged for News Ltd, my comments thread would on occasion fill with abuse and I knew that in all likelihood Andrew Bolt had 'mentioned' me and linked, thus encouraging his carefully cultivated readership to whip over to my joint and tell me what they thought of me. This wasn't an accident: it was a business model, and when I complained to higher ups, no-one was willing to confront Bolt, let alone issue any sort of wider directive about such matters.

Sky News doesn't exist to deliberate on matters of public importance: it is there to cultivate and monetise anger and disaffection and it does so in such a heavy-handed way that YouTube recently suspended Sky's channel on the platform.

Can we talk about that? Can we get a phalanx of journalists who are concerned about standards in public debate to put pen to paper on that?

Journalists who regularly find fault with 'Twitter', rarely call out abuse when it is other journalists doing it, and they use their powerful platforms to intimidate, and in some instances, actually abuse a particular sector of citizens, namely, those on Twitter. They rarely take the time to discriminate, dismissing and criticising 'Twitter' with a broad sweep of their hand.

In the Phil Coorey article the above Tweet links, Coorey says of the Lindy Chamberlain trial:

One can only imagine how even more hideous the whole episode would have been had the internet – including its sewer, Twitter – existed back then.

It's laughable. One of the huge failures of mainstream Australian journalism, and his concern is it might've been worse if Twitter existed.

Great argument. Compelling analysis.

Coorey dismissing Twitter as a sewer and Uhlmann calling people on Twitter sewer rats is itself a form of bullying. By itself, each insult might be a glancing blow, but they reinforce prejudices that poison public discourse. The difference is, Uhlmann and Coorey (and others) are doing it from a position of much more power than any no-image user on Twitter.

Can all mainstream journalist concerned about bullying and abuse on Twitter write a swathe of articles about that?

Until journalists acknowledge this power imbalance, until they openly address the structural problems with their own industry and pay more than lip service to the failings of their profession, they are never going be taken as sincere contributors to this important debate.

And round and round we will go.

I honestly don't expect Sales to pay any attention to this piece, but that's why I was glad Margaret Simons wrote a response. Maybe Sales will be less willing to dismiss the criticism Simons offers, and take to heart, not just the article itself, but the way Simons conducts herself on social media and how she deploys it in her journalism more generally. 

Regardless, the issue goes beyond individual behaviours and rests on structural matters to do with the incentives––algorithmic and human––built into the business models of both social and mainstream media. If journalists genuinely want to address abuse in the public sphere, they could do worse than enlist the support of their most engaged readership and work with them towards a common solution rather than simply dismiss that readership as the problem.

Does the Catholic Church's great paedophile protection racket continue unabated?

AUSTRALIA

Brisbane Times, 10 March 2018:

The Catholic Church has failed to fully accept the horrific impact of child sexual abuse and its own role in a tragedy of “epic proportions”, a member of the royal commission has said.

In a surprisingly frank speech, Robert Fitzgerald - one of the six commissioners that oversaw the recently completed, five year inquiry - has slammed the church’s approach to abuse survivors, and its failure to tackle practices that contributed to the scourge of abuse and the secrecy around it.

Speaking at a Catholic Social Services Conference in Melbourne late last month, Mr Fitzgerald highlighted the ‘’disease’’ of ‘clericalism’ - the belief that the church’s male-only clergy are mystical beings, accountable to the Pope and to God, not to civil society or church laity.

Mr Fitzgerald, a practising Catholic, described the leadership of the church as "arrogant’’:

"A church that placed its own reputation above the interests of those victims and survivors and did so knowingly and willingly in a way that would cause further harm to those victims.’’

The final report of the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse, delivered last December, made 400 recommendations to secular and religious institutions.

But already the Catholic church has rejected any changes to celibacy or to the seal of confession.

Archbishop Denis Hart said even if a priest admitted to acts of child abuse during confession, the seal was ‘’inviolable’’. Instead he would encourage the abuser to admit their crimes outside confession.

