Tag Archives: Archbishops’ Council

“Three Days of Hell for Church of England” – IICSA [July 10, 11 & 12 2019]

2000px-Logo_of_the_Church_of_England.svg

REVD MATTHEW INESON – IICSA – JULY 10 2019
‏@InquiryCSA

https://www.iicsa.org.uk/key-documents/12767/view/public-hearing-transcript-10-july-2019.pdf

“I cannot see the face of Jesus in the Archbishop of Canterbury or York. I see hypocrites and I see pharisees. I see the people that Jesus stood up against.

“I’m sorry to be so direct, I’m a Yorkshire man. I don’t think those people are fit for office.”

“Bishops sit on thrones. They live in fine palaces and houses, they wear the finest robes and garments.

“People literally kneel down and kiss the ring on their finger.”

“That’s why they are protecting themselves.”

“Why would I want an apology?”

“It’s recognition of what happened and how I’ve been treated.”

Matthew Ineson tells the #AnglicanHearing he was promised an apology multiple times but it never materialised.

A fringe meeting at last year’s general synod allowed clerics including the Archbishop of York, John Sentamu to meet sexual abuse survivors.

Rev. Matthew Ineson says John Sentamu physically grabbed and challenged him – “he’s arrogant, he’s rude and he’s a bully”.

 

Ms Scolding QC asks Archbishop Sentamu if his wife, who was recently ordained, had undergone relevant training and vetting.

He states that she has been vetted, and her training will begin in September.

He (Archbishop Sentamu) states that the only way to change the culture within the church is through training, and to ensure that this is consistent. (3/3)

IICSA Hearings and Seminars

Archbishop Sentamu Replying to @InquiryCSA

“I hope the way I carry out my ministry people realise I’m a vulnerable person like anybody else. I am not a saint. I am capable of doing something wrong.”

 

He (Archbishop Sentamu) agrees that instead, the church should have held higher standards given its moral position.

Ms Scolding QC asks Archbishop Sentamu whether believes he has made a personal mistake in the course of responding to disclosures of clerical abuse during his career.

“Hand on heart, I don’t think so.”

 

“He’s arrogant, he’s rude, and he’s a bully” – Revd Matthew Ineson of Archbishop Welby’s fellow Archbishop John Sentamu [IICSA – 10/07/2019] – “Now that’s what I call a ‘significant cloud'” ~ Richard W. Symonds

MS SHARPLING: Thank you, Archbishop Sentamu. Could you
10 just clarify something for me: we heard evidence from
11 Mr Ineson today, and if the church accept that he was
12 abused as a young lad whilst under the care of
13 the church, is there now any impediment for an apology
14 to be given for that abuse? Leaving aside anything that
15 might have happened subsequently, is there any
16 impediment in the collective church mind that prevents
17 an apology to Mr Ineson for that original abuse?

18 A. I think the real problem comes because the evidence is
19 contested.

20 MS SHARPLING: I see.
21 A. And the review hasn’t happened. And I’m hoping that
22 that review will be swift and quick. It’s still,
23 I think, waiting on Mr Ineson agreeing the terms of
24 reference for this particular review. So hopefully, it
25 will be swift. I hope it will happen. I actually think that, I mean, it is a very difficult one, because you do not want to either be flippant about what kind of apology [‘confetti apologies’] you are giving. For it to be substantive, actually, you have got to get all the facts out, and the review should take place, I hope as soon as possible, because on one CDM my understanding is that the evidence was completely contested”

 

