Tag Archives: Archbishop Justin Welby

SEPTEMBER 11 2021 – SHAME ON ECCLESIASTICAL INSURANCE GROUP [EIG] AND PRAISE FOR AN INVESTIGATIVE JOURNALIST

Award for Investigative Journalist supporting Abuse Survivors: Issues for the Church of England

September 10, 2021 Stephen Parsons

by Gilo and Tony

Tony and Gilo are members of the Church of England’s Survivor Reference Group. They have done much work together to bring necessary daylight to the unethical operations of the Church’s legal and insurer framework. They were both also the catalysts for the Interim Support Scheme. It was their work with an advocate which created the template for the ISS which is now helping many dozens of survivors, and growing exponentially all the time.

The 2021 Headlinemoney Awards took place in the City of London this past week. These awards celebrate exceptional journalism from across the UK’s financial press and media. Headlinemoney website states that a central aspect of these awards is that “all the winners are decided by their peers following an extensive submission, shortlisting and judging process.” This is the industry recognising and validating its own, and signalling worthy journalists as voices to watch.

Jen Frost of Insurance Post has written half a dozen articles on the complex and often difficult-to-report experiences that survivors have of the insurance response to our situations. Frost won two awards at this week’s Headlinemoney event. The first, for General Insurance Journalist of the Year, was shared jointly with Dean Sobers of WhichMoney.

The second for Story of the Year Award was for her reporting on Tony’s case and the courageous exposure of the litigation strategies of Paula Jefferson (Berrymans Lace Mawer BLM) and Ecclesiastical Insurance (EIG). See the story below.

https://www.postonline.co.uk/claims/4602976/ecclesiastical-faces-fresh-allegations-of-unethical-treatment-as-case-of-suicide-watch-claimant-comes-to-light

Why is this significant? It is the industry recognising Jen Frost as a serious investigative journalist. And crucially it is recognition of the valid criticism ranged at BLM and EIG for their unethical and aggressive litigation strategies in this case. Standouts in the story were Paula Jefferson’s use of a medical expert who delivered a report on behalf of the Church without even meeting the survivor. This was swiftly followed by sudden withdrawal of an earlier settlement offer whilst the survivor was in hospital on suicide watch. Causal percentages were applied in a derisory manner. Frost’s other reports also referenced callous language used about survivors by Ecclesiastical and BLM.

There will be embarrassment in many quarters. Not least for Mark Hews CEO of EIG who has been feverishly rescuing his company’s reputation with a £million giveaway to charities and a renewed effort to win the loyalty of clergy with sabbatical grants.

There will be acute embarrassment for Paula Jefferson who must by now be wishing she had acted with a modicum of ethical awareness in this as in many other cases. Jefferson will be aware that her working methods and the culture she has engendered at BLM has brought considerable damage to the reputation of their client the Church of England. We understand that EIG has been given clear instruction from the Church that any further deployment of Professor Tony Maden in these cases must now be considered unacceptable and unwelcome. Maden was for a long time Jefferson’s constant travel companion in the defence of other institutions in addition to the Church of England. It seems they worked in tandem and regularly deployed bewildering arguments such as ‘genetic predisposition’ and ‘cognitive predisposition’ in an alarming number of cases. In lay terms, the argument goes like this – the survivor was already pre-programmed through genetic history (birth, parental history) to develop such mental health conditions as Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, depression, anxiety, bi-polar condition, etc. And abuse had little or nothing to do with it. You will see they used the argument against Phil Johnson below.

https://www.postonline.co.uk/claims/7681106/former-broadmoor-psychiatrist-faces-investigation-for-role-in-ecclesiastical-abuse-claims

Abuse survivors, who typically have tried to suppress the trauma of the experiences for years (many for decades), need particular sensitivity and hand holding whilst within the civil claims process. Re-counting and re-living our experiences, as is necessary for the process, is extremely triggering and can render the survivor re-traumatised, muted and vulnerable from the cumulative impact and protracted timeline of it all. Church of England survivors instead, have been met by BLM lawyers, in expensive corporate suits, smartly disguising the strategy and ethical intention of a gangster’s disgruntled Rottweiler. The Church of England has been complicit in this gangsterism and then pretended disdainfully that this gangsterism has nothing to do with it, its hands are clean.

In Tony’s case there was an application of jiggery pokery abstract mathematics which resulted in a 5% causal figure – all of which had no relation whatsoever to his experience. These methods have been routine in the circus practised by Jefferson and her partners. This carefully calculated adversarial operation has managed the reputation and purse strings of their client. But this has been wholly at the expense of survivors who have had life-long impact arrogantly and patronisingly belittled, resulting in further bullying, betrayal and abuse of power.

This award should be embarrassing for Archbishop Welby and other bishops (Paul Butler, Martin Warner, and others) who were first told of Jefferson’s and EIG’s unethical tactics many years ago by Phil Johnson. It will be embarrassing for Sarah Mullally, Bishop of London, who had a golden opportunity to address the behaviours of the Church’s insurer following the Church of England’s Elliott Review – but chose instead to walk away and silence every request that the Church address the public dissembling by EIG. Ditto the NST who during the Graham Tilby era did likewise, presumably under instruction from their managers. Survivors were left to fend for ourselves against a cruel system of reabuse, and struggle to bring daylight to what had been going on.

It should be particularly embarrassing for William Nye, Secretary General of Archbishops’ Council, who has presided over a distinctly seedy culture in Church House of direct complicity with the insurer in a circus of reputation management. Under his watch Church House comms, legal department and disturbingly, the NST, all took part in a ‘retranslation’ of review recommendations for the purposes of reputation management for the insurer and the Church.

http://survivingchurch.org/2020/09/15/thoughts-on-the-elliott-review-translation-by-archbishops-council/

And yet despite the efforts of all involved within Church House to airbrush this from history.. a plucky young journalist has now been recognised by her industry peers for her exposure of the shadowy and unethical underbelly of what passes for civil litigation defence in this country in relation to survivors of abuse. The industry itself is having to wake up. Frost’s award follows hard on the heels of the Association of British Insurers issuing new guidelines to its members on many of these unethical practices that Frost has helped expose.

https://www.postonline.co.uk/claims/7868456/abi-publishes-child-sexual-abuse-claims-handling-code-in-response-to-inquiry

The Church is now having to create a Redress Fund in the region of £500m to £1billion to meet its responsibility for the repair of so many lives abused and institutionally re-abused and damaged. Ecclesiastical Insurance and its owner AllChurches Trust is being called upon by us to give £100m towards this Redress Fund as a mark of corporate repentance for its serial re-abuse of survivors.

Whether or not the Church continues to use the services of Paula Jefferson is up to them, but survivors have insisted that Jefferson and BLM are kept well away from any involvement in the Redress. Her approach to the care and repair of survivors is considered offensive and grotesque by us and renders her unfit to be involved in further work with survivors.

As to Maden? In April this year a new Practice Direction 1A protecting vulnerable witnesses came into effect (https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part01/practice-direction-1a-participation-of-vulnerable-parties-or-witnesses). Designed to specifically ensure that both sides of the civil case are on equal footing. It will significantly improve the handling of vulnerable parties. For the first time claimants can challenge what they might perceive as adversarial tactics if they give good reason why. This does not address past cases, but has already had an impact as the following approved court judgement from Liverpool County Court earlier this year demonstrates:

“I have come to the conclusion on balance that her seeing Professor Maden, in view of the information out there on him, in view of his acting for high profile Defendants, in view of his CV and the balance of his Defendant work, on the balance of probabilities would be likely to impede the evidence of the Claimant given to him. I, therefore, accede to the request that the Defendant should have a consultant psychiatrist of their choosing but not Professor Maden.”

Ouch!

We suspect that any embarrassment any of the above experience will remain hidden. The Church has been fearful of acknowledging its part played in the gangsterism of its lawyers and insurer. And has a remarkable ability to absorb embarrassment and pretend it is not there. But they must now move on swiftly with the repair and rebuilding of lives.

We close by saying Award Well Deserved! Congratulations Jen Frost.

Tony and Gilo

COMMENTS

Richard W. Symonds

Gilo and Tony Surviving Church Award for Investigative Journalist supporting Abuse Survivors: Issues for the Church of England

Perhaps this investigative journalist would consider investigating the pivotal role played by the Ecclesiastical Insurance Group [and ‘associates’] in the long-running Bishop Bell scandal?Last edited 18 hours ago by Richard W. Symonds Reply

Gilo Reply to Richard W. Symonds

As an insurance journalist working within the industry, Jen Frost would be unlikely to investigate the Bell case…. much as her investigative acumen might unearth interesting facets of the Church’s response. What is embarrassing for the Church though is that three agents employed in that review – Ecclesiastical, Jefferson, Maden – all come off looking pretty dodgy from her reports about their practices regarding survivors. I list her main reports below August 2021

https://www.postonline.co.uk/claims/7868456/abi-publishes-child-sexual-abuse-claims-handling-code-in-response-to-inquiry Sept 2020

https://www.postonline.co.uk/claims/7681106/former-broadmoor-psychiatrist-faces-investigation-for-role-in-ecclesiastical-abuse-claims July 2020

https://www.postonline.co.uk/claims/7652861/briefing-ecclesiasticals-child-abuse-claims-shame-ceo-hews-admission-too-little-too-late July 2020

https://www.postonline.co.uk/claims/4276536/revealed-leaked-emails-show-ecclesiastical-staff-using-callous-language-over-child-abuse-claims Feb 2020

https://www.postonline.co.uk/claims/4602976/ecclesiastical-faces-fresh-allegations-of-unethical-treatment-as-case-of-suicide-watch-claimant-comes-to-light

Maden, where he features in her investigative reporting does not I think come across as particularly replete with integrity or scruple. The genetic predisposition argument he used against Phil Johnson (which we know he has used with frequency in other cases) is really a very strange device.

It would seem that what comes across is a certain amount of duplicity in a range of unethical strategies played out upon survivors when the Church has carefully looked elsewhere.

I suspect these agents may have been careful to mind their Ps and Qs in the Bell case. The situation was extremely high profile, controversial, and fell under widespread and critical scrutiny.

Gilo Reply to Gilo

Correction:
What is embarrassing for the Church though is that three agents regularly employed by the Church…

(EIG were not involved in the Bell case)

Rowland Wateridge Reply to Richard W. Symonds

Richard: Did EIG have an involvement? I understood that the claim was uninsured and for that reason was ‘handled’ wholly in house by the C of E. I no longer have a copy of the Carlile report. That investigation was so thorough and catalogued in detail all the shortcomings of the investigation, but I don’t remember any reference to EIG in an advisory role. I’m happy to be corrected if I am mistaken.

Richard W. Symonds Reply to Rowland Wateridge

David Bonehill of the Ecclesiastical Insurance Office EIO [parent company Ecclesiastical Insurance Group EIG] had much to say at the IICSA in his criticism of Lord Carlile’s recommendations regarding Bishop Bell.

Rowland Wateridge Reply to Richard W. Symonds

Richard: Thanks for that link. It makes depressing reading.

