Christ!!!! We should nominate him for the Edward Bulwer-Lytton contest.

I think Court Number Two at the Old Bailey would be more appropriate. Unfortunately those who claim to have suffered abuse at the hands of Christopher Hansard, seem rather reluctant to press legal matters, and have withdrawn into the shadows.

In the light of JB's snide remark above, I'd like to make it clear that two women who courageously wrote about CH's abuses in this forum were frightened off speaking to the media via me --or any other moves which might have brought CH to justice. I pleaded with JB in private messages to desist from his aggressive campaign against them, but to no avail. During the course of correspondence with these women it became clear to me that they have profound and sincere reasons for witholding further action. They are not vindictive, are content to move on with their lives and are unwilling to re-live their painful experiences. In my view this says a lot about them that I admire. The above says a lot about JB that I find offensive.
Pema

Simple, if unpalatable, fact is that not one person, either former acolyte/trainee, nor 'client', has been willing challenge Christopher Hansard by pressing legal charges and taking the matter to a court-of-law. In maintaining a silence, for whatever noble reasons of 'healing' or 'forgiveness', they are aiding Hansard, and opening themselves to the charge of complicty, in any abuses, which may have occured.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/08/2008 07:48PM by jeff bowe.

I am way out of my depth here especially as I know nothing of the alleged abuse besides what I have seen on this forum, but Jeff I think your use of the word "complicity" is right on the mark. The thing is, to be blunt, if you get attacked and robbed/raped or otherwise violated out of the blue by a complete stranger you are clearly not complicit or responsible in any way and pressing charges against them is relatively easy as it involves no personal guilt and is clearly acknowledged by law as a criminal act. It is quite a different matter when the person has engaged your trust, as Dorje has said, through "strong persuasion." You are then - no matter how skillfully manipulated or deceived - complicit in whatever takes place between you. The shame, humiliation and sense of loss of control resulting from this is utterly devastating and has peculiar effects on the mind; from denying the experience to twisting it so that you feel yourself responsible. Which restores your ego at the expense of truth. It takes considerable courage and emotional distance to admit that someone completely took you to the cleaners, and even then what they did may not be strictly a chargeable offence. So I can understand Pema's informants wanting to withdraw. I wish I knew more about this whole situation.

Elizabeth, I agree, the whole matter is extremely sensitive, and one can fully understand that such people would run through a range of difficult emotions, in overcoming any experiences, they may have had, at the hands of Christopher Hansard. Their withdrawal, however informed by such trauma, leaves Hansard free to 'practice', in that sense the complicity I mention, is difficult to justify, not least because, if this indvidual has inflicted abuses, and does so again, it would surely be a troubling development for any who were aware, yet failed to press charges. Recall too that some were former colleagues/trainees of Hansard's, and have openly admitted here that they, and others, knew what was going on. As I have asked previously, why didn't anybody, at the time, take any action? Why still, has not one person come forward to launch a legal challenge?. The reaons no doubt are complex, visceral, and acutely painful, however no amount of empathy with such experiences can alter the reality, that in maintaining a silence, such people are supportively protecting, the very person who allegedly abused them.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 02/10/2008 05:48AM by jeff bowe.

I will be taking legal action against CH.

Quote
oak
I will be taking legal action against CH.

From what I can see from earlier in this thread, a couple of women spoke to the police about CH following the start of this thread- the details of which officer they were speaking to etc were given so other women could also speak to the officer concerned, but then there has been many months of silence here about that, suggesting the police did nothing about it (which wouldn't be surprising in the UK where it's difficult to get the police to do much without DNA or close-circuit television evidence.)

I'm not saying CH is not a wrong'un- he definitely is- but at least one person reported to a police officer earlier in this thread but we haven't heard that anything has happened as a result of that.

Oak if you are going to try to press charges against CH, good for you! The more people who speak to the police, the less they can ignore it and then if someone reports a current case against CH when there are already complaints on file about him, it's bound to influence their opinion and approach with him.

We were informed that some had reported matters to the police, can we can be entirely confident, that such reports were submitted?

Oak -- how intriguing -- can you tell us more?