Q. And to ask you whether you had any contact with the
17 Archbishop John Sentamu —
18 A. I did.
19 Q. — at that event?
20 A. I did. I’d never seen John Sentamu before and, if
21 I never see him again, it will be too soon, in my
22 opinion. It was a fringe meeting arranged so that
23 General Synod members could meet with victims of abuse.
24 And there were many victims — 40, I don’t know the
25 exact number, but there were many, and members of the
Page 55
1 problems himself”. I said, “You were disclosed to five
2 years ago. You did nothing. So, go on, say you’re
3 sorry”. And he answered, “Apologies mean different
4 things to different people”. And then he said to me,
5 and I didn’t get this, “There is a boulder between you
6 and I”. He said, “You have put a boulder between you
7 and I”. And I said to him, “The only thing in front of
8 you, Mr Sentamu, is the possibility you will now have to
9 answer for your actions and you don’t like being
10 answerable to anybody”. And his answer was, “One day,
11 we will talk”, and he took his hand off my shoulder and
12 walked away.
13 I went outside and I saw a lady from the NST — I’m
14 sure it’s Heather, but I’m — I told her what happened,
15 “I’ll make you a cup of tea. Are you all right?” When
16 I look back now, you do not, whoever you are, walk in
17 a room full of victims of abuse and physically get hold
18 of them and challenge them. But it’s who he thinks he
19 is. He’s arrogant. He’s rude. He’s a bully.
20 Q. This, I understand that you’re talking about happened at
21 the fringe event at General Synod last year?
22 A. It did.
23 Q. I understand that you were part of the event together
24 with Sheila Fish, from —
25 A. Yes.
Page 54
1 General Synod, and Justin Welby and John Sentamu were
2 there. At the end of the meeting, people milling about,
3 John Sentamu came over to me. The whole meeting,
4 I could feel his eyes in the back of my head — do you
5 know what I mean? But he came up to me, and he came
6 really in my face, too close, and he grabbed me by the
7 shoulder and he held me by the shoulder, and he said to
8 me, “One day, you and I will talk”. So I said, “Well,
9 I only live half an hour away. You put the kettle on,
10 I’ll come over and we’ll talk”. And the look was, “Who
11 do you think you’re speaking to?”. And then he said,
12 “One day we will pray together”. And I said, “That will
13 never happen, but I will talk to you”. And he said to
14 me — and he was holding me the whole time, and he said,
15 “What do you want? What do you want?” I said, “I want
16 you to apologise and I want Steven Croft and all the
17 others to apologise”. I said, “You ignored my
18 disclosure of abuse. You left my abuser five years to
19 potentially abuse again”.
20 As part of the police investigations, they
21 discovered that Trevor Devanamanikkam was looking for
22 rent boys online.
23 I said, “And then he’s charged with very serious
24 charges against me. He then climbs in a bath and stabs
25 himself to death and then it’s discovered that he had
Page 56
1 Q. — whom we have already heard, from SCIE?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. One of the things that she said — chair, you might
4 remember — was that the victims and survivors had
5 spoken to her about the change and the practical changes
6 they would like in the church and that, largely, she had
7 considered those to be practical, sensible changes. So
8 my final question for you is, building on that, what
9 practical recommendations or changes do you think would
10 help the church to respond better to allegations of
11 child sexual abuse?
12 A. I have no desire to damage the church at all or bring
13 the church down. That’s not my thing. The overriding
14 motive for me is to help prevent that abuse happens
15 again, and I think there are people in position in the
16 church who shouldn’t be there who have repeatedly made
17 mistakes, shall we say, if we’re kind, about
18 safeguarding.
19 I think safeguarding should be totally out of
20 the hands of the Church of England.
21 Q. So managed outside of the church?
22 A. Totally. You can’t do your own work. You can’t
23 investigate yourself. There’s too much bias there.
24 There’s too much conflict of interest.
25 I also believe, personally, in mandatory reporting
IICSA Inquiry – Anglican Church Investigation 10 July 2019
(+44)207 4041400 casemanagers@epiqglobal.com London EC4A 1JS
Epiq Europe Ltd http://www.epiqglobal.com Lower Ground 20 Furnival Street
15 (Pages 57 to 60)
Page 57
1 because I — the church don’t seem to really, in their
2 heart, want to do that. They talk about it, but they
3 don’t do it. I can’t understand, if you discover that
4 abuse is possibly happening, or you receive
5 a disclosure, you pick the phone up to the police. It’s
6 as simple as that. It doesn’t have to go through all
7 the different layers of the Church of England, and if
8 I thought a little girl or boy was being abused, I would
9 pick the phone up to the police then, and that is
10 mandatory reporting, as far as I see. I’m simple.
11 Simple thinking.
12 Q. No, not at all. That concludes the questions I have for
13 you, unless we have missed something very key that you
14 wanted to raise that might assist the chair and panel in
15 their conclusions and recommendations?
16 A. No, there is just one thing I would say. There’s
17 a couple of things. You were talking before about
18 apology, why would I want apology.
19 Q. Yes.
20 A. Firstly, it is recognition. It is recognition of what
21 happened and it is recognition of the way that I have
22 been tret. I was told, in July 2017, by Graham Tilby
23 that I would — had I had an apology? I said “No”. He
24 said, “I can sort that out for you”. That was two years
25 ago. I have never had it.
Page 59
1 I have even in the church been called “a common
2 northerner” before now, at a safeguarding thing. I want
3 to say — I really want to say thank you to David
4 because I wouldn’t be here without David, and to people
5 like Richard who represent victims of abuse. Without
6 that support, I would still be not knowing what to do.
7 I also want to thank my MP, who is here today.
8 Yeah. Her staff and her get it, and she has been
9 totally, totally supportive, and I understand she’s
10 written to the Archbishop of Canterbury and asked on
11 more than one occasion to meet with him to discuss my
12 case. A letter of 17 January 2018 has still not had
13 a formal response. Over a year.
14 I want to say thank you to the many victims, and
15 I’ve met many now, who really are courageous people.
16 Some of them are here today, a lot of them will be
17 watching. I don’t actually even want to be here today.
18 This is something I never in my life wanted to do. But
19 I am. But the truth is, none of us ever asked for it to
20 happen, the abuse to happen, and the re-abuse, and
21 I want to say thank you to this inquiry for all you’re
22 doing, and I just hope that — I believe the church will
23 nod at the end of this and say, “Thank you very much.
24 We will take note”, and they will just revert to form.
25 They are not going to change unless they are made to.
Page 58
1 Moira Murray told me that I would get a formal
2 apology from the church when the legal case against
3 Trevor Devanamanikkam was over. That was two years ago
4 since he died, and I have never had an apology.
5 I was then told by Moira I would get a formal
6 apology when the civil case was settled. That was
7 a year next month. I have never had a formal apology.
8 Justin Welby was interviewed by a journalist student
9 in Canterbury and the first question was, “Why hasn’t
10 Matthew had an apology?” He promised to chase that up.
11 That was last year, I think. I have never had the
12 apology.
13 I have never had a formal apology at all, but
14 I think there’s an obvious reason for that: because they
15 would have to admit the bishops’ failings if they
16 apologised for it. I have never even had a formal
17 apology for the abuse from Trevor Devanamanikkam — the
18 abuse by Trevor Devanamanikkam.
19 Can I just finally say a scenario I want to share
20 with you: I am a Yorkshireman, as you’ve probably
21 gathered. David Greenwood always says, “You’re straight
22 talking”, that’s how it comes. I don’t think the church
23 can cope with that. That’s been my experience. They
24 want to go around the houses and through the layers and
25 do all that. Straight talking, they can’t cope with.
Page 60
1 They can’t be trusted.
2 And I say that as a clergyman. I am still a priest
3 of the Church of England and I don’t believe the
4 hierarchy can be trusted. Justin Welby sat in this very
5 room a few weeks ago, with tears in his eyes, and said
6 he’d learned to become ashamed of the church. I do not
7 understand why that is the case, because the vast
8 majority of the Church of England, clergy and lay, would
9 never abuse anybody, and would report it, and they would
10 be horrified by the abuse. It isn’t the vast majority.
11 It is a small amount of people. And then it’s the
12 re-abuse by the bishops and the archbishops themselves,
13 and I think, if any shame wants applying, it needs to be
14 applied to the Archbishop of Canterbury and the
15 Archbishop of York and the House of Bishops, and not all
16 the bishops, but the vast majority of them. What
17 they’re — and the NST and William Nye and all that lot
18 at Church House. I think they are cruel, and that’s the
19 word.
20 What would Jesus do in this situation? He wouldn’t
21 do what they’re doing. And I just think this comes down
22 to — it’s the old story: abuse is about power.
23 Devanamanikkam’s power over me, he used. John Smyth did
24 the same over his victims. Peter Ball. All of them.
25 That abuse of power is used again, and again, and again
IICSA Inquiry – Anglican Church Investigation 10 July 2019
(+44)207 4041400 casemanagers@epiqglobal.com London EC4A 1JS
Epiq Europe Ltd http://www.epiqglobal.com Lower Ground 20 Furnival Street
16 (Pages 61 to 64)
Page 61
1 by the bishops of the Church of England without — they
2 ignore disclosures. They leave the abuser to carry on.
3 Then, when you complain about those bishops, the
4 Archbishop of Canterbury just takes no further action,
5 no further action, no further action. It’s a complete
6 cycle. That’s what the problem with the Clergy
7 Discipline Measure is, because they’re investigating
8 themselves, and it destroys people. It really does.
9 And why? Because bishops sit on thrones. They live
10 in fine houses and palaces, they wear the finest robes
11 and garments, which cost the earth. I know, because
12 I’ve sat I sell ’em them?in them. They bully people.
13 Yeah? People literally kneel down and kiss the ring on
14 their finger. Who would give that up? They don’t want
15 to, and that’s why they’re protecting themselves. It
16 really does drive people to distraction. And I say no
17 more. I really say no more. Enough is enough. And
18 I think the victims are far tougher and stronger people
19 than the archbishops and the bishops of
20 the Church of England, and, as a priest, I can tell
21 you — and I say this as a priest — I cannot see the
22 face of Jesus in the Archbishops of Canterbury or York.
23 I see hypocrites and I see Pharisees, the people who
24 Jesus stood up against.
25 I’m sorry to be so direct. I’m a Yorkshireman. But
Page 63
1 any reason. Just raise your hand or indicate to me that
2 you wish to do so. Next, there are two bundles in front
3 of you which have the vast majority of the relevant
4 documents I am going to take you to, but exhibits will
5 also be got up on screen. If, like me, you find reading
6 things difficult unless it is in slightly larger font,
7 please do indicate and we can blow the font up as large
8 as you need it.
9 We have two witness statements from you, Mr Iles:
10 one dated 9 November 2017, which has already been
11 published on this investigation’s website; and one dated
12 1 May 2019 at ACE026967. Chair and panel, behind tab A1
13 of your bundle.
14 Now, I’m not going to — I am going to assume that
15 you signed both of those witness statements, your
16 signature, however, being subject to a cover. Did you
17 sign both of those witness statements?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Have you had an opportunity to read them recently?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Are the matters set out there true, to the best of your
22 knowledge and belief?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Mr Iles, just to identify, you are a barrister employed
25 by the Church of England legal office since 2004, and
Page 62
1 I don’t think these people are fit for office. Thank
2 you. I’m sorry I have gone on.
3 MS McNEILL: No, no, thank you, Mr Ineson. Chair, do you or
4 the panel have any questions for this witness?

