I have a bit of a dilemma.

As many of you know, Brian Davey was prosecuted for paedophile offences earlier this year. The situation is not as simple as it sounds as I have spoken to a number of people whose children learnt recorder with him, and spoke highly of his teaching ability.

He has written a number of tutor books, which again are very sound, and another publisher is not publishing them.

I feel very sad for the whole situation re Brian Davey. Haenous as the things he did were, from discussions with other adults who knew him, he was trying to deal with his perversions, and he has been gaoled, so should I use that as an excuse not to use a perfectly good recorder tutorial book.

My gut feeling is no, and I will continue to use his material.

I'd like to know other teachers views on this matter?

If there was any Wagner on the syllabus, would you refuse to teach it because of Wagner's anti-Semitism?

You might utterly condemn what someone's done, but if they've written an excellent tutor book, they've still written an excellent tutor book. One of the teachers at my primary school was imprisoned for paedophilia. Didn't stop me learning loads in his science lessons though.

Hi. This is obviously a very emotive subject, but I would feel inclined to continue using the music. After all, the man is being punished for his crimes, why punish him further? If you find the music is best for your needs then why change?

If you would still teach Schubert's music when we know he probably did the same, then yes.

I'm glad this thread has been started, because I've got some of his publications, and they're very good - and I'd been wondering what to do myself!

Thanks Jo.

Current consensus is that HMP service are dealing with him for his crimes, and there's no point stopping using good material.

So my gut feeling which is feel dreadfully sorry for everyone caught up in the situation, including Brian, and continue using his books seems to be OK.

I see no reason to stop using this material - if they are good books then nothing should stand in the way of that.

David

Thanks jod for posting one of the most serious questions this forum has seen in a long time.

I don't think there is an easy answer, but what a fascinating question. It made me think about the composers I'm currently studying - how much do we actually know about their morality/private life? Does it matter? Should we be bothered? By playing their compositions, are we condoning all aspects of their life?

I suspect that a line has to be drawn SOMEWHERE....but I'm not sure exactly where.
If I felt that by purchasing someone's music I was actively encouraging that person to be involved in something illegal/immoral/dangerous etc., then I would probably think twice. Just imagine how you would feel if you found out that one of the major music publishers was using all their profit to support a cruel regime which devalued women and children..........
I know this particular case is different.......but I do think we need to chew over these issues responsibly.


Just as a matter of interest............when someone is in prison, and is accruing royalties on a publication, where does the money actually go?

I've got a different response to the majority here. My gut feeling is that, where I in a position to, I would stop teaching using these materials. I've tried to think through why I feel that way and it's a bit difficult to explain, but includes the following:-

Unlike Wagner, Schubert etc (I can't claim to know any details about these), the victims of Brian Davey's crimes are still very much alive, and using these materials could in their eyes appear to condone his actions and make light of their suffering.

One step removed from that there are those people who may have suffered similarly in the past, and reading about this case will have dragged up old memories - again I wouldn't want them to be upset or offended by the use of the material.

There are also undoubtedly youngsters who are currently struggling with similar experiences in the here and now. They may be unsure what to do, who to tell, whether anyone will believe them. I would hate to think that what they may see as my condoning of similar behavior would encourage them to keep quiet for fear of not being taken seriously.

I do sympathise with the view that if the material's are good, let's remove them from their creator and use them for a good purpose, but as I said my gut feeling is different.

I was thinking along similar lines to Tsax and he has just confirmed it in his posting. None of the composers mentioned here are from today's generations, nor do their crimes directly effect anyone still living. Even JS Bach allegedly wrote the WTC in prison, after a breach of the peace, and all sorts of speculations are around Mozart's true deeds, but that was centuries ago. I think especially if you were teaching a young child of about the age of Davey's victims, they or their parents may wish to disassociate themselves from a horrid child abuser. I'm not saying we should stop using his books if they genuinely are excellent, and that could be his one saving grace, but it is a very difficult situation for recorder teachers. By not knowing his books I can't judge this, but it is an issue to be treated sensitively.

I think that about says it, Neil: I don't know if it's an issue you can be black-and-white on, saying "yes it's definitely OK to use them" or "no, you can't use them at all". Being sensitive to the issues, taking individual students' needs and wishes into account has got to come into it... if they are good books it seems a shame not to use them, BUT it seems a wise idea to be thoroughly sure they are the best option, and certain that pupils/parents/etc are not going to be offended or affected by the associations.

You might want to consider the implications of buying books, or asking parents to buy books written by this man, knowing that he will receive royalties from their sale. Deciding whether to use material you already possess might be a slightly different matter.

But as I said, andante, if he's in prison, where are the royalties going?