Richard W. Symonds Reply to Rowland Wateridge

From the George Bell Group:

“The original statement by the Archbishops’ Council in October 2015 claimed that none of the expert independent reports had found reason to doubt Carol’s veracity. But Lord Carlile discovered that the only expert consulted by the Church [Professor Maden – Ed] thought it very likely that Carol’s experience of abuse in her first marriage had affected her recall, and that the possibility of false memories was a real one”

Richard W. Symonds

Professor Maden comes in for much criticism – much of it justified – but it seems his analysis of ‘Carol’ in the Bishop Bell case was right.

From the George Bell Group:

https://richardwsymonds.wordpress.com/tag/professor-anthony-maden/ Reply

George Bell Group’s Martyn Percy:

http://www.georgebellgroup.org/reputation-righteousness-dec-2017/

The Carlile Report

Paragraph 178, pages 46-48.

Professor Maden, an expert on ‘false memory syndrome’, comments extensively on the case. He closes his remarks by stating that “I have no doubt that [the complainant] is sincere in her beliefs. Nevertheless it remains my view that the possibility of false memories in this case cannot be excluded. The facts are for the Court to determine. I do not believe that psychiatric or other expert evidence is likely to be of further assistance in establishing whether or not these allegations are true…”. Some members of the ‘Core Group’ did not read the whole of Professor Maden’s report, so “a fuller evidential investigation” that might have been called for to test the complainant’s claim never occurred. The ‘Core Group’ even failed to contact the complainant’s wider family (whom ‘Carol’ said she was close to), and who could have perhaps provided corroborating or dissenting testimony.

Janet Fife Reply to Richard W. Symonds

But if you read Gilo and Tony’s blog on Ecclesiastical Insurance (above), you will see that Prof Maden has been criticised for not taking sufficient trouble to ensure his expert opinions are soundly based. Reply

Richard W. Symonds Reply to Janet Fife

I’m sure the criticism of Prof Maden is justified in the ‘Gilo and Tony’ cases, but in the case of ‘Carol’ and Bishop Bell [in which Ecclesiastical Insurance was involved] that criticism does not, in my view, apply.

Prof Maden was consulted as an expert in ‘false memory syndrome’ and he gave his expert opinion in the case of ‘Carol’.

The trouble was Prof Maden’s expert opinion was ignored by the Church of England Core Group, resulting in a miscarriage of justice which still has not been resolved after six long years.

Prof Maden may well have been wrong in many cases, but in the case of ‘Carol’ and Bishop Bell it seems he was right.

Rowland Wateridge Reply to Richard W. Symonds

Richard: if you analyse the articles from Insurance Post linked by Gilo you will find that they are largely criticism of EIO. As far as I can see, only two cases involving Professor Maden are mentioned and both complaints have been dismissed by the General Medical Council. The link I added below in reply to Janet Fife, from March 2021, should be included in the list for fairness.

Richard W. Symonds Reply to Rowland Wateridge

Thanks for this Rowland.

The last sentence in one of the Insurance Post’s articles is significant – ‘Professor Tony Maden cleared on two counts in insurance expert witness complaints’:

“The GMC further noted in this case: ‘Dr Maden’s fitness to practise is not called into question by a decision made by the legal firm who had instructed him’”

Richard W. Symonds Reply to Rowland Wateridge 11 hours ago

Thanks for this Rowland.

The last sentence in one of the Insurance Post’s articles is significant – ‘Professor Tony Maden cleared on two counts in insurance expert witness complaints’:

“The GMC further noted in this case: ‘Dr Maden’s fitness to practise is not called into question by a decision made by the legal firm who had instructed him’” Reply

Susannah Clark Reply to Richard W. Symonds

“Prof Maden may well have been wrong in many cases, but in the case of ‘Carol’ and Bishop Bell it seems he was right.”

There is no ‘right’ confirmation of Bishop Bell’s guilt or innocence.

Stating that some memories can be defective does not mean that ALL memories are defective.

Carol’s allegations were ‘credible’ but I think we have to face the fact that we shall probably never know whether he was guilty of innocent (though technically in legal terms that means he remains legally innocent – which is not the same as factually innocent).

As Maden says, ‘There is no way of determining…’ [without corroborating evidence] ‘whether or not recall is accurate.’

We simply don’t know. We can guess. But we cannot know.

It’s all very sad – and I make no comment on how this all has been handled (which is a separate issue) – because on the one hand there is a reputedly good man’s reputation and living relatives… and on the other hand there is a woman of good character who is widely believed to have been abused (she claims by the Bishop) and who feels her claims are ignored or traduced.

It is not sufficient to say that, because a person had power and a public reputation, that accusations against them are therefore likely to be untrue. As the Carlile Report says in response to supporters of the Bishop who argue this point:

“The perpetrators of sexual abuse can be extraordinarily devious, presenting a carapace of piety and respectability to the outside world; and adverse facts can be concealed skilfully. In other words, the fact that Bishop Bell was (and continues to be) highly regarded by others is not determinative of his guilt or innocence of this allegation.”

People with high status and respect sometimes do bad things. Bishop Bell may not have. Or he may have.

We simply don’t know, and that’s hard for both Carol and for the Bishop’s living relatives. Frankly, it’s never going to be solved.

I hope support can be given to the Bishop’s relatives, but in all compassion to a decent woman who has found herself at the centre of a very public campaign that goes on and on without any means of proving anything, I wish we could leave her in peace, and stick to discussions of process. She must be experiencing a second kind of abuse to be the talking point of such a public campaign.

She’s been abused once – possibly by the Bishop, possibly not – and it seems unfair to expose her painful case further.

Just accept we shall never know, and work on better process in the future. That would be more productive.

Richard W. Symonds Reply to Susannah Clark

“No doubt there will be people who are going to think there is no smoke without fire. I can do nothing about that except to say such an attitude would be wrong”

[Judge David Clarke in December 2000 – when dismissing the ‘sexual abuse’ case brought against the Southampton football manager David Jones]

Rowland Wateridge Reply to Janet Fife

To restore some balance here, this is a further article from ‘Post’. It merits careful reading, especially what the GMC’s Expert Examiner said about medical experts reporting without meeting a patient face-to-face.

https://www.postonline.co.uk/claims/7813796/professor-tony-maden-cleared-on-two-counts-in-insurance-expert-witness-complaints

Richard W. Symonds 3 hours ago

The alleged abused [and their defenders] are not always in the right.
The alleged abusers [and their defenders] are not always in the wrong.
That’s one reason why we have Courts of Law [and their defenders].
Thank God for them.

PERSONAL COMMENT BY RICHARD W. SYMONDS – THE BELL SOCIETY

“Are the abused and ignored thankful for the forensic work done by others in investigating and exposing false and wrongful accusations of abuse? If it wasn’t also for these diligent people, many miscarriages of justice would not have seen the light of day. Sometimes, it is only when false and wrongful accusations are fully investigated do the real abuses come to light”

SEPTEMBER 12 2021 – PROFESSOR ANTHONY MADEN AND THE BISHOP BELL CASE

MAY 20 2021 – “ARCHBISHOP WELBY ANNOUNCES FURTHER INVESTIGATIONS INTO JOHN SMYTH CASE” – CHURCH TIMES

Leave a reply

https://www.churchtimes.co.uk/articles/2021/21-may/news/uk/archbishop-welby-announces-further-investigations-into-john-smyth-case?utm_campaign=Church%20Times%20RSS%20Daily%20bulletin&utm_source=emailCampaign&utm_content=&utm_medium=email

Archbishop Welby announces further investigations into John Smyth case

by MADELEINE DAVIES 20 MAY 2021

CHANNEL 4 NEWS

John Smyth

EVERYONE who knew about the abuse perpetrated by the late John Smyth and failed to report it will be investigated by the National Safeguarding Team, the Archbishop of Canterbury has said.

In a statement issued on Thursday, Archbishop Welby offered a “full, personal apology” to victims of Smyth, whose abuse, he says, was “done in the name of Jesus Christ by a perverted version of spirituality and evangelicalism”.

It is now more than four years since Channel 4 News broke news of the violent abuse perpetrated by Smyth, a QC and former chairman of the Iwerne Trust (later part of the Titus Trust), which ran holiday camps for boys at English public schools in the 1970s (News, 10 February 2017).

Both the Iwerne Trust and Winchester College, where many of Smyth’s victims were pupils, learned of allegations of the abuse in the 1980s, but failed to report them to the police. One survivor grew so fearful of the beatings that he tried to take his own life in 1981. It prompted the Iwerne Trust to launch an investigation and compile a confidential report in 1982. Written by Canon Mark Ruston, the Vicar of the Round Church, Cambridge, from 1973 to 1987, and the Revd David Fletcher, a Scripture Union employee, it described the abuse of 22 young men: “The scale and severity of the practice was horrific. . . eight received about 14,000 strokes: two of them having some 8000 strokes over three years.”

The abuse was not limited to the UK, where it has been estimated that there are more than 100 survivors (News, 31 May 2019). After the Ruston report, Smyth went to live in Zimbabwe, where he continued to run holiday camps — Zambezi Ministries — and South Africa. In Zimbabwe, “almost constant concerns” were raised about Smyth, as early as 1986 (News, 10 February 2017). In 1992, a 16-year-old boy, Guide Nyachuru, was found dead in a swimming pool at a Zambezi camp, prompting other young men to come forward. A paper heard by the Supreme Court of Zimbabwe in 1997 suggests that 90 boys had raised allegations against Smyth (News, 31 May 2019).Advertisement

Smyth died in 2018, before he could be questioned by police, arrested, or tried (News, 17 August 2018). That year, Hampshire Police confirmed that no charges would be brought against anyone else.

It is now four years since the Channel 4 investigation and almost two years since a former director of social services, Keith Makin, was appointed by the NST to carry out a “lessons-learnt” review of the handling of allegations of abuse (News, 1 March 2019; 16 August 2019). In his statement this week, the Archbishop acknowledges that survivors of abuse have endured “a long wait” and says that he is “absolutely determined that the Makin Review will be as comprehensive and strong as it can be. I have given an undertaking that it will be published in full. I pray that this can give some sense of closure for these victims.”

The statement follows a meeting with some of the survivors of Smyth’s abuse. The Archbishop confirms that he has apologised that it has taken so long to arrange the meeting, acknowledging that this has caused “much frustration and anger”. In 2019, a spokeswoman for Lambeth Palace said that he hoped to meet survivors “as soon as possible” (News, 18 April 2019)

“In February 2017, I issued a general apology on behalf of the Church of England, as the story was breaking, and before we understood the full horror and scope of the abuse,” the statement says. “Having met some victims now, I want to offer a full, personal apology. I am sorry that this was done in the name of Jesus Christ by a perverted version of spirituality and evangelicalism.

”It is clear that the impact of this has been widespread. I want to offer this apology, in addition, to those Smyth victims that I have not met. I continue to hear new details of the abuse and my sorrow, shock and horror grows.”

The statement says that the Church “has a duty to look after those who have been harmed. We have not always done that well.” Graham* (a survivor, not his real name) has consistently challenged the Church’s handling of the allegations, including “appalling” communication with survivors (News, 1 March 2019).