 

IICSA Transcript – 10/07/2019 – Revd Matthew Ineson & Archbishop John Sentamu

https://www.iicsa.org.uk/key-documents/12767/view/public-hearing-transcript-10-july-2019.pdf

 

“If we can’t admit to being wrong or making a mistake, we can’t genuinely say sorry or apologise because we don’t think we’ve done anything wrong. That moral denial of human fallibility will breed an arrogance which most people see but to which the arrogant person is blind” ~ Richard W. Symonds

~ Richard W. Symonds – on reading Archbishop John Sentamu’s answer when Fiona Scolding QC asks him [at the IICSA 10/07/2019] whether he believes he has made a personal mistake, in the course of responding to disclosures of clerical abuse, during his career: “Hand on heart, I don’t think so”, the Archbishop replies.

 

“He’s arrogant, he’s rude, and he’s a bully” – Revd Matthew Ineson of Archbishop Welby’s fellow Archbishop John Sentamu [IICSA – 10/07/2019] 

IICSA – July 11 2019 –

Fiona Scolding QC: “Do you think the Church needs to be more willing to admit past mistakes?”

Justin Welby, Archbishop of Canterbury: “The history of the Church does not encourage accountability…Accountability is structural [aka ‘The System’]

Fiona Scolding QC [in questioning Graham Tilby]: “The issue here surrounds the fact that, with the greatest respect to diocesan bishops, they have all the power and no accountability” 

July 11 2019 – IICSA Thursday 

– Page 50

Q. = Fiona Scolding QC

A. = Graham Tilby [National Safeguarding Advisor]

 

Q. Once Mr Galloway had reported, I think the decision was made that the decision as to whether or not the allegation was substantiated or not should be made by somebody independent of the core group?

A. Yes.

“So I understand you commissioned an analysis, shall we say, of whether or not, on the balance of probabilities, this complaint was met or not from a Mr Briden, who is a senior ecclesiastical lawyer. His case — his report is ACE026752, B81. There’s a summary of his report at paragraph 348 of your witness statement, but, essentially, what he identifies is that there is no realistic prospect of bringing a claim, and describes the evidence as unfounded” 

A. Yes. 

Q. But as part of that process, as I understand it, both Bishop Bell’s family were represented by Desmond Browne QC

A. That’s right. 

Q. — acting on a pro bono basis? 

A. Yes. 

Q. And Alison was represented by Mr Chapman [ @Switalskis ?] as I understand it 

A. Yes, indeed. 

Q. — who is sitting in this room here today? 

A. Yes. 

Q. And they made various submissions, because we have got various orders that were made in the case?

 

Archbishop Justin Welby – IICSA – July 11 2019

“We have got to learn to put actions behind the words, because ‘Sorry’ is pretty cheap”

IICSA – Friday –

MR CHAPMAN: Chair and panel, we act for ten victims of Anglican clerical sexual abuse and the survivors support group, MACSAS.
May I deal with one matter immediately, which is Archbishop Welby’s letter produced yesterday in which he purported to apologise to Mr Ineson in 2017. That letter was provided to the inquiry yesterday, and to us only a few minutes before you came in at 2.00 pm. So Mr Ineson has not had an opportunity to formally respond to it. But the archbishop relied on that letter as suggesting that he gave an apology in 2017, and the words he relied upon were in the final paragraph, and
I read: 

“… deeply sorry, yes, for the abuse, from your description of how this has been dealt with by the church.”

Mr Ineson roundly rejects that as an apology for how he has been treated in the church. It is mealy-mouthed. It does not frankly accept that the church treated him badly in the words of Bishop Hancock, “shabbily and shambolic”. Yesterday was an opportunity for the archbishop to say before Mr Ineson in public, “I accept and I apologise for the way you were treated in that shabby and shambolic manner and for my part in it”. That was not just a discourtesy to Mr Ineson; it shows that the archbishop, in his own words, still doesn’t get it.

 

IICSA – Friday – 12/07/2019

Mr O’Donnell [Slater & Gordon] – “Bishop Selby’s answers to Mr Frank [IICSA] indicated that the Anglican Church might just be trying to run down the clock, might be making all the right noises whilst this Inquiry is ongoing, and then getting back to business as usual once these hearings are finished”

InquiryCSA – Friday – 12/07/2019

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

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.1 – No
Q. – 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.1 – 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

 

bonehillsmiling-20190712120653085_web

IICSA Anglican Church hearing day 10

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)

“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”

~ Reverend Graham Sawyer – IICSA – July 2018

“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”

 

May 21 2019 – Bishop Gavin Ashenden on Bishop George Bell and The Deleted Files – Anglican Unscripted 505 [Time: 20.45 to 28.05]

img_0011

Bishop Gavin Ashenden

The implications of hiding crosses in churches. Anglican Unscripted 505.

Anglican Unscripted 505 – Bishop Gavin Ashenden on Bishop George Bell [Time: 20.45 to 28.05]

Ref: “Footprints In The Sand – tracking changes in online content” – A short report for The Bell Society by Peter Crosskey

https://richardwsymonds.wordpress.com/2019/05/20/may-20-2019-footprints-in-the-sand-tracking-changes-in-online-content-chichester-cathedral-website-a-short-report-for-the-bell-society-by-peter-crosskey/

IMG_2845

May 14 2019 – “George Bell Group issues new statement” – ‘Thinking Anglicans’ – Simon Sarmiento

George Bell House - 4 Canon Lane - Chichester Cathedral

George Bell House – 4 Canon Lane – Chichester Cathedral – before the name change [Picture: Alamy]

George Bell Group issues new statement

George Bell Group issues new statement

The George Bell Group has issued this: Statement May 2019.

Since October 2015 when the Archbishops’ Council announced that they had paid compensation to the woman given the pseudonym ‘Carol’, who alleged that she had been abused by Bishop George Bell, his defenders have criticised the Church authorities for never once affording the Bishop the presumption of innocence.  Now, after the inquiries of Lord Carlile and Timothy Briden, it can be seen that the allegations against Bishop Bell were unfounded in fact.

THE CARLILE REVIEW

The Carlile report, whose conclusions (save as to publicity) the Church accepted, criticised the investigation of Carol’s allegations as a rush to judgment predicated on Bell’s guilt. It concluded that the decision to settle with Carol was indefensibly wrong and that the process completely ignored the Bishop’s reputation and the interests of his surviving family, including his very elderly niece.

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 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.

Regrettably Archbishop Welby added his authority to the destruction of Bell’s reputation: on Good Friday 2016, before the Carlile report was completed, he told BBC Radio that the investigation of Carol’s claim had been ‘very thorough’ and the finding of abuse correct on the balance of probabilities. We now know how far from the truth that was.

The Archbishop told Lord Carlile during his inquiry that if there had not been a proper investigation of Carol’s story, the Church would have to apologise. But sadly, when the Carlile report was published in December 2017, he chose not to do so. To the disappointment of Bell’s defenders, he appeared to reject the presumption of innocence; instead he commented that there was still ‘a significant cloud’ left over Bishop Bell’s name without giving any explanation of why he continued to hold that view in the face of Lord Carlile’s conclusions.

THE ‘FRESH INFORMATION’ AND THE BRIDEN PROCESS

The publicity given to the Carlile report appears to have triggered a copy-cat claim by the woman given the name Alison. The Core Safeguarding Group which had been responsible for the shambolic investigation of Carol’s claim now set about trying to substantiate that by Alison. They may well have hoped that the similar facts alleged by Alison would corroborate the discredited Carol. But within weeks the police, to whom the Core Group had reported the matter, closed their enquiries.  Next an investigation by a senior retired police officer commissioned by the Church quickly showed that Alison’s evidence was unreliable and incapable of supporting any adverse finding against the Bishop.

