Jump to content
Mander Organ Builders Forum

Jonathan Lane

Members
  • Posts

    351
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Jonathan Lane

  1. An organ I took out of a church a couple of years ago had written on the inside of the case, in chalk, Bodged up by **********, 19**, written by the builders I suspect. Jonathan
  2. Not youtube, and it is possible someone has posted it before, I havene't read all the posts on this thread! http://www.schantzorgan.com/sar.html Jonathan
  3. I believe John's comment is a very important statement as to the understanding of what all organ builders should be thinking, i.e. 'that if it is done properly'! The tip comment I find very interesting, and had never thought of this as an advantage of cone tuning, but clearly it must be. Jonathan
  4. I have always tried to make this point, especially where you have a lot of fabric to warm up. Even in small village churches, a low background heating all through the winter is much cheaper than a quick boost for an hour on Sundays. Jonathan
  5. This shows the system isn't infallible and is clearly a failure to follow best practice. Jonathan
  6. We managed to go from 12 under eighteens taking part in the music at my former church, to 37 of them, as a direct result of the rigourousness of both our CRB checks and our child protection procedures. This was achieved by ensuring a safer environment for the youngsters, as well as suddenly allowing us access to schools who had previously not been happy to let us address their 'cliental'. There was no hint of a dwindling of the organisation there, precisely the opposite. Jonathan
  7. Personally, I wouldn't have allowed the children to take part if the adults present weren't checked, including the parent chaperones. Every school in the country requires it, even when they get it wrong, see the Amanda Hodgson case, which again shows the flaws of the system. As for the new system, which I believe is welcome because it simplifies the multiple checks issue, does not take away the view that people have who do not want to be checked in the first place. As for ID cards, the heavier the registration requirement of the individual, the more the state becomes of greater inportance than the individual. I fundamentally oppose the right of any government who collects data in order to control its population, and that is ultimately what the purpose of ID cards is. Jonathan
  8. As you can imagine I am reluctant, where a piece of music has been published, to send copies to someone, as there are certain copyright issues there. I actually have the Edmundson, in a real copy, but am not keen to scan it. H W Gray, or Warner Brothers Music, which now owns H W Gray I believe does not have it in their catalogue, they might, I suspect print a facsimile copy. The Berveiller, as you say is another story. I would love to have this, and am happy to pay the copyright owners for the pleasure. Will PM you. Jonathan
  9. I seem to remember when I was growing up the heating was never on in church. But to be serious, the overheating of churches and allowing them to cool down in between must play havoc with tuning slides much more than it does with cone tuned pipes. My instinct would be to be in a position where minimal tuning needs t be done, i.e. the reeds only, this would ensure churches would not be able to use the argument of cost, however false, for disposing of their pipe organ, as well as ensuring the organ is always in a good state of tuning. Jonathan
  10. So to apply the same logic, we must assume someone is a capable and safe driver until it is proved they are not. No test or lessons need to be proved to be taken, just let them take a car on the road and hope for the best. Jonathan
  11. Its great to see such acts of kindness still exist in this world. Here goes, I have a couple of requests, firstly for an acquintance who has been trying to obtain Edmundson's 'Vom Himmel Hoch' which appears to be out of print, and secondly for me, Berveiller 'Mouvement'. Any help given would be very much appreciated. Jonathan
  12. Yes, but if you allow any organisation to apply its own policy, some people will take it seriously and others won't. The church has a very bad history of abuse, but more important of covering up that abuse. CRB is a part of the process to minimalise the risk. Ian Huntley was of course the school caretaker, so if the proper level of supervision had been there he should not have been able to commit his crimes. But, as the children knew him from school, they were able to be lured by him out of school. Familiarity can be a negative think, especially in this case. I am concerned about the breakdown of child/adult relations becaus of this, but I have found, the level of trust I have had from the children mirrors the level of trust from their parents, part of which, especially at the beginning of an appointment, was helped by the CRB. If I had to work without that, I would have to work much harder, particularly with the parents. I used to say that upto 10% of my job was music, upto 40% administration, and at least 50% was public relations and diplomacy. Part of the diplomacy is putting over how serious I am about the protection of their children, CRB certainly helped. I inherited a sign up sheet for chaperones, which within eighteen months I changed to a rota, with a requirement that anyone unable to do their duty must arrange to swap with someone else, it worked much better, but you still can't get everyone on board. Often however, those who don't help with chaperoning on a regular basis are those that are first to complain. Sadly, this is the society we live in, partly driven by the state. Until I can walk down a road knowing I can trust everyone to be a law abiding citizen, whether it be murder or dropping litter, we need some way of helping this process along, hence CRB. Jonathan p.s. I think bed calls!
  13. My point exactly, that wasn't balanced, it was unfair, and illegal, as declared by the courts. Jonathan
  14. I think the Nanny State would lock people up before there is any evidence to do so, just in case they might at some point do this in the future. In a democratic state we have to take a balanced view of what we need to do to provide the safest environment, without unduly impacting people's rights. Some things go to far, i.e. ID Cards, but some are as balanced as we can get. Sadly the church, and its true in all denominations, has a history of abuse. Jonathan
  15. The CAS says otherwise, to quote from their website: STANDARD DISCLOSURE These are intended for those who regularly undertake limited roles which bring them into contact with children and young people but who have no supervising or training responsibilities. This includes those who prepare refreshments, caretakers and cleaners and similar roles as determined by the denomination. (Occasional helpers who are never left in charge, one-off helpers and visitors should understand what is required of them and are recommended to submit self disclosures to the local church.) Jonathan