In a 2019 Channel 4 interview, Archbishop Welby said that Smyth was “not actually an Anglican” and that the C of E was “never directly involved” — an account immediately disputed by survivors (News, 18 April 2019). Graham’s assertion that Smyth was a Reader in the C of E has since been confirmed.

Last year, the NST concluded that Graham’s complaint against the Archbishop about his handling of allegations about Smyth was “not substantiated” (News, 13 November 2020).

In this week’s statement, the Archbishop seeks to clarify what he knew, and when, about the abuse. Victims are angry, he says, that Smyth was not stopped in 2013, when a disclosure was first made to the diocese of Ely, and the Archbishop was informed (News, 10 May 2019).

“By this time Mr Smyth had been out of the UK for nearly thirty years,” he says. “We, the Church, were unclear as to his activities abroad or indeed to the utterly horrendous scope and extent of his actions here and overseas. I recognise the anger of the survivors and victims but having checked that the Diocese of Cape Town was informed and that the police were properly informed and involved our jurisdiction did not extend further. I believe that by 2013 Mr Smyth was no longer attending an Anglican Church.”

He continues: “These victims are rightly concerned that no one appears to have faced any sanction yet, when it is clear a number of Christians, clergy and lay, were made aware of the abuse in the 1980s and many learned in subsequent years. I have not yet received a list of names. I am told by survivors that some facilitated Smyth’s move to Africa. I have made it clear that the National Safeguarding Team will investigate every clergy person or others within their scope of whom they have been informed who knew and failed to disclose the abuse.”

The Archbishop has also confirmed that he will write to the family of Guide Nyachuru. “I apologise on behalf of the Church of England to all those in Africa who were abused after John Smyth had been uncovered in the UK in 1982, although the Church did not know, owing to the cover up, of the abuse until 2013,” the statement says.

A statement from a group of victims of Smyth’s abuse, issued on Thursday, said: “We are pleased that the Archbishop of Canterbury is taking responsibility and acting as a good example for the other culpable parties involved in our story.” It called on Scripture Union, the Titus Trust, and Winchester College to follow the Archbishop’s lead and “reveal everything they know about the abuses and their coverup. It is clear a large number of individuals, clergy and lay, have known about these abuses for over thirty years and we call on them to cooperate fully with the Makin Review and the National Safeguarding Team. For victims like us, full closure is impossible without full disclosure.”

Martin Sewell, a lay member of General Synod who has read the Ruston report, has suggested that “well over 100 people knew, heard, or suspected that something was seriously amiss in varying degrees” (News, 1 March 2019). Evangelical clergy and organisations have denied knowledge of the abuse (News, 3 March 2017). Canon Ruston died in 1990. Archbishop Welby was a dormitory officer at Iwerne holiday camp in the late 1970s, when Mr Smyth was one of the leaders. He has always maintained that nobody discussed the allegations with him and that he first learned of them in 2013.

The NST has concluded that a former Archbishop of Canterbury, Lord Carey, saw a report about the abuse while he was Principal of Trinity College in the 1980s — a conclusion which he disputes (News, 29 January 2021).

Smyth was a trustee of the Scripture Union from 1971 to 1979. An independent case review (of which only the executive summary has been made public) quotes a former SU national director, the Revd Tim Hastie-Smith, who admits that he was either “grotesquely insensitive” or “extraordinarily incurious” about reports of the abuse (News, 1 April 2021). In October 2014, he wrote: “Apparently, the incident is ‘well known’ and involves a number of high-profile individuals. . . It is hard to see how this incident has remained ‘secret’ for so long.” The review notes that the individuals who received full disclosure of Smyth’s abuse “have all been described by victims as having ‘huge social polish’ which made them very convincing, dominant and persuasive”.

The Titus Trust has said that it will co-operate fully with the Makin review. It has commissioned Thirtyone:eight to undertake an independent review of the current culture of the Titus Trust, due to be published this summer. An earlier review has not been made public. The Iwerne summer camps were closed last year (News, 29 May 2020).

The Makin report was due to report in August last year, but was delayed owing to the coronavirus pandemic (News, 1 May 2020).

Archbishop Welby’s statement concludes: “I know that words are inadequate and will have a different meaning and impact on individuals, but I hope that my words today can convey on behalf of the Church of England and myself our deepest sorrow.”

SURVIVING CHURCH

Further developments in the John Smyth Case

FEBRUARY 15 2021 – THE TALE OF TWO CATHEDRAL DEANS – PART III – FROM THE ARCHIVES [DECEMBER 17 2014] – ARCHBISHOP WELBY’S LEADERSHIP COURSES…” – FINANCIAL TIMES

Leave a reply

JANUARY 24 2021 – FROM THE ARCHIVES [DECEMBER 17 2014] – “CHURCH OF ENGLAND MANAGEMENT COURSES OVERLOOK GOD, SAYS CRITICS” – FINANCIAL TIMES

Leave a reply

Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby

Photo Source: Financial Times

Church of England management courses overlook God, say critics

Financial Times – December 17 2014 – Barney Thompson

Justin Welby defends Lord Green’s business training proposals for senior clergy

The archbishop of Canterbury has defended plans to send senior clergy on leadership courses after critics said the proposal was full of “executive management speak” and barely mentioned God.

A 34-page report, entitled “Talent Management for Future Leaders and Leadership Development for Bishops and Deans: A New Approach”, recommends a “new and dynamic curriculum” to create a “broad and appropriately equipped pool of candidates with exceptional potential for the senior leadership roles” in the Church of England.

It proposes offering senior clerics a 12 to 18-month course with modules on “Building Healthy Organisations”, “Leading for Growth” and “Reshaping Ministry”, and recommends a mini-MBA, “targeted primarily at deans” but which could be extended further down the church hierarchy. The report’s 12-strong panel was chaired by Lord Green, the former HSBC chairman and trade minister, and included Christopher McLaverty, ex-head of talent and learning at BP, as “consultant design manager”, as well as four bishops.

The recommendations — leaked online before publication — have come under fire from the Very Rev Prof Martyn Percy, dean of Christ Church, Oxford, who called them a “dish of basic contemporary approaches to executive management with a little theological garnish”. He added: “This report mentions the word ‘leadership’ 171 times but the word ‘pastoral’ not once, and says very little about God. It is like writing a report about Tesco without mentioning groceries. It is a really poor piece of work.”

The report’s steering group contained no academics in the crucial areas of educational studies, management and leadership, or theology and ecclesiology, said Prof Percy. None of the authors was an ordained woman. “Any academic from those areas would have provided substantial critical interlocution with this report and those voices were excluded. Instead, we got a spiel of executive management-speak.” After writing an article for the Church Times that was highly critical of the proposals, Prof Percy said he had received “hundreds of emails and tweets, and I cannot find anyone who thinks this is a good thing”.

Justin Welby, the archbishop of Canterbury, who is a former senior oil company executive, defended the Green report in an article on the Church’s Tumblr site. He said it set out a process “which enables proper preparation for wider responsibility to be held within a clear Christian context of development of personal spirituality and prayer”.

Archbishop Welby added: “We can’t simply go on as we are if we are to flourish and grow as the Church of England.” The plan envisages 36 diocesan bishops starting the primary course next year. Training will be run by a leading business institution — thought to be Cambridge university’s Judge Business School — and will cost £2m between now and the end of 2016, plus £785,000 a year after that.

Linda Woodhead, professor of sociology of religion at Lancaster University, called the report a “tentative step into the modern world of more meritocratic appointments but without really denting the patronage system” on which the Church still relied. The authors had “dodged a big challenge”, she added, in failing to propose truly opening up the process of advancement.

The Very Revd Professor Martyn Percy – Dean of Christ Church

LETTER SUBMITTED TO THE SPECTATOR – FEBRUARY 3 2021 [UNPUBLISHED]

Dear Editor

The Church of England has essentially been transformed into a secular business corporation, driven by a correspondingly unholy ethos of money, economics and PR management [“Holy relic” / “All that is sacred”, Spectator, Feb 6]

Could this corporate transformation stem from Lord Green’s business training proposals for bishops and deans seven years ago?His 2014 report, “Talent Management for Future Leaders and Leadership Development for Bishops and Deans: A New Approach”, recommended a “new and dynamic curriculum” to create a “broad and appropriately equipped pool of candidates with exceptional potential for the senior leadership roles” in the Church of England. It was supported by the Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby, a former senior oil company executive.
The recommendations came under fire from the Very Rev Prof Martyn Percy, Dean of Christ Church Oxford, who called them a “dish of basic contemporary approaches to executive management with a little theological garnish…This report mentions the word ‘leadership’ 171 times but the word ‘pastoral’ not once, and says very little about God. It is like writing a report about Tesco without mentioning groceries.”
Archbishop Welby didn’t listen. We now have a management-driven church that has replaced pastoral care with executive leadership – a far cry from the church many of us knew and loved.

Yours sincerely

Richard W. Symonds

The Bell Society

THE CHURCH IS NOT A BUSINESS – ANGELA TILBY – CHURCH TIMES

FEBRUARY 12 2021 – “RELAX – WE’VE HIRED CONSULTANTS TO LOOK AT THE PROBLEM” – CARTOON BY ‘HERNEMAN’ – THE SPECTATOR

Leave a reply

“Relax – we’ve hired consultants to look at the problem”

Cartooon by ‘Herneman’ – Spectator

THE SPECTATOR

‘THINKING ANGLICANS’

LETTER SUBMITTED TO THE SPECTATOR [UNPUBLISHED]

Dear Editor

Could this corporate transformation stem from Lord Green’s business training proposals for bishops and deans seven years ago?
His 2014 report, “Talent Management for Future Leaders and Leadership Development for Bishops and Deans: A New Approach”, recommended a “new and dynamic curriculum” to create a “broad and appropriately equipped pool of candidates with exceptional potential for the senior leadership roles” in the Church of England. It was supported by the Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby, a former senior oil company executive.

The recommendations came under fire from the Very Rev Prof Martyn Percy, Dean of Christ Church Oxford, who called them a “dish of basic contemporary approaches to executive management with a little theological garnish…This report mentions the word ‘leadership’ 171 times but the word ‘pastoral’ not once, and says very little about God. It is like writing a report about Tesco without mentioning groceries.”

Archbishop Welby didn’t listen. We now have a management-driven church that has replaced pastoral care with executive leadership – a far cry from the church many of us knew and loved.

Yours sincerely

Richard W. Symonds

The Bell Society

FEBRUARY 12 2021 – FROM THE ARCHIVES [DECEMBER 21 2020] – “CHILD RAPIST VICAR PROTECTED BY CHURCH OF ENGLAND FOR 24 YEARS” – LIVERPOOL ECHO + ARCHBISHOP JUSTIN WELBY

Leave a reply

Child rapist vicar protected by Church of England for 24 years

By Neil Docking Crown Court Reporter – Liverpool Echo

21 DEC 2020

The Archbishop of Canterbury expressed regret about how one complaint against Rev John Roberts was handled

**Former vicar and child rapist John Roberts on stage at St Peter’s church hall, Woolton**

An evil vicar who sexually abused a choirboy but was allowed to carry on working for 24 years ruined the lives of three other victims.