Mr Briden reported that her account not only had internal inconsistencies but was also contaminated by her having read Carol’s story, a contamination revealed by her repeating verbatim some of Carol’s words which had been reported in the press. He ended his report by saying that all the allegations against George Bell remitted to him were unfounded.

Many will have hoped that on reading Mr Briden’s report Archbishop Welby would have publicly acknowledged that the cloud of which he had previously spoken had been dissipated. He did not do so.

THE DUTY OF THE CHURCH NOW

The history of the treatment by the Church of England of the reputation of George Bell has become a scandal. It is now the plain duty of the Church of England, nationally and in the Diocese of Chichester, to make amends by working to restore Bishop Bell’s reputation, not least in institutions which were once proud to adopt his name.

We welcome the decision of Canterbury Cathedral to revive a commission to create a statue of Bell and note the expression of ‘delight’ with which the Archbishop of Canterbury has responded. We acknowledge with gratitude the firmness with which the Dean and Chapter of Christ Church, Oxford have maintained and cherished the chapel there dedicated to Bell’s memory throughout the controversy. We note that the meeting room dedicated to Bishop Bell remains, as before, at the World Council of Churches in Geneva.

It is only in Chichester itself, the place in which Bishop Bell lived and worked for almost thirty years and where his ashes are interred in the cathedral, that any public adoption of his name is now suppressed.

We find the public stance of the Bishop of Chichester, Dr Martin Warner, incomprehensible and indefensible. The Bishop’s ‘Response’ to the Briden Report, published on 24 January 2019 and now promoted on the websites of the diocese and cathedral, only went as far as to acknowledge that ‘Bishop Bell cannot be proven guilty’. He added that it could not be ‘safely claimed that the original complainant [i.e. Carol] had been discredited’. This is a most regrettable insinuation that there was, or likely was, substance to Carol’s allegation and hence that Bell was to be suspected of abuse.

The Bishop emphasised the defamatory innuendo by asking ‘those who hold opposing views on this matter to recognise the strength of each other’s commitment to justice and compassion.’ There is, regrettably, no evidence in this response of the Bishop’s commitment to justice or of any compassion towards those who are wrongly accused. His words have been repeated verbatim by the Bishop at Lambeth in response to a Question at the recent session of the General Synod of the church. Indeed, the Bishop even invoked the authority of the House of Bishops in support of this view. So far as we are aware the House has never even discussed the matter.

Such words simply preserve the impression that there was, and remains, a case against Bell. A not dissimilar state of mind was revealed by the Chichester Diocesan Safeguarding Officer when he told the Child Abuse Inquiry in March 2018 that ‘all the indications we have would suggest that the simplest explanation for why someone comes forward to report abuse – because they were abused – is likely to be the correct one’.

As the High Court Judge Sir Richard Henriques has pointed out in his report to the Metropolitan Police on allegations against prominent individuals, such an assumption results in an investigation which does not challenge the complainant, tends to disbelieve the suspect and shifts onto the suspect the burden of proof, ignoring any presumption of innocence. It becomes a premise for a miscarriage of justice such as can now be seen to have been inflicted on the reputation of George Bell.

It should be sufficient to observe that like Professor Anthony Maden, Lord Carlile did interview this first complainant. We note Lord Carlile’s statement of 1 February 2019, made to the local campaigner Mr Richard Symonds: ‘The Church should now accept that my recommendations should be accepted in full, and that after due process, however delayed, George Bell should be declared by the Church to be innocent of the allegations made against him.’

We are more than conscious that this saga represents a wider pattern in the Church and across society where many other such miscarriages of justice have become notorious. Now it is surely essential that if all the many safeguarding bodies, national and diocesan, are to be retained by the Church of England their work must be placed under real legal discipline and in the hands of officers who observe fully the expectations and rule of law and act without fear or prejudice.

There must never again be any repetition of such a discreditable, indeed disgraceful, performance.

Andrew Chandler, Convenor of George Bell Group, 9 May 2019

COMMENTS
Susannah Clark

“it can be seen that the allegations against Bishop Bell were unfounded in fact.”

What does that precisely mean? If the group is saying that the case is ‘unproven’ then I’d agree, because it is impossible to prove one way or the other whether her allegations against the Bishop are true or untrue. If it is saying that ‘Carol’s allegations about George Bell can be proved to be untrue, then that is a slur on a woman whose narrative they have repeatedly said is false. To say that George Bell *is* innocent (except in legal terms) is a false claim.

What I read in this statement is the use of insinuation.

“The possibility of false memories was a real one.” Yes. But ‘possibility’ means just that. It’s also possible her recall of who abused her was not false. Possibility either way is not the same as fact.

“They may well have hoped that the similar facts alleged by Alison would corroborate the discredited Carol.” Setting Alison aside, why is Carol described as “the discredited Carol”. That is offensive to a woman whose claims remain unproven one way or the other. It is slur.

As Dr Martin Warner correctly acknowledges: “Bishop Bell cannot be proven guilty.” But he is also right to add that it could not be “safely claimed that the original complainant [i.e. Carol] had been discredited.” That is not insinuation. It is fact. The fact remains that Carol may or may not have been abused by George Bell.

Process was faulty, and reform in the Church’s safeguarding procedures is overdue, but at the same time, this campaign group has created an incredibly hostile and partisan environment for an abuse victim herself. ‘Carol’ in all likelihood has indeed suffered abuse. It may have been committed by George Bell. With the passage of time we shall probably never know. However, assertions that – as a matter of fact – Carol’s claims are false… that is a disgraceful shutting down of an abuse victim’s experience and allegation.

Yes, the accused need safeguarding protection too… few deny process needs improvement… but no, it CANNOT “be seen that the allegations against Bishop Bell were unfounded in fact.”

That is a falsehood, a false assertion. If we create a virulent and hostile environment for people with the courage to come forward to accuse abusers – and it takes incredible courage – then we should be ashamed, because what it will do is drive victims back into secrecy and silence.

In addition, we must never lionise powerful men, even good men of known courage, to the extent that hagiography silences those who – in some cases – are nevertheless victims of the very dark side of human character. Great men can be flawed. We cannot simply disbelieve women because of their abuser’s reputation. That cannot wash. What we need is process that is discreet, measured, and factually very precise with its language. And non-partisan.

We do not, factually, know if George Bell was innocent or guilty. I doubt we ever will. Carol may be right.

T Pott
“We do not know, factually, if George Bell was innocent or guilty.” If that were so, it would put him in exactly the same position as everybody else who has ever lived. So, perhaps, we should simply remember people for what we do know about them.
Susannah, if you make an allegation I raped you when you were 5-years-old, the onus is on you to provide evidence that I raped you. The onus is not on me to prove I am innocent.

If you cannot provide that evidence in a court of law, then however convinced you are that it was me who raped you, I am to be presumed innocent. That’s the law.

After two investigations (Carlile & Briden), ‘Carol’ – who has had the benefit of anonymity and been paid nearly £30,000 (?) in compensation – has provided zero evidence that it was Bishop Bell who abused her.

Therefore, Bishop Bell is to be presumed innocent. That’s the law.

But the Church seems to consider itself above the law by presuming Bishop Bell’s guilt and presuming the innocence of ‘Carol’.