Just to clarify my earlier point re Wagner. His anti-Semitism was extreme, even for times less tolerant than ours, but to blame him for concentration camps is just plain wrong. Whilst he was certainly a revolutionary, his anti-Semitism never landed him in prison.

Although there are fewer and fewer of them, there are still nevertheless some people around who survived concentration camps (which, it's worth remembering, contained more than anyone who was Jewish - anyone who was homosexual or disabled was also likely to be incarcerated). Of those who did survive, and indeed those who didn't, there are those who love(d) and those who loathe(d) Wagner's music.

But I digress. Have Brian Davey's tutor books become any less good because of what he's done? Surely we should be aiming to provide our students with the best materials available. There are some tutor books which I avoid because they're awful books rather than for any other reason.

Please don't use them.

Please don't feel sorry for him either.

You want to imagine how to justify that you are knowingly using books written by this man to parents of your students? Thought not.

violincjj, does that mean that we should also refuse to teach anything written by Wagner (anti-Semitic), Schubert (possible paedophile), Richard Strauss (member of the Nazi party), J. S. Bach (spent time in prison for drunk and disorderly behaviour), Michael Tippett (joined the Communist party) or Gesualdo (killed the king when he discovered the king in bed with Mrs Gesualdo) because we disapprove of their actions? By the same token, should we boycott Chinese instruments because of China's appalling human rights record?

Do we regard being a member of the Communist party on a par with molesting children ??

I think not.

By the same token, should we boycott Chinese instruments because of China's appalling human rights record?

Not beyond the bounds of possibility. I already boycott produce from some countries whose ... policies ... I strongly disagree with.

I'm with violincjj on this one. I would not relish the message it would give to a parent who found their child using one of these books - however excellent they may be.

No, neither do I; I'm just trying (and apparently failing) to separate someone's published works from their acts or beliefs.

Try this one. If Brian Davey had been a scientist who'd developed a cure for a disease, would you refuse to take that medication in light of his inprisonment for paedophilia?

But it's a matter for our individual consciences.

Yes it is a very sad situation but his abilty as a teacher is less relevant than his record as a paedophile. Ok, he has been prosecuted and imprisoned, but his victims will also suffer an 'imprisonment' of sorts because of what he has done to them.


The situation re Brian Davey is also different in that his books were largely aimed at children probably around the same age as his victims. It is possible that while he was composing nice little music books for children he was commiting the most terrible acts against them. Teaching children the music of Schubert and Wagner is also different in that they are both dead and will not benefit from the proceeds of such books. I'm not sure what happens to fees etc from sales of books when the composer is in prison. Given that a number of books have been written by prisoners, I imagine they must benefit in some way.


I think we all need to decide for ourselves what's best here. I know I wouldn't ask parents of my students to go and buy books knowing that the composer was a convicted paedophile. I have seen first hand the effects of a paedophile on a child, her family and compared with the h ell that family is going through, jail is too good for a paedophile. There is no way I would support one by buying any of their books. If one publisher has stopped publishing Brian Davey's books then it will probably be a case that all his books will cease to be published and then nobody will have a choice of buying them or not buying them.

Okay, would it help if one was to photocopy his music? That way he wouldn't earn a penny from sales.

I don't see why there is so much concern over whether Davey gets the money from the books. By buying one, you are not saying that you support what he did; you are giving money in return for his service to you - writing the book. I don't feel that one affects the other. Similarly, his crimes do not detract from the quality of his books. I view them as separate things. Would you boycott publications of someone who had been convicted of GBH? Or what if it was (only) ABH? Or a speeding ticket? Where do you draw the line? Is the sensitivity surrounding the crime committed affecting the responses, and is it fair to do that? I have my opinions but recognise that others may disagree.

The money would be paid to Brian's bank account in the normal way, but he would not have access to it while serving his sentence.

I think that whether you use his books or not would be a personal choice. I don't have any of his books, and I wouldn't buy them because, as others have said, the victims of his crime are still around and I would not feel comfortable using them - when you are dealing with children paedophilia is a very emotive subject.

I think I'll carry on using them. I didn't know of that situation until seeing this thread!
He's obviously talented and his work is probably very professional and useful, shame to let it go to waste.

I was told that Robert King had been arrested so presumably we also now stop listening to CDs of the King's Consort?

Do you have a link to news item covering this? I can't find anything....

The reason another publisher has had to take on Brian Davey's work is because he self-published and distributed from home. Obviously he cannot do that whist gaoled.

The situation here is not balck and white. I know many people who knew and worked with Brian, some were surprised by the conviction, all knew he had problems and he was trying to access help. All, without exception believe his perversions have robbed the world of an excellent recorder teacher, and feel a deep sympathy for him as well as his victims.

I am not condoning paedophilia in any way. As a mother it appauls me. But the material is good, yet I would be sensitive who I encourage to buy the books, and offer an alternative.