Reverend John Roberts was based at St Peter’s Church in Woolton – the “Beatles church” where John Lennon met Paul McCartney.

The married dad-of-three was convicted of two counts of indecently assaulting a 15-year-old boy in 1989, but fined just £500 by magistrates.

And instead of being defrocked, he was reinstated by the then Bishop of Liverpool, David Sheppard, within a fortnight and eventually promoted to the position of Canon.

Last week, he was convicted of nine indecent and sexual assaults – one of which would today be classed as rape – after a four-week trial.

The jury heard evidence from the Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, who expressed regret for not handling one complaint differently when he was the Dean of Liverpool Anglican Cathedral.

Tragically, one victim – whose complaint to police brought the case to court – died just two days before the trial began in November.

But today the 86-year-old, of Cherry Vale, Woolton, finally faced justice at Liverpool Crown Court.

Roberts ministered at St Peter’s, close to the Salvation Army-run care home at Strawberry Fields, from 1980 to 2002, and later worked voluntarily at Liverpool Anglican Cathedral, before retiring in 2013.

Ben Jones, prosecuting, told the trial Roberts misused his power and authority to sexually abuse vulnerable boys and young men.

He said his behaviour was “compulsive” and “sadly he has been encouraged in the belief that he would not be caught by the failure of the Church to properly investigate allegations”.

**St Peter’s Church in Woolton, Liverpool**

Mr Jones said when accusations were made, the Church “closed ranks to protect him” and took the “superficial approach of refusing to believe a complaint because of the status of the person making that complaint”.

He said: “The Church of England today frankly accepts it fell into error in the way that it dealt with safeguarding issues in the past.”

The victim of the 1989 conviction, Victim A, told jurors Roberts lavished him with gifts and attention, then made him perform sex acts.

In 2017, when taking legal action against the Church, Victim A told the ECHO about his disgust and anger over the Church protecting and promoting Roberts.

Victim B, who died in November, contacted police after reading the article and revealed he was abused by Roberts in the 1980s, when aged 15 to 17.

He had been in Strawberry Fields care home when Roberts, then in his 40s, kissed him, made him perform sex acts and performed sex acts on him, and raped him.

Roberts later arrange for him to stay at his own home in one of his daughter’s bedrooms, when he crept in during the night and tried to perform a sex act on him.

Church goer Victim C also contacted police in 2017 and said Roberts had groped him when visiting his family’s home in the early 2000s, when he was 15 or 16.

He recalled how Roberts told him he was handsome, put his hand down his trousers and touched his bottom, and warned him not to tell anyone.

Victim C today said he had to come forward after disclosing the abuse to his wife, adding: “It’s something that’s weighing on my heart and burning inside me.”

Victim D said Roberts abused him when he was in his 30s, in the 2010s, after he went to the cathedral for support, and Roberts arranged a home visit to his flat.

He said Roberts told him he was handsome, tried to talk about homosexuality, then ran his fingers down his back and touched his bottom over his clothes.

Mr Jones said the understandably angry victim was banned from the cathedral after being verbally abusive to then Dean Welby’s secretary, though this was later lifted.

He was then told by the Church nothing could be done as it was “one person’s word against another”.

Giving evidence about this as a prosecution witness, Archbishop Welby repeated a general apology he gave on behalf of the Church to abuse victims at the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (IICSA) this year.

He then expressed regret about Victim D’s case and said had he been told the full detail of Roberts’ 1989 conviction, he would have dealt with the complaint differently.

During the trial, it emerged that following Bishop Sheppard’s decision to reinstate Roberts so quickly, a narrative had developed in the church community that the 1989 conviction was false and the result of a malicious allegation.

As Bishop David Shepherd reinstated the defendant so quickly he was allowed to push the narrative in church circles that it was a minor bit of inappropriate touching

Mr Jones said Roberts “attacked the character and reputation of each victim” when interviewed by police, suggesting his reputation was impeccable and he had been cleared of wrongdoing by the Church in the past.

He claimed he had no sexual interest in males and that Victim B, who went on to commit crimes including fraud and to have mental and physical health problems, was lying.

Roberts also said the incident with Victim C didn’t happen and that Victim D invited him to his flat and he hadn’t touched him.

Paedophile pretended to be doctor on Skype giving ‘check ups’

Boy from broken home given cash by paedophile for sex acts

At trial, he again challenged the integrity of the victims, suggesting Victims B, C and D invented theirs complaint after reading the ECHO’s coverage in 2017.

Roberts claimed his previous conviction was wrong and unjust and alleged that he didn’t appeal it because a series of lawyers incorrectly advised him that he couldn’t do so without fresh evidence.

He also called witnesses, including family and friends, who gave evidence that he was a good vicar and had never abused them.

However, Mr Jones told jurors: “Throughout his life, John Roberts has had a public face and a private face. The public face was of a loving family man, a kindly and dedicated priest, dedicated to charity, to the poor and vulnerable.

“It has taken the bravery of four men who have no connection to each other, to come forward and shine a light on the private face of John Roberts’ conduct.

“The truth is that throughout his lifetime he has deceived his family, he has deceived his church, both the hierarchy and his own congregation, he has tried to deceive a court previously, and now he is trying to deceive you.”

Martine Snowdon, defending, today asked the judge to take into account Roberts’ age and ill health, including kidney disease, suspected heart disease, glaucoma and back pain.

She said serving a prison sentence at 86 would always be difficult, but Roberts and his wife had been married for more than 50 years, and “the impact for both of them is going to be devastating”, particularly during the present pandemic, when there are no visits in jail.

Ms Snowdon said Roberts also had “positive good character”, including “selfless hard work, which has positively influenced the lives of very many people”.

Judge Brian Cummings, QC, said Victim A’s case would be dealt with very differently today.

He told Roberts: “After a short period of suspension, you were reinstated by the then Bishop of Liverpool and you were allowed to continue in your ministry, as if nothing had happened.”

The judge said Roberts “grossly abused” his position of trust to abuse Victim B, which had “devastating lifelong effects upon him”, and in a statement before he died, Victim B said he hoped the outcome of the trial would help him finally “find peace”.

The judge said any positive good character Roberts had was “two-edged”, as the fact he was held “in such high regard” allowed him to get away with his crimes for so long.

Judge Cummings said: “You have been able to live a very full life for many years because these offences have gone undetected.

“Your victims on the other hand, have had to live with what you did to them.”

He jailed Roberts for nine years.

Roberts will serve at least two thirds of his sentence – six years – behind bars and must sign on the Sex Offenders Register for life.

If you want to report a sexual offence whether recent or not, please DM @MerPolCC or message the force on Facebook at ‘Merseyside Police Contact Centre’.

Alternatively, you can contact the independent charity Crimestoppers anonymously, on 0800 555 111 or via their online form at: https://crimestoppers-uk.org/give-information/give-information.

FEBRUARY 12 2021 – “‘PRIVATE EYE’ STORY ON WOOLTON CASE” – CHURCH TIMES LETTERS + ARCHBISHOP JUSTIN WELBY

Leave a reply

Church Times Letters – ‘Private Eye story on Woolton case’

From Mr David Roberts

Sir, — I was nurtured in the Christian faith at St Peter’s, Woolton, Liverpool, before 1980, and members of my family continued to worship there. I was not surprised to read (News, 1 January) of the conviction and imprisonment, just before Christmas, of the previous Rector, Canon John Roberts (no relation), for several sexual offences over a long period both at Woolton and at Liverpool Cathedral.

Rumours of these matters had circulated for many years in the wake of Canon Roberts’s conviction, in 1989, for two sexual offences. Canon Roberts’s sentence in 1989 had been light, and he was allowed to continue his ministry at Woolton until his retirement in 2002. After that, he ministered as a volunteer chaplain, subject to conditions, at the cathedral.

In 1989, many in the local church and diocese appeared to believe that there had been a miscarriage of justice.

The matter has been amply reported in the Church Times, and extensively in the local press, but not nationally, perhaps because of Christmas, Covid, and Liverpool’s perceived provincial obscurity.

An aspect that might, in more normal times, have attracted national attention was the appearance of the Archbishop of Canterbury as a witness for the prosecution. The Liverpool Echo reported on 21 December: “The jury heard evidence from the Archbishop of Canterbury, who expressed regret for not handling one complaint differently when he was the Dean of Liverpool Anglican Cathedral.”

The case has now attracted the attention of Private Eye and others.

Private Eye recently reports that, in 2011, one of John Roberts’s victims had complained to Dean Welby about Canon Roberts’s misconduct. The complainant put his case so forcibly that the Dean banned him from the Cathedral. An email from the Dean to Canon Roberts at the time included the following:

“. . . in the absence of any independent evidence and in the light of his behaviour today we accept your account. . .” and “. . . for obvious reasons you are more vulnerable to unfounded allegation than others. . .”

This correspondence was considered by IICSA in 2019, but it was heavily redacted, and only lightly touched on when the Archbishop of Canterbury gave evidence to IICSA, and was not the subject of a formal conclusion by IICSA, all presumably because Canon Roberts’s actions were sub judice.

It has not yet emerged that the Dean had involved any bishop or the police in the complainant’s concerns in 2011.

This leaves considerable pastoral, jurisdictional, and other legal conundrums.

How does the Church independently consider the actions of a priest in one of its Provinces after that priest has become the Metropolitan of the other Province?

This unhappy tale highlights continuing grave questions about the quality and consistency of episcopal decision-making (including the assessment of possible conflicts of evidence) on judicial matters at a senior level in the Church of England, and about the discipline of bishops.

DAVID ROBERTS
St Albans

FEBRUARY 4 2021 – “FATHER FORGIVE” – ‘CHURCH NEWS’ – PRIVATE EYE [NO. 1540 – 5 FEBRUARY – 18 FEB 2021]

FEBRUARY 11 2021 – FROM THE ARCHIVES [SEPTEMBER 11 2020] – “ELLIOTT CONDEMNS PR RESPONSE TO HIS [2016] SAFEGUARDING REVIEW” – CHURCH TIMES + TIM THORNTON BISHOP OF LAMBETH

Leave a reply

Ian Elliott

Elliott condemns PR response to his safeguarding review

THE author of a strongly critical safeguarding review of the Church of England has condemned the revelation that the National Safeguarding Team (NST) responded to his recommendations by initiating closer ties between insurers, communications officers, and legal staff.

The review by Ian Elliott, a safeguarding consultant with the Churches’ Child Protection Service, concluded in 2016 that the C of E’s procedures were “fundamentally flawed” (News, 18 March 2016). At the time, the Archbishop of Canterbury pledged to implement speedily all the changes called for.

Now, a document from 2016 which sketches out how officials at Church House, Westminster, intended to deal with the recommendations has emerged, revealing efforts to work more closely with Ecclesiastical Insurance Group (EIG), the Church’s insurers who are responsible for compensation payments to survivors and victims of abuse.