May 13 2019 – The George Bell Group Statement – May 2019 – “The history of the treatment by the Church of England of the reputation of George Bell has become a scandal” ~ Dr Andrew Chandler

George Bell House - 4 Canon Lane - Chichester Cathedral

George Bell House – 4 Canon Lane – Chichester Cathedral – before the name change [Picture: Alamy]

Home

The George Bell Group

We are an independent group whose members represent a concentration of experience in public life, in the fields of law, policing, politics, journalism, academic research and church affairs. This group began to meet in response to the 22 October 2015 statement issued by the Church of England about Bishop George Bell. See this BBC report for the original story. On 15 December 2017 the Church of England published the independent review of Lord Carlile and issued three statements made in response by the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Bishop of Chichester and the Bishop of Bath & Wells.

We warmly welcome the Report written by Timothy Briden and congratulate him on his thorough examination of the evidence which led him to the explicit conclusion that the new allegations against Bishop Bell were unfounded. There are no other allegations.

It is time to conclude a matter which has lasted altogether three and a half years. The investigative activities and processes of the church authorities themselves have been devastated by independent legal judgement. The assurances with which these authorities have justified themselves and effectively promoted a case against Bishop Bell in public have been discredited. Bishop Bell’s reputation is today vindicated and affirmed by authoritative opinion. What remains of the story is only a matter of contemporary church politics.

Read the full response of the George Bell Group (May 2019)

Statement May 2019

Since October 2015 when the Archbishops’ Council announced that they had paid compensation to the woman given the pseudonym ‘Carol’, who alleged that she had been abused by Bishop George Bell, his defenders have criticised the Church authorities for never once affording the Bishop the presumption of innocence.  Now, after the inquiries of Lord Carlile and Timothy Briden, it can be seen that the allegations against Bishop Bell were unfounded in fact.

THE CARLILE REVIEW

The Carlile report, whose conclusions (save as to publicity) the Church accepted, criticised the investigation of Carol’s allegations as a rush to judgment predicated on Bell’s guilt. It concluded that the decision to settle with Carol was indefensibly wrong and that the process completely ignored the Bishop’s reputation and the interests of his surviving family, including his very elderly niece.

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 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.

Regrettably Archbishop Welby added his authority to the destruction of Bell’s reputation: on Good Friday 2016, before the Carlile report was completed, he told BBC Radio that the investigation of Carol’s claim had been ‘very thorough’ and the finding of abuse correct on the balance of probabilities. We now know how far from the truth that was.

The Archbishop told Lord Carlile during his inquiry that if there had not been a proper investigation of Carol’s story, the Church would have to apologise. But sadly, when the Carlile report was published in December 2017, he chose not to do so. To the disappointment of Bell’s defenders, he appeared to reject the presumption of innocence; instead he commented that there was still ‘a significant cloud’ left over Bishop Bell’s name without giving any explanation of why he continued to hold that view in the face of Lord Carlile’s conclusions.

THE ‘FRESH INFORMATION’ AND THE BRIDEN PROCESS

The publicity given to the Carlile report appears to have triggered a copy-cat claim by the woman given the name Alison. The Core Safeguarding Group which had been responsible for the shambolic investigation of Carol’s claim now set about trying to substantiate that by Alison. They may well have hoped that the similar facts alleged by Alison would corroborate the discredited Carol. But within weeks the police, to whom the Core Group had reported the matter, closed their enquiries.  Next an investigation by a senior retired police officer commissioned by the Church quickly showed that Alison’s evidence was unreliable and incapable of supporting any adverse finding against the Bishop.

Mr Briden reported that her account not only had internal inconsistencies but was also contaminated by her having read Carol’s story, a contamination revealed by her repeating verbatim some of Carol’s words which had been reported in the press. He ended his report by saying that all the allegations against George Bell remitted to him were unfounded.

Many will have hoped that on reading Mr Briden’s report Archbishop Welby would have publicly acknowledged that the cloud of which he had previously spoken had been dissipated. He did not do so.

THE DUTY OF THE CHURCH NOW

The history of the treatment by the Church of England of the reputation of George Bell has become a scandal.

It is now the plain duty of the Church of England, nationally and in the Diocese of Chichester, to make amends by working to restore Bishop Bell’s reputation, not least in institutions which were once proud to adopt his name.

We welcome the decision of Canterbury Cathedral to revive a commission to create a statue of Bell and note the expression of ‘delight’ with which the Archbishop of Canterbury has responded. We acknowledge with gratitude the firmness with which the Dean and Chapter of Christ Church, Oxford have maintained and cherished the chapel there dedicated to Bell’s memory throughout the controversy. We note that the meeting room dedicated to Bishop Bell remains, as before, at the World Council of Churches in Geneva.

It is only in Chichester itself, the place in which Bishop Bell lived and worked for almost thirty years and where his ashes are interred in the cathedral, that any public adoption of his name is now suppressed.

We find the public stance of the Bishop of Chichester, Dr Martin Warner, incomprehensible and indefensible. The Bishop’s ‘Response’ to the Briden Report, published on 24 January 2019 and now promoted on the websites of the diocese and cathedral, only went as far as to acknowledge that ‘Bishop Bell cannot be proven guilty’. He added that it could not be ‘safely claimed that the original complainant [i.e. Carol] had been discredited’. This is a most regrettable insinuation that there was, or likely was, substance to Carol’s allegation and hence that Bell was to be suspected of abuse.

The Bishop emphasised the defamatory innuendo by asking ‘those who hold opposing views on this matter to recognise the strength of each other’s commitment to justice and compassion.’ There is, regrettably, no evidence in this response of the Bishop’s commitment to justice or of any compassion towards those who are wrongly accused. His words have been repeated verbatim by the Bishop at Lambeth in response to a Question at the recent session of the General Synod of the church. Indeed, the Bishop even invoked the authority of the House of Bishops in support of this view. So far as we are aware the House has never even discussed the matter.

Such words simply preserve the impression that there was, and remains, a case against Bell. A not dissimilar state of mind was revealed by the Chichester Diocesan Safeguarding Officer when he told the Child Abuse Inquiry in March 2018 that ‘all the indications we have would suggest that the simplest explanation for why someone comes forward to report abuse – because they were abused – is likely to be the correct one’.

As the High Court Judge Sir Richard Henriques has pointed out in his report to the Metropolitan Police on allegations against prominent individuals, such an assumption results in an investigation which does not challenge the complainant, tends to disbelieve the suspect and shifts onto the suspect the burden of proof, ignoring any presumption of innocence. It becomes a premise for a miscarriage of justice such as can now be seen to have been inflicted on the reputation of George Bell.

It should be sufficient to observe that like Professor Anthony Maden, Lord Carlile did interview this first complainant. We note Lord Carlile’s statement of 1 February 2019, made to the local campaigner Mr Richard Symonds: ‘The Church should now accept that my recommendations should be accepted in full, and that after due process, however delayed, George Bell should be declared by the Church to be innocent of the allegations made against him.’

We are more than conscious that this saga represents a wider pattern in the Church and across society where many other such miscarriages of justice have become notorious. Now it is surely essential that if all the many safeguarding bodies, national and diocesan, are to be retained by the Church of England their work must be placed under real legal discipline and in the hands of officers who observe fully the expectations and rule of law and act without fear or prejudice.

There must never again be any repetition of such a discreditable, indeed disgraceful, performance.

Andrew Chandler, Convenor of George Bell Group, 9 May 2019

May 3 2019 – “More fallout from the Panorama programme” [‘Scandal in the Church of England’] – ‘Thinking Anglicans’ – Simon Sarmiento

2000px-Logo_of_the_Church_of_England.svg

More fallout from the Panorama programme

More fallout from the Panorama programme

An open letter has been published by Justin Humphreys, chief executive of the charity now known as thirtyone:eight (formerly Churches Child Protection Advisory Service):
An open letter to the leadership of the Church of England following BBC’s Panorama.