Paedophiles have a terrible time in prison because of the nature of their crimes. Shouldn't we put our prejudices behind us and judge the teaching material on merit.

I heard about Robert King's arrest on the radio, YAP, but I haven't read anything about it, either - sorry.

Thanks Cyrilla.

At least it's only an arrest, not a conviction at this point; it'd be terrible if his career was ruined on the basis of some allegations that were later found to be false, something which happens far too oftne.

And it seems the allegations stem from over 20 years ago

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,1817508,00.html

From reading the above posts it would seem there are two types of activity this man is now known for - one is horrific and the other is good. I think it is sad that the good things he has done with his life for other people should be totally undone by the bad. Those music teachers who have said they would wish to continue using his materials have patently not done so as a statement of support for a paedophile, but as a statement of support for valuable teaching material which assists their teaching.

However, despite the sadness of the above, the range of views expressed in this thread alone indicate that whatever the teacher's personal view, there remains a considerable potential for problems in continuing to use his material. If the views of your pupils parents are as diverse as the views expressed in this thread, how should that be dealt with? Should the parent be consulted and given the choice? Or don't mention it and hope they don't know or don't care? If the parent is consulted, is their happiness with the teaching material going to be unaffected by the knowledge that it was written by a paedophile? I myself draw a clear distinction between the good and the bad that a person can do, yet in defiance of the logic of that this knowledge would make these books less attractive to me. Another parent may tend towards the stronger views expressed by others on this thread. What if this is a personal issue for a particular parent because of their own life experiences, or even because of some link to one of the hundreds of children who have been taught by Brian Davey? Would such a person have to approach the teacher and say "I'm sorry to be difficult but ...... "

I agree with the poster who said decisions should not be made on the basis of feeling sorry for Brian Davey - he has brought this on himself. I also agree with the posters who have said each teacher will have to decide on their own approach, but in doing so I do think they need to consider their own interests as well as their pupils' , and to balance the loss of valuable teaching material against any problems which may arise from continuing to use it. They should also at least give some thought to the child's parents - even if the teacher thinks their view is wrong, it is the parents who are responsible for the child's upbringing.

Fortunately under the English Legal system it's "innocent until proven guilty", unlike the media where you're automatically guilty when charged.

I find all of this very sad.

The sensibilites of parent does need to be taken into account, currently I only teach recorder to my own son, who likes Brian Davey's book very much.

Thanks for the link Jane. Let's hope the allegations are false .

Yes and why shouldn't they? Their victims have a terrible time too because of what the paedophile did, or doesn't that matter?

Thanks suepea. If the money is paid into his bank account, then unless he has a life sentence, he will benefit from sales of his books in the future.

A judge and jury have sentenced Brian Davey and he is currently in Prison. His victims have had a terrible time, but as Reb Tevye says in Fiddler on the Roof "An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, that way we'll all end up blind and toothless"

We live in an imperfect world where terrible things happen all the time. If someone is sentenced due their crimes they have had their liberty taken away from them. Wishing some sort of extra retribution on them is wrong. The man is sick, he knew it, he tried to get help, he failed. If he is released from prison, the one thing he loved and was good at has been taken away from him, and he will still be sick and needing help.

Why want anything else? I'm not condoning his actions, but the responses here are divided between those who have considered their response, and knee jerk reactions aka the Daily Mail.

At the end of the day your own view is yours, but even living near Soham, in the Same County as Brian Davey and Keith Lavarack, I still can detatch the quality of material from the person.

I've been thinking about this prejudice of this 'he's a pædophile, so doesn't deserve to earn money' attitude.

Drawing an analogy, one could imagine a case where it was revealed that a new, useful medicine had been tested on non-consenting children. Then, taking the opinion that 'one shouldn't pay the people for this medicine because that way they're profiting from child abuse' would be quite sound - they wouldn't have had the revenue stream without having abused the children.

In this case, however, was his pædophilia a vital part of the production of these books? Taking the attitude that 'one shouldn't buy his books because he's commited these crimes' is akin to suggesting that 'one shouldn't buy his books so he doesn't profit from his pædophilia'. For such an argument to be valid, one would have to answer the question: did his pædophilia give rise to his ability to write the books?

Is all this hoo-hah amplified by the fact that this bloke's publications are ostensibly for children? We subconsciously put his crimes and this fact together and somehow come to an uncomfortable juxtaposition.

If he'd written the de facto text on "how to service your VW Golf" I doubt the reaction would be so strong...

Adding to what MrB has just said, there would also be the problem that children might be drawn to him as a name they recognise and look up to, without knowing anything of his history.

I've been following this thread with interest.

I think there are two issues here that are getting a bit mangled up.