“On August 9th there was a meeting of 4 people from EIG and members of the archbishop’s council, including the legal team, Comms and safeguarding team to look at a more joined up approach in relation to press/media on stories,” the document states.

Mr Elliott said that he was shocked to hear that this was one of the lessons learned for the Church from his report.

“The revelation that learning for the Church in respect of the settlement process, placed an emphasis on a closer liaison between ‘Comms, legal team, and safeguarding’ to prepare for responding to press and media stories, is truly shocking. It completely misses the point.

“It shows that their primary interest was defending the institution rather than caring for the survivor. Issues of justice and compassion are not mentioned. What they have learned is that they need to be better at defending themselves.”

When Gilo, the survivor whose case prompted the Elliott review, and who procured the document through a records request, asked for detail on this meeting, he was told that there were no minutes held at Church House and that none of the participants had any recollection of it.

He later managed to secure EIG’s own minutes of the meeting, which show that participants discussed the “reputational risk” posed by Gilo’s case to both the Church and the insurer.

The meeting also considered the decision to cease all contact with Gilo by church figures in 2014 after he began a civil compensation claim, a decision taken by Church House’s legal department, but backed up by EIG.

This eventually, and mistakenly, led to the removal of pastoral support that had been provided by the Church, a decision castigated by the Elliott review and something that both the Bishop of Durham, the Rt Revd Paul Butler (who was then lead bishop for safeguarding), and staff at Lambeth Palace later said they “bitterly regretted”.

Phil Johnson, who chairs the group Minister and Clergy Sexual Abuse Survivors, said that the meeting unearthed by Gilo was, sadly, typical. “It demonstrates the duplicitous way in which the church hierarchy twists and spins such advice to its own self-serving ends,” he said.

“The Church’s first instinct is to run to its insurer, to consider the financial implications to the institution and not the survivor. It then immediately considers how its image may be impacted and how to ‘manage’ media reporting of such cases.”

A spokeswoman for the C of E said: “The Church has apologised to Gilo and commissioned the Elliot review to look into its handling of the case; we acknowledge the appalling effects of his abuse and we are grateful for his important survivor voice in our ongoing safeguarding work.

“Both the Church and Ecclesiastical had lessons to learn from the Elliott review, and there is ongoing dialogue about cases where survivors have felt let down.”

FEBRUARY 11 2021 – FROM THE ARCHIVES – [JULY 24 2019] – “PROFESSIONAL BULLIES AND ABUSERS WITHIN THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND” + THE ELLIOTT REVIEW 2016

Leave a reply

JULY 24 2019 – “PROFESSIONAL BULLIES AND ABUSERS WITHIN THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND” + THE ELLIOTT REVIEW 2016

July 24 2019 – “Professional Bullies” and the Church of England

https://www.thinkinganglicans.org.uk/christ-church-governing-body-criticised-for-its-attacks-on-the-dean/#comments [Martyn Percy – See Comments]

“The sex abuse that was perpetrated upon me by Peter Ball pales into insignificance when compared to the entirely cruel and sadistic treatment that has been meted out to me by officials, both lay and ordained. I know from the testimony of other people who have got in touch with me over the last five or 10 years that what I have experienced is not dissimilar to the experience of so many others and I use these words cruel and sadistic because I think that is how they behave. It is an ecclesiastical protection racket and [the attitude is that] anyone who seeks to in any way threaten the reputation of the church as an institution has to be destroyed”~ Revd Graham Sawyer – IICSA Inquiry – July 2018

1. “An ethically challenged Church? Bullying and threats” – ‘Surviving Church’ – Stephen Parsons

July 23, 2019 Stephen’s Blog Stephen Parsons

Among the many documents attached to the recent IICSA hearings was an email correspondence dating back to 2015 between a survivors’ group and the Archbishop of Canterbury. I would not have picked up on this exchange but for an alarming article last Friday in the Church of England Newspaper by Sheik Muhammad Al-Husseini. Al-Husseini has core status in the IICSA hearings and although he is not directly involved in the Anglican side of the hearings, he seems remarkably well-informed about the detail of what is going on in our church. He has also spoken to several survivors and their lawyers.

The correspondence, to which Al-Husseini refers, mentions that in 2015 one of the things that survivors were complaining about to the Archbishop was the use by some dioceses of a particular company to protect their interests, Luther Pendragon, a specialist in crisis management. Without knowing anything further about this firm, one is immediately concerned to discover that at least two dioceses are spending considerable sums of money on this kind of advice. If any institution brings in professional help to protect its interests then it means that this institution has decided that it needs to ‘circle the wagons’ to protect itself against a perceived enemy. Who is this enemy? The enemy is evidently none other than the survivors themselves. These are the same people, whose interests the Archbishop of Canterbury has promised to put right at the centre of the Church’s concerns.

The letter addressed to the Archbishop on the 12 June 2015 claims that ‘scandal management companies like Luther Pendragon Limited .. are known to have acted to obstruct, apply pressure and threaten survivors, whistleblowers and others who have spoken out about Anglican clergy abuse’. Even without reading the letter detailing the techniques used by this firm, we seem to be entering a very dark place. A diocese of the Church of England (two are mentioned, London and Winchester) has felt it right to use the services of what can only be described as professional bullies to protect its reputation. The victims of this bullying are among the most vulnerable group in society – the sexually and spiritually abused. How can this be ethical, let alone Christian? One survivor I know was informed that it was normal practice for the Church or its agents to collect personal information about complainants to assist in the potential legal defence processes which might lessen the potential liability of the Church. A particularly nasty attack that survivors have had to face is the suggestion that, before their abuse, they were in some way already mentally fragile. Thus, any symptoms of post-traumatic stress they may now be suffering, were already present.

Al-Husseini’s article also mentions the fact that the Church of England nationally employs one particularly aggressive law firm to protect its interests. A particular lawyer in this firm has acquired from survivors the nickname the Pitbull on account of her techniques of intimidation and merciless interrogation of survivors. The article overall gives us some insight into a thoroughly unpleasant culture. On the outside there are pleasing soft words, tears of remorse and apology. Inside we find a ruthless machine full of hard-headed professional reputation people aligned to aggressive lawyers desperate to defend, at all costs, the institution.

It is to be hoped that this inclusion by IICSA of the 2015 document naming, and hopefully shaming, the underhand methods of Luther Pendragon, shows that the Inquiry is fully aware of hypocritical goings-on in the Church. A further area of injustice remains to be resolved. This is the way that the Church has tried, through its professionals, to discredit a highly respected international expert on safeguarding, Ian Elliott. In 2015 Ian produced a comprehensive report about the treatment of one particular survivor, known to IICSA as A4. In his report which has not been published in full, Ian criticised the advice given to the Church by lawyers and others to withdraw pastoral and other support from A4. The Church, after initially enthusiastically receiving the report and promising to implement its findings in full, started to draw back from this support. We do not know of course what was said behind closed doors at meetings of strategists and advisers but evidently senior people desperately wanted to discredit the report’s recommendations. Within six to nine months it became just another report to be shelved and forgotten. By that time the bishop who had been asked by the House of Bishops to oversee its implementation, Sarah Mullally, had been promoted from Crediton to London. Here her new responsibilities made the task of overseeing the implementation of the Elliott report impossible to fulfil. The criticism that Elliott had made in his report about the withdrawal of pastoral care for A4 was not picked up by the Church or responded to. Nevertheless, there were enough denials and rumours around to suggest that this was not a true record of what had happened and this allowed the Church to wriggle out of any obligation to implement any part of the report. No one in the leadership of the Church attacked Elliott, but neither did they, in the end, do anything to support him or put his recommendations into practice.

The doubts which had been cast over the Elliott report were finally confronted as the result of detective work presented to the IICSA enquiry. Documents were uncovered which showed that there was, as he had claimed, written advice in circulation which gave clear advice to dioceses that A4 and other survivors were to be cut off from all communication with the Church if they made civil claims against it. This included the withdrawal of pastoral support just as Ian Elliott had accurately reported. This whole story was explored in the BBC Sunday programme on July 21st.

When we take an overall view of the way the Church has been behaving in regard to the survivors of sexual abuse it is hard not to use a series of adjectives which would include the words murky, disreputable and dishonest. The gall needed to spend the Churches’ money on a company such as Luther Pendragon, which has made its name on defending tobacco companies and the nuclear waste industry, suggests that there are a considerable number of senior clergy who are in danger of losing their moral compass.

Every time a lie is told to a survivor, or a committee listens to ethically doubtful advice from an expensive lawyer, corruption enters in. Individuals may have arrived at a meeting decent and honourable. By the end of a meeting when they may have colluded in a blatant piece of expedient management of a survivor, there has been a slippage into colluding with evil activity. This makes them participants in the evil themselves.

The saga of Jonathan Fletcher rumbles on. Many people are asking how an individual with a history of doubtful behaviour and no PTO was able to access many pulpits in Britain and abroad over the past 2 ½ years. Every such invitation involved another person in authority defying the rules of the Church. Were these invitations made in conscious defiance of church rules or is it a case of information not being shared? Then there is the deliberate ‘cleansing’ of mentions of Fletcher on various websites. Who had the authority to perform such an act? One author of a piece which had mentioned Fletcher in his original piece, only to see the name disappear, protested to me personally about this underhand and unauthorised editing. The censorship shows every sign of being coordinated. Thankfully no one has access to my blog posts so that my, no doubt provocative, posts on the topic remain up for anyone to read.

The Church at the institutional level and through its non-official manifestations seems to be going through a crisis of morality. In spite of thousands of sermons preached each Sunday, the response to abuse survivors is apparently sometimes mired in shady, often shameful activity. At the heart of this activity, as we have said many times before, is the need to preserve the good name of the structure. How long will it be before this reputation polishing exercise collapses in total failure and the questionably ethical behaviour of so many church people becomes manifest? That will be possibly the beginning of the end for our national Church.

COMMENTS

Rowland Wateridge

July 23, 2019 at 6:28 pm

Quoting what you say about survivors’ pre-existing conditions (if any) “A particularly nasty attack that survivors have had to face is the suggestion that, before their abuse, they were in some way already mentally fragile. Thus, any symptoms of post-traumatic stress they may now be suffering, were already present.”

That goes entirely against the long-standing legal concept that “you take your victim as you find him” (the word ‘victim’ may seem unfortunate in this context) also known as the “Egg-shell Skull Rule . This is a legal principle that the frailty, weakness, sensitivity, or feebleness of a victim cannot be used as a defence to a civil claim by the victim. In other words, put as simply as possible, it doesn’t avail an assailant, an abuser or a negligent car driver that they have injured someone who might be pre-disposed to injury due an existing condition. If someone has brittle bones, the law treats a broken leg as a broken leg regardless of the existing condition.

I’m sure others will have views on the wider topic here.