…It has been clear for some time that the past cases review conducted between 2007 and 2010 was flawed in a number of respects. For there to be any confusion or uncertainty about what happened to those cases that were identified, often referred to as the ‘Known Cases Lists’ is also inexcusable. The Panorama program did well to uncover what were clearly points of discomfort for the church hierarchy. For key representatives of the Church to either not be able to respond clearly to questions about the number of cases or be unprepared to do so, calls the management of these cases into serious question and makes one wonder who exactly is in control? The need for transparency and true accountability has never been as needed as it is today.

What is needed within the Church of England (and frankly elsewhere across the wider Church and beyond) is authentic leadership. Leadership that is prepared to lead by example in a proactive exercise of self-reflection that leads to open and honest dialogue (particularly with survivors). Leadership that is not governed, coerced or muzzled by either insurers, lawyers or any other stakeholder that may stand to lose from just exposure and open remorse and repentance. This would be the right thing to do!

We may ask, what (or who) is being served by this ongoing catalogue of failures, missed opportunities and resistance to effective change concerning past, present and future safeguarding matters? It certainly cannot be said that survivors are being well-served. It is also of great concern that the Church itself is being further damaged by a continual denial of the truth and avoidance of any tangible reparation.

If the public at large is ever again to say of the Church that it is a safe place, a haven or even a sanctuary for those who are suffering, the Church must be prepared to be laid bare and be held accountable for those things it has failed to do well. This humility would be the greatest strength of the Church in seeking to deal with this sad catalogue of shame. The time has come for those that stand in the way of what Jesus would so clearly have done to be challenged, held accountable and where needed placed elsewhere – where they have less opportunity to exert their negative influence and to stand in the way of the restoration that is desperately needed…

Do read the whole letter.

Stephen Parsons at Surviving Church has written a second blog, this one is titled: Panorama on C/E. Further reflections. Again it’s worth reading in full, but the concluding paragraph says:

…Panorama indicated to us that control of information is a tactic of power still actively employed by the central Church authorities.  The originators of this tactic do not appear to be the bishops themselves but the highly paid Church House officials at the centre of things.   Unfortunately for them, their control of the levers of power was all too easy to spot in both the recent television interviews.    The interview of Archbishop Welby on Channel 4 was, like that of Bishop Hancock, unconvincing and somewhat contrived.  The bishops themselves both had personal integrity and human warmth but nothing could not disguise the fact that they were speaking for someone other than themselves.  The Church cannot continue to go down a path of fielding individuals to act as spokesmen for the institution.  The public want, as far as possible, to encounter real human beings who can speak for the church.  The people of England relate to real people, people who, like them, are living lives of joy mixed with pain.  They will never want to identify with a group when they suspect that the information put out is being manipulated and managed before it is shared with them.  In short, let bishops be bishops, shepherds of the flock, not puppets being controlled by forces that are invisible and are not necessarily working for the good of all.

The Church Times has published a letter from Andrew Graystone which can be found here (scroll down)

Panorama programme won’t be the last scandal

Sir, — Church leaders, from the Archbishops up, acknowledge that the Church is failing in its care of victims of clergy abuse. But ask them who is responsible for sorting out the mess, and nobody knows. Is it the job of the Archbishops’ Council? or the General Synod? or the National Safeguarding Steering Group? or Lambeth Palace? or the House of Bishops? Or is it, perhaps, a matter for each individual diocese?

Everybody points to someone else. Nobody steps forward. After a decade or more of crisis, which continues to eat away at the Church’s standing in society, there has been a complete failure from those in authority to grasp the issue. One reason that some survivors of church abuse are so painfully vocal is that they are filling a vacuum of leadership on this most crucial of issues for the Church.

Monday’s Panorama, with its focus on the shameful mismanagement of abuse in Lincoln diocese, was entitled Scandal in the Church of England. It could have been made at any point in the past decade, and it could have focused on almost any diocese. Stories will continue to emerge, and the scandal of abuse past and present will continue to undermine the Church’s wider mission, until some individual or body takes responsibility and institutes decisive action.

In the mean time, it is victims of abuse, past and present, who bear the cruelty and pain of the Church’s failure.

COMMENTS

Andrew Graystone says in the Church Times: “Church leaders, from the Archbishops up, acknowledge that the Church is failing in its care of victims of clergy abuse. But ask them who is responsible for sorting out the mess, and nobody knows…”

If that is the case, intervention is required by The Supreme Governor of the Church of England Her Majesty The Queen – just as the Pope was required to intervene in the Catholic Church.

April 14 2019 – Church of England Governance Structures

https://www.churchofengland.org/about/leadership-and-governance

Leadership and Governance

The Church is led by the Archbishops of Canterbury and York and 106 other bishops. They provide guidance and direction to the churches across the country and make decisions on the Church in society. The General Synod is an assembly of bishops, clergy and laity, and creates the laws of the Church. The seven National Church Institutions work together to support the mission and ministries of the Church.
Archbishops of York and Canterbury face each out outside cathedral

 

The Archbishop of Canterbury is responsible for churches in the southern two-thirds of England. He also fills a unique position in the world-wide Anglican Church as spiritual leader. The Archbishop of York is the senior bishop responsible for churches in the northern third of England. Together they lead the vision and direction of the Church of England.

Each of our 42 dioceses has a lead bishop known as a diocesan bishop. Most are supported by other (suffragan or area) bishops. All diocesan bishops are members of the House of Bishops, along with a small number other elected bishops. The House of Bishops is one of the three houses of the General Synod. The General Synod is an assembly of bishops, clergy and laity, which meets at least twice a year to debate and decide the Church’s laws and discuss matters of public interest.

Our two archbishops and 24 other bishops sit in the House of Lords, making a major contribution to Parliament’s work. They are known as Lords Spiritual.

Her Majesty the Queen is the Supreme Governor of the Church of England. The Queen appoints archbishops, bishops and deans of cathedrals on the advice of the Prime Minister.

There are seven national administrative bodies that work together to support the mission and ministries of the Church. These are called National Church Institutions (NCIs).

Each has a role to play in helping the day-to-day work of churches across England. They serve as the Church’s central office, managing finance, education, communications, and more, to keep the Church of England growing.

They work with parishes, dioceses (regional offices), schools, other ministries and our partners at a national and international level.

The seven NCIs are:

  • The Archbishops’ Council
    Leadership, strategy and executive responsibility (see below)
  • Lambeth Palace
    The office and home of the Archbishop of Canterbury.
  • Bishopthorpe Palace
    The office and home of the Archbishop of York.
  • The Church Commissioners
    Manages the national Church’s investment fund and provides money to support the Church’s work.
  • The Church of England Pensions Board
    Provides retirement services for those who have served or worked for the Church.
  • National Society for Promoting Religious Education
    Our education department.
  • The Church of England Central Services
    HR, Finance & Resources, IT, Legal, Communications, and Record Centre.

The NCIs are separate legal entities, but they are a common employer. The present arrangements were established under the National Institutions Measure 1998.

THE ARCHBISHOPS’ COUNCIL
The Archbishops’ Council was established in 1999. The Council is a charity, set up in law to co-ordinate, promote, aid and further the work and mission of the Church of England. It does this by providing national support to the Church in dioceses and locally, working closely with the House of Bishops and other bodies of the Church. The Archbishops’ Council is one of the seven National Church Institutions.

Our objectives

The Archbishops’ Council has nine objectives.