Mr Fitzgerald, in his speech, described a church divided between those that accepted the evidence of abuse and the need for reform - including a greater role for women - and those conservative Catholics who were "yet to fully understand what has just occurred’’.

He said the church was the only institution he’d ever known to have the answers to such major problems "but refuse in fact to look to those answers, look to those solutions’’.

The scale of abuse recorded by the royal commission across all institutions, secular and religious, was immense, affecting countless, tens of thousands of abused children, most of whom were now adults.

But such abuse was particularly prevalent in Catholic institutions. Nearly 62 per cent of all people who notified the royal commission of abuse in a religious setting were abused in a Catholic institution……

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

The Catholic church is lobbying against a Georgia state proposal to give people additional years to sue pedophiles and their organizations, calling it "extraordinarily unfair”: https://t.co/yhIrBgkYEE

— Daniel Dale (@ddale8) March 10, 2018

MyAJC, 9 March 2018:

The legislation, dubbed the “Hidden Predator Act,” extends the statute of limitations for victims from age 23 to 38, and creates other avenues for adults to sue long after that age. It passed 170-0 on the floor of the House of Representatives, despite what those close to the process say was quiet lobbying by the church, the Boy Scouts and other entities that would face increased exposure to liability….

The bill’s chief author, Rep. Jason Spencer, R-Woodbine, had accused them of working behind the scenes. He blames them for amendments that reduced the exposure of organizations, but he had no evidence of their efforts beyond word of mouth until Friday morning. He shared an email with the AJC from the office of the senator whose committee will determine the bill’s fate.

Sen. Jesse Stone, R-Waynesboro, chairs the Senate Judiciary Committee. His assistant forwarded Spencer an email from Perry McGuire, a lobbyist for the Catholic Church. McGuire’s amendments would strike the extension of the statute of limitations and make it even more difficult than it is now to sue organizations.

“If they adopt that language from Perry McGuire as a substitute bill, then Georgia will continue to be a predator-friendly state,” Spencer said. It shows “that the Catholic Church is continuing to cover up wickedness.”

The Georgia Bulletin-The Newspaper of the Archdiocese of Atlanta, 9 March 2018:

Archbishop announces opposition to Georgia HB 605

ATLANTA—Archbishop Wilton D. Gregory has released the following letter in response to HB 605, a bill that is under consideration in the current session of the Georgia General Assembly.

My dear brothers and sisters in Christ,

When I am called to stand before our Heavenly Father to make a full and final accounting of my priestly life and ministry, I will first humbly ask His Mercy for all the times I’ve fallen short in my service to Him and to His people. If I’m asked what I did to bring people to Him, I’ll recall the countless Sacraments I’ve celebrated with so many of you, the faith-filled social interactions we have shared, the remarkable opportunities to teach and to lead and to be present during moments of incredible joy and incalculable sorrow.

And when He asks me that for which I am most thankful in my service to His Church, it will have been my work in restoring trust to His people, assuring safe environments in Catholic settings that serve as examples to the wider community, and helping to bring about healing and hope to those in our faith family who have been sexually abused by members of our Catholic clergy – work I still wish more than anything on earth had never been necessary, work that we can never call complete.

In our Archdiocese of Atlanta, the Office of Child and Youth Protection helps us carry on our Promise to Protect and Pledge to Heal by creating and maintaining safe environments and walking alongside survivors of sexual abuse on their journey to healing. The efforts of this office, along with all dioceses in the United States, are audited on a yearly basis by an independent firm who verifies compliance with the Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People. Our Victim Assistance director ministers to those who have suffered abuse without question, no matter when or where the abuse took place. Our Office of Safe Environment ensures compliance of all individuals working with children, youth, and vulnerable individuals by offering comprehensive abuse prevention training and background checks. We continue to operate a 24-hour hotline (888-437-0764) for anyone, Catholic or not, who has been abused by a member of the clergy, a man or woman religious, or a lay associate. I am pleased to say our child and youth protection program is among the most robust anywhere – within the Catholic Church or outside it – and our audit record for the past two decades speaks for itself.