English AthenaJuly 23, 2019 at 7:33 pmBut if the vicar/Archdeacon/bishop thinks it is a defence, it will work. And the survivor will still recognise they have been reabused. And I’ve been lied to and lied about. Corruption is not an unreasonable word. Brilliant post Stephen.
Rowland WateridgeJuly 23, 2019 at 8:53 pmNo vicar, archdeacon or bishop may disregard the law of the land (the ‘Eggshell-skull Rule’ is equally the law in some other jurisdictions), and if they ‘think’ differently, that is immaterial. I have to say there is a question mark in my mind whether the Church itself has adequate legal advice sometimes, or if it is even sought, when matters of this kind arise.The point you make really goes to the question of proper and adequate representation and assistance to the survivor. If he or she had automatic access to legal advice, this spurious talk about pre-existing conditions would be knocked on the head very quickly.Luther Pendragon are not solicitors, although it is possible that they might have staff lawyers. If so, they, in turn, will know the Eggshell-skull Rule.

2. 02/03/2018 – Church of England faces ‘deep shame’ at child abuse inquiry” – The Guardian – Harriet Sherwood

3. 13/07/2019 Ecclesiastical Insurance – The Church of England and the IICSA

Photo John Titchener (left) – Ecclesiastical Insurance Office [EIO]. David Bonehill (right) – Ecclesiastical Insurance Group [EIG]

InquiryCSA – Friday – 12/07/2019 – Page 29 & 30

Q. = Nikiti McNeill [IICSA]A.1 = John Titchener [Group Compliance Director for the Ecclesiastical Insurance Office]A.2 = David Bonehill [UK Claims Director for the Ecclesiastical Insurance Group]

MS McNEILL: Do you think…A4, as the victim, should have had to wait or fight as long as he has in order for this to be clarified on the record?

MR BONEHILL: No.

MS McNEILL: Finally, I want to read directly…the guiding principles that you told us about last week from Ecclesiastical. The first of those guiding principles is that policyholders…should respond to victims and survivors in such a way that it is not experienced or seen as negative, resistant or unhelpful, because this can create relationship difficulties and may worsen their well-being. Do you think that in managing this entire issue, Ecclesiastical has lived up to that guiding principle?

MR BONEHILL: Could we have done it better? Yes, I accept that point.

MS McNEILL: …as a statement of principle, it is a good one, isn’t it?

MR BONEHILL: Yes, it is. I agree entirely.

MS McNEILL: Do you think that you lived up to that principle?

MR BONEHILL: I think we could have done better

MS McNEILL: Thank you.

Above in summary form by #AnglicanHearing

Q. – Do you think that as the victim, should have had to wait or fight as long as he has in order for this to be clarified on the record?A. – NoQ. – Ms McNeill reads from the guiding principles of Ecclesiastical, focusing on the fact that treatment of survivors should not be negative or worsen their well being. She asks, in their handling of the A4 issue, does he consider Ecclesiastical to have lived up to these principles?A. – The witness acknowledges that they have not

@InquiryCSA – Friday – 12/07/2019

Mr. Rory Philips QC [Counsel for the Ecclesiastical Insurance Office – EIO]

“Where the Inquiry has not sought a specific answer to criticisms made, then as a matter of basic fairness, it is not possible for you to arrive at a conclusion as to whether these criticisms are well founded….“Because that would offend the guiding principle if I can use that phrase again, which must inform all of the work of this, as of any inquiry, namely fairness….

“EIO is an insurer. It is a commercial organisation. And perhaps some of the difficulties for claimants here arise because they expect EIO to behave towards them rather more as if it was the church”

“IICSA reprimands Ecclesiastical over earlier advice to C of E and evidence to Inquiry” – Church Times – 12/07/2019 – Hattie Williams

“The sex abuse that was perpetrated upon me by Peter Ball pales into insignificance when compared to the entirely cruel and sadistic treatment that has been meted out to me by officials, both lay and ordained. I know from the testimony of other people who have got in touch with me over the last five or 10 years that what I have experienced is not dissimilar to the experience of so many others and I use these words cruel and sadistic because I think that is how they behave. It is an ecclesiastical protection racket and [the attitude is that] anyone who seeks to in any way threaten the reputation of the church as an institution has to be destroyed”

~ Revd Graham Sawyer – IICSA – July 2018

THINKING ANGLICANS

IICSA Anglican Church hearing day 10

on Friday, 12 July 2019 at 2.56 pm by Simon Sarmiento
categorised as Church in Wales, Church of England, Safeguarding

Today, the final Friday, was originally intended to be used only for closing statements from the lawyers representing the various parties. However, it was announced at the end of Thursday that an additional witness would be called first on Friday morning. This turned out to be David Bonehill, Claims Director of EIG and and John Titchener, Group Compliance Director of EIO.

The Church Times has a report of what happened: IICSA reprimands Ecclesiastical over earlier advice to C of E and evidence to Inquiry

Transcript of day 10 hearing.

List of documents adduced on day 10 (but none have as yet been published)

July 13 2019 – “The Matt Ineson Story – Archbishops challenged” – ‘Surviving Church’ – Stephen Parsons

“The truths about Matt’s ‘shabby and shambolic’ treatment by the church after his original assault thirty + years ago will probably never be completely known. What we have seen is at best incompetent treatment but at worst dangerously cruel”The words of Revd Graham Sawyer are not to be forgotten – said at the IICSA Inquiry last year – July 2018:“The sex abuse that was perpetrated upon me by Peter Ball pales into insignificance when compared to the entirely cruel and sadistic treatment that has been meted out to me by officials, both lay and ordained. I know from the testimony of other people who have got in touch with me over the last five or 10 years that what I have experienced is not dissimilar to the experience of so many others and I use these words cruel and sadistic because I think that is how they behave. It is an ecclesiastical protection racket and [the attitude is that] anyone who seeks to in any way threaten the reputation of the church as an institution has to be destroyed”

July 28 2018 – IICSA Transcript – Final Day – July 27 2018

Mr William Chapman, counsel for complainants, victims and survivors represented by Switalskis and also who represents MACSAS:

Page 135-136: “He [George Carey], in the words of Andrew Nunn, did try to sweep it under the carpet. If George Carey thought by doing so he served the reputation of the church, it was a gross misjudgment. The tactics deployed by the church were at the very edge of lawfulness. We heard how Bishop Kemp attempted to compromise Mr Murdock. We heard how several bishops telephoned Ros Hunt to ask her to tell the young men who had made complaints not to speak to the police or the press. We heard how Michael Ball, Bishop of Truro, had been contacting witnesses and, in Mr Murdock’s view, trying to influence them. We do encourage the police to review whether any of these matters, in particular the actions of the bishops who contacted Ros Hunt, disclose offences of perverting the course of justice”

Mrs Kate Wood

Page 89-92

Q. How would you characterise the emails you received from Neil Todd? You received a number I think at this time?

A. I did. He, I think, was surprised this was being raised again. He was very calm about it, I felt. He wanted information, and why wouldn’t he? I wanted to give him as much information as I could, but, for the reasons you have outlined, I had to be a bit careful. I didn’t have any emails from him that showed any great distress at that point. He was obviously anxious, and he wanted information. But he was very calm and composed with his emails. I could tell he was also very angry at the church, and, again, why wouldn’t he be? So I tried to support him through that.

Q. In your witness statement at paragraph 149 you refer to the fact that in his later emails in particular he was clearly angry with the church —

A. Yes.

Q. — and was feeling anxious. You refer to an email — I think the reference is wrong, but the correct reference is ACE001870. This is an email to Jeremy Pryor. Why is it that you have this email, Mrs Wood?

A. I can only think that Jez, Jeremy, copied me in on it, I think.

Q. You think Jeremy copied you in or did Neil Todd copy you in? The reason I say that is in your summary you seem to think that Neil copied you in when he wrote this to Jeremy?

A. I don’t know, sorry.

Q. That’s all right. Don’t worry about that. If we can go down to the fifth paragraph of the long email that begins, “So the difficulty”. I think this is the email you are referring to in your witness statement:

Neil Todd’s Email to Mrs Kate Wood/Jeremy Pryor

“So the difficulty of the black-and-white events of Peter Ball’s behaviour are not in the acts themselves — but the fact that he corrupted my genuine search for something good with acts which were obviously intentional for his own sexual gratification in the guise of a wise teacher nurturing and caring of a young seeker, aspiring to good intentions.

“When he denied his behaviour, this struck at my deepest conscience — it was then that the reality of what I allowed him to do — was not moral. The reality that his behaviour was not for my good or inspirational guidance.

“He only had to admit that what he did — actually occurred — this would then have made some sense to me. If he could admit that lying on top of me naked, his ejaculations, the naked showers under his instruction, the threat of physical beatings was all part of his unique path to spiritual guidance, was normal, then maybe we could have accepted that his intentions were good, just unusual. But his denial of all that occurred resulted in deep disillusionment. I personally felt ashamed for allowing this behaviour to occur, for allowing myself to be so gullible and not question or seek guidance earlier. This could have redirected my path. I could have joined a true community and been guided appropriately. The church should also have showed a greater deal of support but to dismiss me after the incident with no due care, simply resulted in full disillusionment with the institution as a whole. I genuinely felt the church was covering up, but at the worst it affected my personal relationship with God and my genuine search in faith. When Peter accepted a caution, he stated with penitence and sorrow he was accepting the police caution, but, again, the church was saddened by his resignation.

“All I want is the truth to be known without suspicion. I want Peter to admit in black and white that the events that took place did take place — that none of this was my imagination — nor my fault. I want the black-and-white questions to be answered.

“I would also request that the church take responsibility for not acknowledging nor supporting nor investigating my concerns.

“I heard that Peter had a new candidate when I was based in London — I wonder if he too experienced similar behaviour.

“I have survived all this, led a normal life — I changed direction after a few years of rebellion, to say the least, and commenced training as a registered nurse. I have been qualified since 1999 and have been working as director of nursing for indigenous communities in Australia. I have a loving and supportive partner of 18 years and am generally considered normal.

“Unfortunately, I never had counselling to deal with nor work through the emotions that occur after such a personal incident — but, yes, I can accept that Peter Ball’s behaviour has left its mark. I am not a vindictive person — I only wish for an acknowledgement that my experience was a reality and that all Church of England hierarchical parties take a share in the responsibility of their inaction.

“Regards, Neil.”