I'm not in the position to have to make a choice, and I have never seen his recorder books so I can't comment on the value of them, but after careful thinking my opinion (and is is only my opinion and I respect everyone's right to have their own) is that it would be wrong to boycott his books because of his behaviour.

However (and this is the other issue) it would be right not to use his books out of sensitivity for others' feelings who may feel uncomfortable with them. That is a different matter.

He is being punished now for his behaviour, that punishment should not extend to the boycott of his teaching materials, especially if they are so good, and there is no alternative, that people are having this heartfelt discussion. It feels a little bit like noses spiting faces not to use it.

On the other hand we also need to have empathy for the feelings of those who might have been affected by something similar and respect their views. That is their choice not to use his teaching materials, not ours.

Thank you Jane for your very thoughtful ( ed. previous ! it's moving fast) post.

(quote)
What if this is a personal issue for a particular parent because of their own life experiences, or even because of some link to one of the hundreds of children who have been taught by Brian Davey?

This precise thought was in my mind when I replied yesterday.

Maggie

And it is through the reading of posts like yours that have brought me to my conclusion. Its invariably useful to have the discussion rather than to jump to immediate conclusions from a knee jerk reaction.

Presumably when he comes out of prison he will need to earn a living. Clearly he'll never be allowed to work with children again. So at least if he gets the royalties from these sales he'll be able to live a relatively normal life once he has paid the price for his crimes.

Exactly.

...unless of course we are equating benefiting from his high quality instruction books to benefiting from paedophilia (surely not, are we???) then he should not be punished further by having this income stream effectively stopped.

It's either that or life on benefits, at the Tax payers expense. Now which is better?

Oh I can't cope with another moral dilemma today. Good point though!

Brian Davey indecently assaulted and, in one case, attempted to rape 11 of his recorder pupils over a 13 year period, threatening them with, in one case, the death of their sick mother if they told. One victim was four. Another was his stepdaughter. The judge described it as “The worst case of child abuse it is possible to imagine”. That much is known. It may be the tip of an iceberg.

Paedophilia is an illness and it is to be hoped Mr Davey receives adequate treatment while he is in prison and when he comes out again. By and large the public has a fairly unforgiving view of paedophiles, however, and the risk is that an enlightened teacher has to explain why they are asking parents to buy books written by a dangerous pervert.

If he had written the only good recorder tutors available then I could understand the debate. So long as adequate alternatives exist I think one would need exceptional reasons for choosing Davey.

Best wishes

barry

So you would not teach the music of Schubert, nor, if Robert King was convicted, listen to the recordings of the Kings Consort?

Barry, see my earlier post...If the parents have an issue than that is their choice to make (not necessarily the teachers). If someone has had a personal experience and/ or they feel uncomfortable then fair enough, use something else, in empathy with *their* views.

However that aside I still don't see how just using his books can be a bad thing unless the books themselves are perverted (surely not...)

The only other argument here to support not using the books is that we need somehow to punish him still further than the courts have by cutting off his income in whatever way we can. Hmmm.... so why don't we just wait until he comes out and then lynch him seeing as we seem to want to take the punishment for his crime into our own hands here.

Ok over-reactive extreme view I know, but where do we draw the line between acceptable "law in our own hands" and unacceptable "law in our own hands".

Maybe the acceptable "law in our own hands" actions are the ones we can do that are, while still vindictive and prejudiced, not actually illegal. Well I'm not comfortable with that.

jod
thank you, once again, for providing a serious, interesting debate - am I the only one who regrets that threads such as these now seem to be so rare on this forum?

I seem to remember signing up for this forum (quite some time ago) precisely because there were important issues ,such as this, one being debated and discussed by people of widely-differing veiwpoints.

There are others too. Unfortunately when you are a parent and a teacher you see life from a perspective that makes you acutely aware that things may be seen in the wrong light, or that people may be doing things that should not do.

I started this thread because all the adults I knew who knew Brian Davey spoke about him warmly and with a sense of sorrow. All said what a gifted teacher he was. He has written some first-rate teaching material, unfortunately he was a sick man and is now in prison. The penal system is not set up to deal with paedophilia, it does not know what to do when criminals are in prison, and it is at a loss when sentences are up. The whole are needs to be looked into.

But I still think that as the material is good, I'm happy using it. When I looked for a tutor book for my son, it was the best one there. I may look at some other material to supplement it, but I cannot help valueing the book apart from its author.

This is an example of the emotive side to the issue. With descriptions such as this, people will act more with their head than their heart, due to the nature of the crimes committed. However, I don't feel it's a fair way to make a decision.

Shoulud you make your moral decisions based on what others (might) think? Many of the anti- responses seem to be against giving any money to this man. But the justice system already attempts to punish people in proportion to their crime; taking it into our own hands is unfair and (I think) simply a knee-jerk reaction to the sensitivity surrounding the issue.