  16. The OHS website is excellent, and they provided what I needed amazingly quickly. I have had less success from some European companies, but one, in Scandanavie, I can't remember the name, I'll look them up tomorrow, was brilliant. They sent the music through with an invoice after an email order. Jonathan
  17. Neither do I, and despite following the Christian principles of living within the law of the land, I will never carry an ID card, even if it means I will never be able to get a passport, or healthcare, and the retention of DNA evidence is a fundamental invasion of our human rights, unless a 'safe' conviction has been obtained. I believe the recent European Court ruling is greatly significant. Jonathan
  18. Unfortunately the reality of this world is that people do things we don't like or agree with, and it is our Christian duty to abide by the laws of the land (there is Biblical precedent for this) and to do our best for people. However, taking the worst case scenario, when a convicted child sex abuser turns up at the church and wants to join the thriving choir, involving perhaps 30 children, would we be doing our Christian duty to allow him (or her). My conscience wouldn't let me. I must say, having been a professional organist for a good many years, in parish church and cathedral, I would not take up any appointment where I wasn't required to fill in a CRB form. But, I would feel the same if I was offering my services in a voluntary capacity, I just wouldn't feel safe. All changes in a year or so though, when the new system comes in, with one check, and a card you show the organisations who have to make the check. It still doesn't stop those who are clever enough to commit the offences and get away with it, and believe me they are, look at how Ian Huntley managed to con the system in Soham. It does however help us do they absolute best for all those we have to deal with, be they children, vulnerable adults and the elderly. Jonathan
  19. True, and when I was a DofM we ran a very rigourous policy to ensure this, but it doesn't always work in practical situations. By fulfilling the requirements of the CRB it shows you are using the principal of good practice, which whilst not directly preventing such things, nothing can, will help should a false allegation be made. I'm not saying its a perfect system, but in my experience, it made my job much easier, as I knew I didnt have to watch my back all the time. Jonathan
  20. The result that is passed to the parish priest or child protection officer does not give specifics and is relevant. If someone has points on their licence for speeding, the CRB will come back clear. The result of the CRB check is pass or fail, no specifics are given, and it is then up to the person making the appointment to decide whether to make the appointment. There is nothing that can prevent them from doing so, but it would be very unwise to do so. The point mentioned is a spent conviction anyway, and wouldn't appear even if the details were passed on. Jonathan
  21. No such assumption is made. The principal purpose of the CRB is to protect ALL parties, including the person being checked. Jonathan
  22. Yes, again, a very good point, but sadly this is the only way it can be done. The question may be asked, how many people out there have clean CRB records because they haven't been caught yet. I'm afraid people would be shocked by the number. It is absolutely essential we follow best practice at all times, in order to protect ourselves, as mentioned by Malcolm a few posts ago. Jonathan
  23. I am wondering what people on the board think about cone tuning. I am not thinking in terms of existing organs, but in terms of new ones. I think existing organs should generally not be tampered with, but when building a new one, what would people prefer. Jonathan
  24. As a member of Liberty and one who has protested in the past I disagree strongly. The fundamental erosion of civil liberties comes when we decide to investigate people without evidence, not when we go through checks for our safety as well as the safety of others. I fundamentally oppose ID cards as an erosion of civil liberties, but I agree that checks should be done to prove identity when applying for a driving licence, passport, or a bank account. Jonathan
  25. There are a few things here that have been missed by the comments or need reiterating. Firstly, the CRB check is not just to protect the children or vulnerable adults people have so far mentioned. It is to protect the person who has the CRB. By having the check, it shows that you have fulfilled best practice, and consequently, will work in your favour, should unfounded allegations be made. Secondly, the information you give is already available to the organisation that checks or details, and to those who have a right to access them in the future. You are not providing any more information than they already know, however, you are drawing it together for them, and signifying an acceptance of the need for protection, for the vulnerable and yourself. Anyone that knows me knows how strongly I feel about civil liberties, and privacy, and the big brother state, but I have no hesitation that this is a good thing, unlike identy cards etc. I agree with the stupidity of the system, however I understand that this is due to change soon, with only one check being made, you then supply a given number to your employers who then check it is valid. Having been able to see the implications of abusive situations, I am vehemently supportive of the need to do this, to protect everyone, including the organisation who asks for it. As for the legal aspect of those who do not require it asking for it, I am not sure, but I don't think this is relevant in the case of the church, which by its nature attracts the vulnerable and those who take advantage of them more than most. Most dioceses now require choir members CRB checked. In my previous post (I'm now freelance to concentrate on my business), we insisted that all the choir men were CRB checked, and one was required to leave for refusing to fill in the form. I can understand his viewpoint, but I believe he was fundamentally wrong, and it was absolutely, wholly and unequivocally right for the church to require the checks. Any church that does not do this really needs to examine their conscience and decide whther they are really serious about the protection of children and vulnerable adults, and indeed their own staff. It would be worth pointing out that vulnerable adults can include the elderly, so you may have these in your choir, however, I believe that if you are holding an official capacity within the church, whether organist or choir member, you will come into contact with the vulnerable within your congregation. The best authority on this I believe would be Barry Williams, so if you know him, ask his opinion. Jonathan
×
×
  • Create New...