Closing remarks by Fiona Scolding QC

Page 175-176

Chair and panel, obviously it is not the role of counsel to the inquiry to sum up. I just have a very few brief remarks. I would like to thank everybody — in particular the legal teams and all the witnesses who have attended — for their patience and cooperation. I would also like to thank everyone for the courteous and respectful way in which this hearing has been conducted and in their approach and role towards us as counsel to the inquiry.
Just a few statistics, so that everyone can feel that they have earned their fees: 108,000 pages of documents were received by the inquiry during this investigation, and 53,244 pages were disclosed; 118 witness statements were obtained from 23 97 individuals; we have heard 14 live witnesses and three read witnesses.
Last, but by no means least, we want to hold and remember Neil Todd and his family and hope that they are able to find peace and solace after what must have been a painful reawakening of their memories.
We also wish to thank all the other victims and survivors, whose courage in speaking to us and whose insight, wisdom and understanding is both central and essential to the work of this inquiry. We apologise for any distress and upset that this week may have caused to them. Thank you very muchAdvertisements

FEBRUARY 8 2021 – FROM THE ARCHIVES [JULY 31 2020] – “UNJUST, ARBITRARY, UNPRINCIPLED, INSTITUTIONALLY OVER-DEFENDED, AND INDEFENSIBLE” – GENERAL SYNOD’S MARTIN SEWELL ON THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND SAFEGUARDING PROCESS

Leave a reply

“UNJUST, ARBITRARY, UNPRINCIPLED, INSTITUTIONALLY OVER-DEFENDED, AND INDEFENSIBLE” – GENERAL SYNOD’S MARTIN SEWELL ON THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND SAFEGUARDING PROCESS

Analysis: Church of England safeguarding inquiries go to the top

Iwerne Minster. Image credit: Mike Searle CCLicense

July 31, 2020

By Andrew Brown

The Church of England has admitted that there are about 30 separate safeguarding inquiries under way into senior clergy — bishops or cathedral deans. This figure includes a proportion of retired clergy. There are only 104 active bishops in the whole Church of England and 42 deans.

A C of E spokesman said: “We have approximately 30 national cases with the majority being where senior clergy or church officers have not reported allegations of abuse to the relevant safeguarding adviser, the local authority or the police, or made other inappropriate decisions.”

The highest-profile involve the Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, and a predecessor, Lord Carey, who are subject to inquiries for safeguarding lapses, Carey for the second time. The new Archbishop of York, Stephen Cottrell had to apologise for a lapse before being confirmed as Archbishop on 9 July.

It was revealed this week that Welby is subject to an inquiry after a complaint was laid against his handling of the revelations about John Smyth, who was accused of beating boys at Christian holiday camps.

Carey, who was Archbishop of Canterbury from 1991 to 2002, is also subject to an inquiry in connection with the same case, after earlier being punished for his failure to act decisively against the paedophile bishop Peter Ball.

One cathedral dean, Martyn Percy of Christ Church, Oxford, has been accused of safeguarding failures — which he denies — in the course of a vicious long-running campaign by elements in his college to get rid of him.

The Bishop of Lincoln, Christopher Lowson, has been suspended without a hearing since May last year and faces an investigation under the clergy discipline measure, which governs misconduct among the clergy. This has been fiercely criticised for unfairness.

One synod member, Martin Sewell, has called the process, “unjust, arbitrary, unprincipled, institutionally over-defended, and indefensible”.

This month, a study of nearly 6,000 clergy, including nearly 300 who had been subject to a clergy disciplinary measure investigation, found widespread levels of stress and distress. Even though most of these cases had nothing to do with safeguarding, Dr Sarah Horsman — warden of Sheldon, an independent retreat centre and support hub for those in ministry — found that 40 per cent of those investigated had thought that “it would be better for other people if they were dead”, and a similar proportion had considered suicide.

Three per cent had actually attempted suicide. Fewer than one in five thought they had been treated as innocent until or unless proved guilty.

Where safeguarding allegations are involved, the C of E sets up “core groups”, a term used in social work, where all the parties involved, including the parents, are represented. But in the church’s version of core groups, communications officers are always present but there is no representation for the accused: “The analogy drawn to local authority child protection core groups is incorrect,” said a spokesperson for the C of E. “The closer analogy are strategy meetings, involving police and social care and other agencies, to determine response to a child protection referral. Families are never invited to these, nor are minutes shared.”

But, they added: “Respondents, or those about whom allegations have been made, are informed about what those allegations are. [They] are given an opportunity to give their response to allegations during the course of an investigation, whether in person face to face, or in writing . . . Respondents are offered support; it is the role of the diocese to identify an appropriate person.”

Nor, they said, did the existence of a core group mean that allegations were accepted as fact. “The core group’s role is to determine what action needs to happen to establish facts, or where facts are not in dispute, to manage possible risk and for example commission investigations and/or risk assessments.”

The core groups, in other words, have taken over the functions that bishops once had and which successive scandals have revealed that many grotesquely mishandled.

Critics claim that the core groups are concerned more with the reputation of the church than the protection of either the victims of abuse or those unjustly accused of safeguarding failure.

Lord Carlile, QC, said last week: “I do not believe that the church has got to grips with the fundamental principles of adversary justice, one of which is that you must disclose the evidence that you have against someone, and give them an equal opportunity to be heard as those making the accusation.

“And you cannot give them an equal opportunity if there are conflicts of interest involved. Anyone with a conflict of interest must leave the deliberations and take no further part.”

Two members of the core group investigating Percy were removed because of conflict of interest.

In the light of this discontent, there has been widespread criticism of the apparent special treatment received by Welby and Cottrell when compared with the action towards less exalted clergy. The official press release announcing the inquiry into Welby’s conduct did not mention his name, using only the word “Lambeth”. The inquiry into Cottrell’s conduct was secret until it was concluded with an apology from him.

The case against Welby goes to the heart of a powerful network of public school evangelicals centred on summer camps at Iwerne Minster in Dorset for teenage boys from elite schools.

Smyth, who died suddenly in 2018, was a barrister tightly connected to the Iwerne network. Public schoolboys were beaten so brutally “for the good of their souls”, that one victim attempted suicide rather than face another beating. That brought his crimes to the attention of the trust that ran the camps but it did not report him to the police or expose his behaviour. Smyth moved to Zimbabwe, where he set up a further camp. After an adolescent boy died there, he moved on to South Africa and continued to work with young people.

Detailed knowledge of his crimes was confined to a tight inner circle in Britain all this while. He had picked his victims from among the elite of public school evangelicals, who did not, however, confess their sufferings even to each other until the story began to become public.

One, Andrew Watson, is now the Bishop of Guildford. Other graduates of the Iwerne camps, though ignorant of Smyth’s methods, include Welby himself, who had known Smyth in the late 1970s. As an undergraduate, Welby had lodged with Mark Ruston, the Cambridge vicar to whom Smyth’s crimes were first reported and who had written an internal report in 1982 outlining cases of abuse, but it was not sent to the police.

The silence around Smyth’s abuse lasted nearly 30 years until 2012, when a survivor known in public as Graham, first reported Smyth’s crimes to yet another Iwerne man, since ordained.

After nearly a year of inaction, the vicar passed the complaint on to the Bishop of Ely, Stephen Conway, one of the few characters in this story who had not been to an elite school or to Iwerne. Conway passed the story on to Lambeth Palace, who passed it back to the bishop. This was technically correct, but in terms of human sympathy it was a disaster. “Ever since then, my understanding is that Justin Welby has blanked ‘Graham’,” said one observer.

It is this sequence of events and the criticism of the collective response, that has led to the present complaint against Welby.

“Graham” claims that he received no worthwhile support from the diocese — just one offer of £100 to pay for counselling, 22 months after he made his complaint; that he was never formally interviewed by anyone from the diocese, nor by the police; and that he had written to the diocese on six occasions asking what had been done to stop Smyth’s activities in South Africa, and that he received many replies saying in essence that there was nothing the English diocese could do if the South African church was ignoring the matter.

He is understood to feel that even if the Bishop of Ely had no power over the South African church, the Archbishop of Canterbury certainly had a moral power that he could have exercised. His complaint is that the inaction of the English church allowed Smyth to continue to meet and groom young men for another four years.

JANUARY 30 2021 – “THE CHURCH’S UNJUST TREATMENT OF CLERGY HAS CREATED A CLIMATE OF FEAR” – GEORGE CAREY [FORMER ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY] + “LORD CAREY: CLERGY LIVE IN A CULTURE OF FEAR IN THE CHURCH” – GABRIELLA SWERLING – DAILY TELEGRAPH

Leave a reply

Former Archbishop of Canterbury George Carey

Photograph: Murdo Macleod

“THE CHURCH’S UNJUST TREATMENT OF CLERGY HAS CREATED A CLIMATE OF FEAR” – GEORGE CAREY [FORMER ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY] – DAILY TELEGRAPH – JANUARY 30 2021

“The Church’s unjust treatment of clergy has created a climate of fear” – George Carey

I am far from alone in having fallen foul of a slow and secretive approach to disciplinary matters GEORGE CAREY 29 January 2021 • 10:00pm

Earlier this week, my Permission to Officiate was returned eight months after it was perfunctorily removed. To others it may seem a small or arcane thing but PTO for the retired priest is essentially a licence which allows you to assist your local vicar and continue to help keep the ministry of the church going in your small part of the nation. Retired priests are the backbone of the Church of England.

Priesthood is a lifelong vocation and though having a continuing ministry isn’t something that should be automatic nor should it be taken away without due process.

Yet last June I was told brutally that after 58 years of serving the church faithfully my ministry was withdrawn because of some kind of association, which I had no knowledge of, with John Smyth, QC. Smyth was a lawyer who also savagely beat young Christian boys from top public schools until they bled, with some perverse theological justification that his efforts would make them more “holy”.

I had no memory of him. He apparently came to Trinity Theological College Bristol in 1983, where I was Principal, to pursue a sabbatical term or two of independent study. I have only been able to find one member of staff who remembered him.

An investigation took place under the auspices of a secretive and anonymous body, called a core group, which concluded that on the basis of a vague reference in a letter between two evangelical clergymen, who themselves knew about Smyth’s abuses, that details of his abuses had been passed to me. Incidentally, I understand that these clergy, and others, who had close knowledge of Smyth’s crimes, have never had their ministry revoked.

In contrast I, from a secondary modern school in Dagenham who had no associations with the top public schools, or the elite circles in which John Smyth and these other clergy moved, was judged guilty. If I had seen the “memo” listing Smyth’s terrible deeds it would have been seared on my memory. But the investigator and the core group took no note of my protestations, nor of the testimony of a senior member of staff at the college who gave clear evidence as to why I could not have known. And to this day the core group will not shift from the conclusion that they have “credible and supporting evidence” that I knew about Smyth some 30 years before his crimes were finally brought to light.

This matters because I am not the only one experiencing these unjust measures. Last year, it was reported that many clergy were left feeling suicidal by the way they were treated during the Church of England’s disciplinary processes.

Martyn Percy, Dean of Christ Church, Oxford, has been in conflict for the last few years with a governing body which, having exhausted all other avenues, has resorted to core groups and the church’s disciplinary system. After my experience, I fear they may succeed in their attempts to remove him. The current Bishop of Lincoln, Christopher Lowson, has been suspended since May 2019. What monstrous system of justice leaves a bishop in such a difficult quandary for so long?

Similarly the late and great George Bell, the war-time bishop who rightly opposed blanket bombing of Germany, was adjudged to be guilty of child abuse more than 50 years after his death. Lord Carlile, reviewing the case later, said that the core group had “rushed to judgement” without carefully weighing the evidence. He urged the Church of England to allow those accused to be represented on the core group. As a result the Church of England now allows deceased persons to be represented – but not living persons, as I have found to my cost.

In contrast to these cases, and mine, recent safeguarding complaints about both the Archbishops of Canterbury and York have been closed quickly with judicious speed and finality. I have no reason to doubt that they were dealt with properly but those of us who have suffered the stutteringly slow, brutal and impersonal face of the Church of England’s core group process have reason to complain about the disparity.