With that commitment to safety and healing in mind, I write to inform you of an extraordinarily unfair bill currently pending in our state legislature. If passed, House Bill 605 could drastically damage our ability to carry out the mission of our Catholic Church in the state of Georgia because of the following:

HB 605 would allow lawsuits against churches, private schools, businesses and non-profit organizations for actions asserted to have occurred many decades ago, potentially as far back as the 1940s, and the accused are very often deceased. 

Recognizing that these lawsuits can be very difficult if not impossible to defend, and risking grave injustice, the vast majority of states simply do not permit them.

HB 605 discriminates between the Church and the state. All governmental agencies – park districts, public school districts, care facilities, and so forth – are inexplicably immune from the potential devastating effects of these lawsuits. Churches, religious and private schools, non-profits and businesses are affected.

We have always fully supported criminal prosecution of and lawsuits against any individual abuser of children, no matter how long ago the abuse is alleged to have occurred. Additionally, for the past two decades the Catholic Church in Georgia has had what may be the strongest safe environment program, non-profit or otherwise, in the state. Our Church and our schools have strict zero tolerance policies regarding sexual abuse of any vulnerable person. HB 605 does not protect anyone. Rather, innocent people and the organizations to which they belong will be radically impacted based on allegations against individuals who may no longer even be alive and cannot speak for themselves.

In short, HB 605 represents a policy that is bad for the citizens of Georgia. As your Archbishop, I implore you to contact your state senator and other elected officials to let them know you join me and over one million of your fellow Catholics in opposition to HB 605. Here is a link that will help you locate the state senator in your district.

Sincerely yours in Christ,

Archbishop Wilton D. Gregory

Archdiocese of Atlanta

BRITAIN

Independent UK, 20 August 2017:

The Catholic Church and British local authorities have been accused of using a legal loophole to avoid paying compensation to victims of child sex abuse.

The Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme, a government agency, has denied some children financial settlements because it said the victims had “consented” to the abuse, a group of charities has warned.

Lawyers representing victims have warned that this line of defence is becoming increasingly common…….

 “No child ever gives their ‘consent’ to being abused, and the increased use of this line of defence, although still quite rare, is worrying,” said Anne Longfield, the Children’s Commissioner for England. "I have contacted the Ministry of Justice previously and again recently about this issue and the Government should look urgently at what can be done to tackle it.”

The Sunday Telegraph reported that it had seen documents regarding two cases where the defence was used. A claimant who was raped at the age of 15 was told by lawyers representing the Catholic Archdiocese of Southwark that his abuse "actually occurred in the context of a consensual relationship (albeit one the claimant in retrospect now appears to regret)".

The victim said "I was below the legal age of consent anyway and there's a grooming element to that kind of situation. It was totally disregarded and it made me feel really small." The case was finally settled, with the Catholic Church paying out £80,000.

IRELAND

The Guardian, 7 March 2018:

Soca is angry about a deal between the Catholic church and the Irish government in 2002 that resulted in the taxpayer footing most of the bill for compensating those abused in religious institutions.

The deal resulted in the church having to pay out €128m of a €1.3bn compensation bill.

Last year, Ireland’s comptroller and auditor general found that only €85m had been paid out of church funds. On top of its criticism of the deal, Soca said the church should at least be forced to pay out in full the agreed €128m.

BACKGROUND

Newcastle Herald, 11 January 2018:

The Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse accepted Mr Tapsell’s evidence that for 15 centuries before 1917 church law required child sex offender priests to be stripped of their status as priests and handed over to civil authorities for punishment.