Evangelism
To bring more of the people of England to the faith of Christ through the Church of England

Discipleship
To strengthen the Christian faith and life of all who worship God in the Church of England

Ministry
To ensure there are sufficient ordained and lay ministers of the required gifts and qualities who are effectively deployed to enable the Church of England to fulfil its mission, and to support those ministers in their calling, development, ministry and retirement

Common good
To contribute to transforming our society and communities more closely to reflect the Kingdom of God through loving acts of neighbourliness and service to all

Education
To promote high quality Christian education in Church of England schools and voluntary education settings, and through our Church contribution to other schools, colleges, further and higher education institutions

Resources for the Church
To help dioceses and cathedrals to be most effective in their mission, by providing cost-effective national and specialist services and advice

Safeguarding
To ensure all children and vulnerable adults are safe in the Church

Governance
To operate the national governance arrangements of the Church of England as cost-effectively as possible in pursuit of the Church’s mission

A Church for all people
To be a Church that can provide a home for all people in England
The Archbishops’ Council plans for 2017.

 

Safeguarding: to ensure
all children and vulnerable
adults are safe in the Church,
by continuing to build
infrastructure and processes
for the National Safeguarding
Function to promote a safer
Church at all levels, including
the development of policies
and practice guidance, longterm audit processes, training,
high-level casework handling,
survivor engagement and
responding to the Independent
Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse
(IICSA).

 

 

Archbishops’ Council

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archbishops%27_Council#Committees_and_Staff

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Archbishops’ Council is a part of the governance structures of the Church of England. Its headquarters are at Church House, Great Smith Street, London SW1P 3AZ.

The Council was created in 1999 to provide a central executive body to co-ordinate and lead the work of the Church. This was a partial implementation of the recommendations of the report “Working Together as One Body” produced by Michael Turnbull (then Bishop of Durham) in 1994.

Objectives and Objects

The Council describes its objectives as:

  • enhancing the Church’s mission by:
    • promoting spiritual and numerical growth,
    • enabling and supporting the worshipping Church and encouraging and promoting new ways of being Church, and
    • engaging with issues of social justice and environmental stewardship
    • sustaining and advance the Church’s work in education, lifelong learning and discipleship;
  • enabling the Church to select, train and resource the right people, both ordained and lay, to carry out public ministry and encouraging lay people in their vocation to the world; and
  • encouraging the maintenance and development of the inherited fabric of Church buildings for worship and service to the community.

And its objects as:

  • giving a clear strategic sense of direction to the national work of the Church of England, within an overall vision set by the House of Bishops and informed by an understanding of the Church’s opportunities, needs and resources;
  • encouraging and resourcing the Church in parishes and dioceses;
  • promoting close collaborative working between the Church’s national bodies, including through the management of a number of common services (Communications, Human Resources, IT etc.);
  • supporting the Archbishops with their diverse ministries and responsibilities; and engaging confidently with Government and other bodies.

Legal Status and Membership

The Archbishops’ Council was established by the National Institutions Measure passed by the General Synod of the Church of England in 1998.[1] It has its own legal identity and is, in addition, a charity.

The Council is made up of:

The Archbishops of Canterbury and York are the joint Presidents of the Council, but the Archbishop of Canterbury normally chairs its meetings.

The Council is one of the “National Church Institutions”;[3] the others include the Church Commissioners, the Church of England Pensions Board and the General Synod.

Committees and Staff

The work of the Council is assisted by a number of committees:

  • Mission and Public Affairs Council (including the Hospital Chaplaincies Council)
  • Board of Education
  • Committee for Minority Ethnic Anglican Concerns
  • Council for Christian Unity
  • Central Council for the Care of Churches
  • Committees of the Ministry Division
    • Committee for Ministry of and among Deaf and Disabled People
    • Deployment, Recruitment and Conditions of Service Committee
    • Theological Education and Training Committee
    • Vocation, Recruitment and Selection Committee
  • Finance Committee
  • Audit Committee

In 2006, the Council employed about 250 staff. The senior posts include:

  • Secretary-General to the Council and the General Synod

  • Chief Education Officer
  • Director of Mission & Public Affairs
  • Head of Cathedral and Church Buildings
  • Director of Ministry
  • Director of Human Resources
  • Head of Legal Office and Chief Legal Adviser to the General Synod
  • Clerk to the Synod and Director of Central Secretariat

Finances

The members of the Council are also members and directors of the Central Board of Finance of the Church of England. Technically, the Board of Finance is a separate legal entity, however all major decisions are taken by members of the Council in their capacity as the directors of the Board.

In 2006, the Council had a budget of approximately £61 million, principally derived from the Church Commissioners (about £32 million) and contributions from each of the dioceses(£24.5 million).

Spending in that year included grants to the dioceses (£31 million), training clergy (both funding for colleges and allowances for individuals in residential training – £10 million), grants to organisation such as Churches Together, the Church Urban Fund and the World Council of Churches (£2.2 million), and housing assistance for retired clergy (£2.8 million).[4]

Notable members

  • William Fittall, Secretary-General from 2002 to 2015
  • Philip Fletcher, 2007 to 2016
  • David Lammy, 1999 to 2002[5]
  • Jayne Ozanne, 1999 to 2004
  • Mark Russell, CEO of the Church Army, 2005 to 2011 and since 2015
  • Glyn Webster, current
  • https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glyn_Webster
  • Safeguarding controversy and CDM complaint

    In May 2016 Webster was one of six bishops accused of misconduct by somebody who claimed to be a survivor of child sex abuse. He was cited in the Guardian and Church Times along with Bishops

  • Peter Burrows,
  • Safeguarding controversy and CDM complaint

    A survivor of child sex abuse made a formal complaint in May 2016 under the Clergy Disciplinary Measure procedure against Burrows and five other bishops (Steven CroftMartyn SnowGlyn WebsterRoy WilliamsonJohn Sentamu) for failing to act on his allegations. The survivor said he first told Burrows in 2012 about his abuse by a serving priest. All five bishops dismissed the complaint owing to the one-year time limit imposed by the CDM process.[4][5]

  • Steven Croft,
  • Protest at his enthronement

    Protest Brochure

    Two survivors of clerical child sexual abuse staged a peaceful protest outside Croft’s inauguration as Bishop of Oxford on 30 September 2016.[18] One of them claimed he had told Croft three times in 2012 and 2013 when Croft was formerly Bishop of Sheffield of his rape by a serving priest, but the bishop and other senior figures had failed to respond or take action despite the abuser still being alive. The cover of the protest brochure handed out to the public pictured all six bishops[19] who the survivor claimed had failed to respond, including John SentamuArchbishop of York.[20] The survivor commented to the Church Times that he was angry that the C of E had the “nerve” to enthrone bishops after safeguarding complaints had been made against them. He went on to say

    This is absolute proof that the Church of England does not truly recognise the profound and long-lasting impact such abuse has on survivors at all.[21]

    The protest was shown on ITV[22] and the BBC.[23] Croft met with one of the survivors in front of the news cameras.