This is not the Church of England that I have known – generous, open and kind. Tragically, I know that victims of clerical abuse found the Church of England in the past to be defensive and uncaring, and I greatly regret my part in that culture and those terrible attitudes. But it does not do to replace one failure with another. The current culture of fear in which survivors and clerics alike receive no kind of justice must be confronted.

Lord Carlile, QC, gives advice that the Church of England should urgently follow: “There should be root and branch reform, to provide investigative and disciplinary processes comparable with that for doctors and other professional groups.” I agree that independent oversight is now the only way ahead to provide justice for all.

And to those who ask why this matters, my reply is that in a week when we suffered our 100,000th Covid death, the church needs to be a strong, compassionate and generous body, with clerics who are free of fear to speak of hope and love to our needy world.

Lord Carey was Archbishop of Canterbury, 1991-2002

SELECTED COMMENTS

I entirely share Lord Carey’s view that current accusations of misconduct in the Church should be handled by an independent professional body. However, the Church must then be prepared to accept the recommendations of such an independent body. Recent events suggest that this would be fiercely resisted.

Historical accusations of abuse are more problematic. Many accusations of abuse are fully justified. Others can be based on fantasy or deliberate malice and even the Police can be misled (as in recent high-profile cases). In other cases, crucial evidence is missing or hidden. Any formal accusations of historical misconduct in the Church would therefore need to be investigated by a professional body that included independent historians. These could give advice on the quality and credibility of the evidence presented. Given the acrimonious quality of current disputes in the Church (and the vigour with which they are pursued), the likelihood of any reform seems slender. 30 Jan 2021 1:11AM

2. With their appalling record on abuse and the years of denial intended only to cover it up and protect the good name of the church, would any other organisation be allowed to still operate in the UK? These are those that thought people were less important than reputation. I am not religious but I do hope there is a God that will demand an explanation of what they did in his name. 30 Jan 2021 12:18AM

3. Sadly under the present Archbishop of Canterbury the Church of England has let everyone down and the current crisis has exposed a very un-Christian core at the top. It is presumably the same core that needs the root and branch reform recommended by Lord Carlile QC.

4. I am sorry for what you have been through, but glad that you have had your PTO restored to you. I have good reason to know that retired priests are indeed the backbone of the Church of England – our little church in France has been well served by them for all of the 23 years. I have been a member of the congregation!

“LORD CAREY: CLERGY LIVE IN A CULTURE OF FEAR IN THE CHURCH” – GABRIELLA SWERLING – DAILY TELEGRAPH – JANUARY 30 2021

Lord Carey: Clergy live in a culture of fear in the Church of England

Lord Carey of Clifton – Screenshot of Photo by Andrew Crowley for the Daily Telegraph

Former Archbishop of Canterbury criticises Church’s ‘brutal’ treatment of him over abuse allegations By Gabriella Swerling, SOCIAL AND RELIGIOUS AFFAIRS EDITOR29 January 2021 • 11:53pm

Lord Carey, 85, has had his ban on ministering overturned CREDIT: EDDIE MULHOLLAND

The former Archbishop of Canterbury has criticised the Church of England’s “brutal” treatment of him over allegations he covered up abuse, saying that both survivors and clergy face a “culture of fear”.

The Telegraph revealed this week that Lord Carey, 85, had his ban on ministering overturned, and fellow clergy members urged Church officials to instead “concentrate their energies on those who are genuinely at fault”.

In June last year it emerged that Lord Carey had his permission to officiate (PTO), which is required for any Church of England priest to preach or minister, revoked.

At the time, the Church of England said that new evidence linking Lord Carey to a review into abuse by the late John Smyth QC, had emerged.

The barrister, who died aged 77 in 2018, was accused of attacking boys he met at a Christian camp during the Seventies and Eighties. Seven months after Lord Carey’s ban, the Rt Rev Dr Steven Croft, the Bishop of Oxford, reinstated his PTO because he did not “pose a safeguarding risk”.

Lord Carey, who was Archbishop of Canterbury from 1991 to 2002, has now attacked the Church and its “monstrous” treatment of members of the clergy who are accused of or alleged to have committed wrongdoing.

Writing in The Telegraph, he describes “suffering the stutteringly slow, brutal and impersonal face of the Church of England’s” internal complaints process and reiterates that he is “not the only one experiencing these unjust measures”. He adds: “Last year, it was reported that many clergy were left feeling suicidal by the way they were treated during the Church of England’s disciplinary processes.”

John Smyth was accused of attacking boys he met at a Christian camp during the Seventies and Eighties

The clergy disciplinary measure process is under review amid calls for reform and concerns that accused clergy are left suicidal at the “toxic” and drawn-out process.

Lord Carey also criticised the Church’s “culture of fear” and demanded that survivors and clerics both have equal opportunities for justice. He said: “This is not the Church of England that I have known – generous, open and kind. Tragically, I know that victims of clerical abuse found the Church of England in the past to be defensive and uncaring, and I greatly regret my part in that culture and those terrible attitudes. But it does not do to replace one failure with another.

“The current culture of fear in which survivors and clerics alike receive no kind of justice must be confronted.”

Lord Carey’s PTO was withdrawn after the independent Learning Lessons Case Review into Smyth referred to two letters to the national safeguarding team of the Church of England.

They prompted concerns that when Lord Carey was principal of Trinity College Bristol in 1983-84, he had received a report concerning Smyth’s “evil conduct” in the early Eighties and had not disclosed these concerns to the appropriate authorities.

Smyth attended the college for a short period part-time. The safeguarding team concluded that Lord Carey had seen the report, which he denies.

The Church of England said: “When a safeguarding concern is raised the Church has a duty to respond and follows the House of Bishops guidance. All safeguarding concerns involving church officers are treated in the same way, irrespective of their position in the Church … We continue to learn and are committed to putting survivors at heart of our work.”

	OCTOBER 28 2023… on OCTOBER 18 2023 – THE FI…
	sandrasaer on OCTOBER 16 2023 – THE GE…
	sandrasaer on OCTOBER 14 2023 – THE VI…
	sandrasaer on OCTOBER 14 2023 – THE VI…
	sandrasaer on March 12 2019 – Popes, B…

The Bell Society

Justice for Bishop George Bell of Chichester – Seeking Truth, Unity and Peace

Tag Archives: Archbishop Justin Welby

SEPTEMBER 11 2021 – SHAME ON ECCLESIASTICAL INSURANCE GROUP [EIG] AND PRAISE FOR AN INVESTIGATIVE JOURNALIST

Award for Investigative Journalist supporting Abuse Survivors: Issues for the Church of England

MAY 20 2021 – “ARCHBISHOP WELBY ANNOUNCES FURTHER INVESTIGATIONS INTO JOHN SMYTH CASE” – CHURCH TIMES

Archbishop Welby announces further investigations into John Smyth case

FEBRUARY 15 2021 – THE TALE OF TWO CATHEDRAL DEANS – PART III – FROM THE ARCHIVES [DECEMBER 17 2014] – ARCHBISHOP WELBY’S LEADERSHIP COURSES…” – FINANCIAL TIMES

JANUARY 24 2021 – FROM THE ARCHIVES [DECEMBER 17 2014] – “CHURCH OF ENGLAND MANAGEMENT COURSES OVERLOOK GOD, SAYS CRITICS” – FINANCIAL TIMES

FEBRUARY 12 2021 – “RELAX – WE’VE HIRED CONSULTANTS TO LOOK AT THE PROBLEM” – CARTOON BY ‘HERNEMAN’ – THE SPECTATOR

FEBRUARY 12 2021 – FROM THE ARCHIVES [DECEMBER 21 2020] – “CHILD RAPIST VICAR PROTECTED BY CHURCH OF ENGLAND FOR 24 YEARS” – LIVERPOOL ECHO + ARCHBISHOP JUSTIN WELBY

Child rapist vicar protected by Church of England for 24 years

RELATED ARTICLES

FEBRUARY 12 2021 – “‘PRIVATE EYE’ STORY ON WOOLTON CASE” – CHURCH TIMES LETTERS + ARCHBISHOP JUSTIN WELBY

FEBRUARY 11 2021 – FROM THE ARCHIVES [SEPTEMBER 11 2020] – “ELLIOTT CONDEMNS PR RESPONSE TO HIS [2016] SAFEGUARDING REVIEW” – CHURCH TIMES + TIM THORNTON BISHOP OF LAMBETH

Elliott condemns PR response to his safeguarding review

OTHER STORIES

Wiki – Elliott Review controversy

FEBRUARY 11 2021 – FROM THE ARCHIVES – [JULY 24 2019] – “PROFESSIONAL BULLIES AND ABUSERS WITHIN THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND” + THE ELLIOTT REVIEW 2016

July 24 2019 – “Professional Bullies” and the Church of England

https://www.thinkinganglicans.org.uk/christ-church-governing-body-criticised-for-its-attacks-on-the-dean/#comments [Martyn Percy – See Comments]

1. “An ethically challenged Church? Bullying and threats” – ‘Surviving Church’ – Stephen Parsons

2. 02/03/2018 – Church of England faces ‘deep shame’ at child abuse inquiry” – The Guardian – Harriet Sherwood

3. 13/07/2019 Ecclesiastical Insurance – The Church of England and the IICSA

InquiryCSA – Friday – 12/07/2019 – Page 29 & 30

@InquiryCSA – Friday – 12/07/2019

Mr. Rory Philips QC [Counsel for the Ecclesiastical Insurance Office – EIO]

“EIO is an insurer. It is a commercial organisation. And perhaps some of the difficulties for claimants here arise because they expect EIO to behave towards them rather more as if it was the church”

“IICSA reprimands Ecclesiastical over earlier advice to C of E and evidence to Inquiry” – Church Times – 12/07/2019 – Hattie Williams

~ Revd Graham Sawyer – IICSA – July 2018

THINKING ANGLICANS

IICSA Anglican Church hearing day 10

July 13 2019 – “The Matt Ineson Story – Archbishops challenged” – ‘Surviving Church’ – Stephen Parsons

July 28 2018 – IICSA Transcript – Final Day – July 27 2018

FEBRUARY 8 2021 – FROM THE ARCHIVES [JULY 31 2020] – “UNJUST, ARBITRARY, UNPRINCIPLED, INSTITUTIONALLY OVER-DEFENDED, AND INDEFENSIBLE” – GENERAL SYNOD’S MARTIN SEWELL ON THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND SAFEGUARDING PROCESS

Analysis: Church of England safeguarding inquiries go to the top

JANUARY 30 2021 – “THE CHURCH’S UNJUST TREATMENT OF CLERGY HAS CREATED A CLIMATE OF FEAR” – GEORGE CAREY [FORMER ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY] + “LORD CAREY: CLERGY LIVE IN A CULTURE OF FEAR IN THE CHURCH” – GABRIELLA SWERLING – DAILY TELEGRAPH

“The Church’s unjust treatment of clergy has created a climate of fear” – George Carey

Lord Carey: Clergy live in a culture of fear in the Church of England