It accepted Mr Tapsell’s evidence that Pope Pius XI in 1922 imposed the first blanket secrecy provisions over Catholic Church child sex cases which stopped reporting to civil authorities; they were expanded by Pope John XXIII in 1962 and Pope Paul VI in 1974, who told bishops there was no room for the exercise of conscience on the matter, and reinforced by the now sainted Pope John Paul II in 1983.

In September, 2014 Pope Francis rejected requests by two United Nations’ human rights committees to abolish the church’s secrecy provisions.

Rev. Pat Comben resigns from all duties to Anglican Church

www.abc.net.au

According to The Australian on 25 November 2013, former Clarence Valley Shire councillor and former registrar of the Grafton Diocese, Rev. Pat Comben has resigned from the Anglican priesthood:

He said on Monday he was quitting because history is being re-written by some members of the church.

Mr Comben said he had signed the letter of holy orders relinquishment outside the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses into Child Sexual Abuse on Friday. That was just before he took the stand to give evidence into the diocese's handling of allegations by former residents of the home.
"Fifty years in the Church and I do not know if I can even say I am a Christian," said Mr Comben outside the commission on Monday after he had completed two days of evidence.

By 7pm his resignation "minutes before" he was due to give evidence before the Royal Commission was confirmed in an ABC News broadcast.

Caught out in what appears to be a second instance of failure to report, one suspects the Anglican Church may have been grateful for this resignation.

1999

Mr Comben testified that he did not know why he asserted that ‘we’ know something. He said only he knew things and he erred in asserting that Cabinet had knowledge of what he knew….

He said that he had no specific knowledge about any matters involving child abuse.  Over some period of time he had received complaints at his electoral office about things that had allegedly occurred at the Sir Leslie Wilson Youth Centre, he had received complaints from homeless youths who had were detained at the John Oxley Youth Centre and had received ‘low grade scuttlebutt’ from some staff about children being inappropriately treated or inappropriately punished. He said that it was information of this nature which he had in mind when he referred to ‘child abuse’ in the statement broadcast in 1999. [State of Queensland,3(e) Report: Queensland Child Protection Commission of Inquiry, June 2013]

2013

The Royal Commission into child abuse has heard a former Anglican Church official responsible for responding to historic abuse claims did not pass on allegations to police.

The former registrar of the Anglican Diocese of Grafton, Pat Comben, today took the stand for a second day at the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse.

Mr Comben, who had previously served as Queensland education minister under premier Wayne Goss, was the first to receive claims about the North Coast Children's Home at Lismore.

He has faced intense scrutiny about the evidence given to the commission by former residents of the home about the physical and sexual abuse they suffered between the 1940s and 1980s.

Witnesses at the commission last week criticised Mr Comben's handling of the allegations and subsequent negotiations for compensation, with his actions described as cruel and inappropriate.

Today counsel assisting the commission Simeon Beckett questioned Mr Comben about his actions.

"You were in possession of serious allegations of child sexual abuse made against a number of people, some named, some unnamed," Mr Beckett said.

"You did not provide that information to police. Why was that?" 
"I have no idea," Mr Comben said....[ABC News,25 November 2013,Anglican Church official Pat Comben quizzed in Royal Commission over response to child sex abuse at North Coast Children's Home]

"I became aware that (a convicted pedophile) Reverend Kitchingman, as he was, was still in the stud book...

 Mr Comben also told the commission that he subsequently took no disciplinary action against Reverend Kitchingman or another alleged pedophile priest at the home, Campbell Brown.
"I did nothing at all (about Kitchingman)," he told the commission. "I think we were too busy to take him on."
[The Australian,25 November 2013,I'm not sure I'm still a Christian, Anglican priest Pat Comben says]

* Day One (22 November 2013) of Mr. Comben’s evidence to the Royal Commission Into Institutional Responses To Child Sexual Abuse,pp 64-115

* Day Two (25 November 2013) of Mr. Comben’s evidence to the Royal Commission Into Institutional Responses To Child Sexual Abuse will be found here when transcribed.