    Police Investigation

    In 2018 it was reported in media that Croft was being investigated by South Yorkshire Police, alongside Archbishop Sentamu, Bishop Martyn Snow and Bishop Peter Burrows, for failure to respond properly to a report of clerical child abuse. The priest against whom the allegation was made went on to commit suicide the day before he was due in court in June 2017.[24][25][26] The Archbishop of York’s office said:

    The diocese of York insists that Sentamu did not fail to act on any disclosures because that responsibility lay with Ineson’s local bishop, Steven Croft, who was at the time bishop of Sheffield.[27]

    Guardian editorial contrasted Sentamu’s response to a statement from Archbishop Welby at IICSA, the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse, in which Justin Welby stated

    It is not an acceptable human response, let alone a leadership response to say “I have heard about a problem, but … it was someone else’s job to report it”.[28]

    Matt Ineson, the victim of the alleged abuse, has called for the resignations of Sentamu and Croft.[29] In May 2018, Archbishop Welby declined to discipline Croft, and said he “will take no further action” other than ensuring that Dr Croft received further safeguarding training and understood his responsibilities as a diocesan bishop.[30]

  • Martyn Snow,
  • Safeguarding controversy

    In May 2016 Snow was one of six bishops cited in the Guardian and Church Times as subject of Clergy Disciplinary Measure complaints owing to their alleged inaction on a survivor’s disclosure.[16][17] The bishops contested the complaints.[18] All six bishops were pictured on a protest brochure which the survivor handed out at Steven Croft‘s enthronement as bishop of Oxford later that year.[19][20] In 2018, Snow was reported in the media to be one of several bishops being investigated for failure to act on this safeguarding disclosure. The priest against whom the allegations were made, killed himself the day before due to appear in court.[21][22][23]

  • Roy Williamson and Archbishop of York,
  • John Sentamu as subject of Clergy Disciplinary Measure complaints owing to their inaction on the survivor’s disclosure.[5][6]
  • Safeguarding clergy disciplinary measure complaint and police investigation

    Protest brochure

    In May 2016 Sentamu was one of six bishops accused of procedural misconduct by a victim of child sex abuse (the accusation was to do with how the complaint was handled; none of the six were involved in the abuse). Sentamu was named in the Guardian[59] and Church Times[60] alongside Peter BurrowsSteven CroftMartyn SnowGlyn Webster and Roy Williamson, as subject of Clergy Disciplinary Measure complaints owing to their inaction on the survivor’s disclosure. The bishops contested the complaints because they were made after the church’s required one-year limit. Sentamu had acknowledged receipt of a letter from the survivor with an assurance of “prayers through this testing time”. But according to the Guardian report, no action was taken against the alleged abuser nor support offered to the survivor by the church. A spokesperson for the archbishop said that Sentamu had simply acknowledged a copy of a letter addressed to another bishop. “The original recipient of the letter had a duty to respond and not the archbishop”, the spokesperson said. All six bishops appeared on a protest brochure which the survivor handed out at Steven Croft’s enthronement as Bishop of Oxford.[61] In April 2018 it was reported that Archbishop Sentamu and four other bishops were under investigation by South Yorkshire Police for failure to respond properly to a report of clerical child abuse. A memo from June 2013, seen by The Times and other media revealed that Sentamu had received the allegation but recommended that ‘no action’ be taken. The priest against whom the allegation was made went on to commit suicide the day before he was due in court in June 2017.[62][63][64] The Archbishop of York’s office said:

    The diocese of York insists that Sentamu did not fail to act on any disclosures because that responsibility lay with Ineson’s local bishop, Steven Croft, who was at the time bishop of Sheffield.[65]

    Guardian editorial contrasted Archbishop Sentamu’s response to a statement from Archbishop Welby at IICSA, the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse, in which Justin Welby stated

    It is not an acceptable human response, let alone a leadership response to say “I have heard about a problem, but … it was someone else’s job to report it”.[66]

    Matt Ineson, the victim and survivor at the heart of the case, has called for the resignations of Archbishop Sentamu and Bishop Steven Croft.[67]

  • The bishops contested the complaints because they were made after the church’s required one-year limit.[7] All six bishops were pictured on a protest brochure which the survivor handed out at Steven Croft’s enthronement as Bishop of Oxford later that year.[8][9]

Sources

References

  1. ^ National Institutions Measure 1998 Archived December 5, 2008, at the Wayback Machine on the Office of Public Sector Information website – retrieved 6 May 2008
  2. ^ Members of the Archbishops’ Council – retrieved on 19 October 2011
  3. ^ “National Church Institutions – The Church of England”http://www.churchofengland.org.
  4. ^ Annual Report 2006 Annual Report and Finance Statements 31 December 2006 – retrieved 6 May 2008
  5. ^ “LAMMY, Rt Hon. David (Lindon)”Who’s Who 2017. Oxford University Press. November 2016. Retrieved 17 March 2017Archbishops’ Council, 1999–2002

March 5 2018 – “‘Wilful blindness’ existed towards Church child abuse in Sussex, inquiry hears” – West Sussex County Times – Michael Drummond

https://www.wscountytimes.co.uk/news/crime/wilful-blindness-existed-towards-church-child-abuse-in-sussex-inquiry-hears-1-8403316

‘Wilful blindness’ existed towards Church child abuse in Sussex, inquiry hears

The Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse is taking place in London

MICHAEL DRUMMOND Email Published: 17:21 Monday 05 March 2018

A damning image of ‘wilful blindness’ in historic cases of sexual abuse of children who were ‘terrified and silenced’ by clergy in Sussex has been set out at a public inquiry. Fiona Scolding QC, lead counsel to the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (IICSA), said abuse that left an ‘indelible scar’ on children was often ignored or forgiven.

In one segment, Miss Scolding described abuse by a Reverend Colin Pritchard: “There have been suggestions about the culture of abuse operated by Reverend Pritchard and that Bishop Peter Ball turned a blind eye to that abuse.” Reverend Pritchard, who was vicar of St Barnabas in Bexhill, pleaded guilty in 2008 to seven counts of sexual assault on two boys and was jailed for five years.

Speaking on behalf of the Diocese of Chichester and Archbishops’ Council for the Church of England, Nigel Giffin QC said the Church’s response to abuse in the last few decades was ‘not nearly good enough’. The IICSA inquiry in London will look into how far institutions failed to protect children from sexual abuse within the Anglican Church. It focusses on abuse within the Diocese of Chichester, which covers all of Sussex, as a case study.

Lead counsel for the inquiry Fiona Scolding QC Members of the public heard about dozens of offences in Sussex over the last 50 years. Miss Scolding said: “As a society we have ocer the past 10 years had to examine some uncomfortable truths about our wilful blindness to such abuse.”

She noted the convictions for sex offences of Michael Walsh, Terence Banks and David Bowring, who were associated with Chichester Cathedral and local schooling. Miss Scolding also told the inquiry how Reverend Roy Cotton, who was convicted in 1952 of gross indecency with a child, was at one point an ‘alleged abuser hiding in plain sight’.

Richard Scorer spoke on behalf of many of the victims

She added: “Despite his conviction the Bishop of Portsmouth considered him suitable for ordination as a man of ‘considerable ability’ free of any trouble for 12 years. “Because of his criminal record the then Bishop of Portsmouth ensured he did not have to undertake the usual recruitment processes.”

The handling by the Church of allegations made against Chichester’s Bishop George Bell will be discussed later in the inquiry, but not the truth of them or otherwise.

Richard Scorer, speaking on behalf of many of the victims, said: “If you want to abuse children there is no more effective way of terrifying and silencing your victims than to claim to have God on your side.

The inquiry will look into how abuse by people associated with Chichester Cathedral was dealt with

“The Church of England claims to offer moral guidance to the country yet clerical sexual abuse cases powerfully undermine the claim. This leads to the cover-up of abuse.

“The question is whether the Church of England can be trusted to put its own house in order.”

In a statement read out this afternoon, Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby said: “The failures that we have seen are deeply shaming and I personally find them a cause of horror and sadness. “That children have been abused within the communities of the church is indeed shameful.” The inquiry continues.

Read more at: https://www.wscountytimes.co.uk/news/crime/wilful-blindness-existed-towards-church-child-abuse-in-sussex-inquiry-hears-1-8403316