It all has the feeling of a continuation of the ethos of control that is making the Diocese a thoroughly unpleasant place to be – especially when others are unearthing information from the past that puts recent events into very clear perspective.
CHURCH NEWS COLLECTION – PRIVATE EYE – NO 1549 – 11 JUNE – 24 JUNE 2021
Winchester woes
BISHOP Tim Dakin is a man on a mission. The ruthless pursuit of his “action plan” for the diocese of Winchester has led to him being dubbed Tim Jong-un. Parish priests are set targets for growth, and those who can’t deliver bums on pews are reprimanded or removed.
The plan has caused great anger and hurt, and the payoffs are said to have cost the diocese up to £500,000. Two years ago, the Channel Islands were removed from Winchester diocese after an irretrievable and expensive breakdown in relations between the bishop and the Dean of Guernsey.
At the end of last month, Dakin “stepped aside” from his duties for six weeks while facing an unprecedented motion of no-confidence at his diocesan synod, after 30 senior priests and lay people complained about a bullying leadership style. With his suffragan bishop also stepping aside in sympathy with the rebels, it’s hard to see how Dakin can find a way back.
The Bishop of Winchester is a key post in the Church of England – one of the five that come with automatic membership of the House of Lords. Dakin’s elevation in 2011 came as a surprise to many. To be appointed bishop without ever having been a parish priest is unusual, but Dakin’s route to the episcopate is unprecedented. Some Anglicans are now re-examining his eclectic CV.
Dakin took a degree from St mark and St John, then a teacher training college and now Plymouth’s second most prestigious university. He spent three years at Oxford as a “researcher” working towards a doctorate, but didn’t pass the confirmation stage and left without any qualification. He moved to Kenya, where his father had founded a Church Army training college. Dakin Jnr was quickly appointed CEO of the college and commissioned as a Church army officer, and then ordained as priest in Nairobi Cathedral. Such an elevation normally follows a rigorous selection process and several years of intensive training, but Dakin appears to have found a short cut.
Last year he was finally awarded his doctorate by the chancellor of the University of Winchester, celebrity gardener Alan Titchmarsh. The bishop, who also happens to be a governor of the university, skipped the tiresome drudgery of original research by getting the PhD from an anthology of his past. Fittingly enough, Dakin is also the Church of England’s lead bishop for further and higher education.
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.”
In September 2018, the Church of England, as part of its ongoing safeguarding efforts, published a very comprehensive fact sheet on different types of abuse. It is an attempt to encourage a reader to become used to recognising the great variety of abusive practices that can occur in the Church and elsewhere. In 2015, English law codified the idea that domestic abuse is much more than just physical violence. It may include a range of behaviours that come under the broad category of coercion and control. Even without evidence of physical violence, a man or woman can now be convicted of a criminal offence for abuse. Educating people to have a broader understanding of abuse in a religious context was also needed. I have a personal interest in this topic. When I wrote my book Ungodly Fear over twenty years ago, I was trying to explore this idea that the misuse of power in a church context was a widespread reality and the cause of much suffering. Abusing power is a far bigger topic than just the sexual exploitation of a vulnerable person.
This morning, on a sister blog Archbishop Cranmer, we heard new details about the Dean Percy affair. I do not propose to repeat the points made in that disturbing article, but to use some of Cranmer’s material to indicate that Percy has become the victim of many of the types of abuse mentioned in the 2018 document. Apart from naming a wide range of abusive practices, the 2018 CofE document also provides suggestions of the way that the Church can respond to the victims and survivors. Percy, because he has been labelled as a perpetrator, has not been offered much help, pastoral, financial or practical. Help is supposed to be offered in such cases, according to the Church’s safeguarding protocols but only the tiniest amount has been forthcoming. Somehow the level of vitriol in the College is such that a regime of extreme isolation has been imposed. The help and support that Percy has been able to gather is that which has come from family and friends. He has also seen the complete depletion of the family finances.
The 2018 document first of all discusses emotional or psychological abuse. I would see these two forms of abuse as sometimes distinct categories and, at other times, overlapping. Over the past three years there have been many examples of psychological threats and abuse towards Percy. Phone calls/emails late at night are part of the stock-in-trade for those who want to harass and put someone permanently on edge. Also within a community like a college, it is not difficult to create an unfriendly environment for an individual. Shunning and ostracism, when they are practised, are especially cruel. This is a topic to which I often return in this blog as it is one of the most evil practices that can be enacted. The 2018 document mentions this behaviour when it describes ‘causing or forcing isolation/withdrawal from family/friends and support networks’. The extraordinary lengths to which the Censors and members of the Chapter has gone to prevent members of the clergy/colleagues even visiting Percy are described as practices that the Church should be fighting against. Can unproven allegations of sexual harassment ever justify the rolling out of such viciously cruel behaviour?
Abuse can also be financial. The 2018 document has in mind such things as the forcing of an elderly person to change a will or hand over property. In Percy’s case, the financial abuse has been by forcing him virtually to bankrupt himself in employing lawyers to defend him in the first legal challenge by the College to oust him in 2018. He was declared innocent of all the 27 original charges brought by the Censors. Percy’s accusers were also shown up to have produced manipulated documents. In short, the accusers engaged in lying to make their case. Retired Judge Andrew Smith saw the lies and commented on them in his report. In the latest attacks by College and National Safeguarding Team, overseen by the Bishop of Birmingham, Percy has been unable to instruct legal representation. This is partly for financial reasons and partly for reasons of his health.
The CofE document mentions discriminatory abuse. This is taking advantage of someone who is in a weaker position because of poverty, disability or some other handicap. Discriminatory abuse is to be found all over the recent treatment that Percy has received. The Sub-Dean, Richard Peers, has taken it upon himself to prevent even the fellow members of Chapter from making contact with Percy. I understand that not even his request to receive Communion in the home has been allowed. Such isolating of a sick man, socially, spiritually and psychologically is desperately underhand behaviour.
Institutional abuse is described. This is the kind of situation that might occur in a Home where one patient is treated badly because they are deemed to be difficult in some way. When an institution, like a Home, turns against an individual, it is hard to see how anyone can resist such enormous pressure. It is clearly going on at Christ Church. The financial bullying of Percy, backed by the enormous financial resources of the College, was another example of institutional abuse. The Censors must be hoping that the Dean’s ability to fight back financially will eventually be defeated by the sheer fire power available to the College because of their endowments.
Abuse by neglect and acts of omission are other examples of behaviour suffered by Percy. The utter failure of the College or Canons to reach out to a sick man to offer help and support of any kind is an inexplicable failure of any institution, let alone one founded on Christian principles. The 2018 document is not a particularly Christian document. It is rather an adaptation of the Care Act of 2015 which wanted to show how we need to take a much broader understanding of abuse than society has done hitherto. As with the Charity Commission, the values being articulated are human values. If Christian individuals and institutions find these hard to hold on to, what can we expect of the rest of society? Are we not able to hope that Christians take morality and goodness seriously?
The final category of abuse mentioned in the document is complex abuse. This is a name given to a situation when an institution or an individual is using a variety of abuse methods against one person. We have already indicated that Dean Percy is the target of a many-sided form of abuse. Complex abuse might be considered to be an convenient shorthand for what is going on here. But there is one great irony about the document Types of Abuse. This was put together by experts in the Safeguarding world to help Christians identify those in need of help. Here we are discovering that in fact it is, in this case, the Church itself committing acts of abuse against an individual. If I am right in identifying six of the categories of abuse in this church document being set in motion by church officials, then someone needs to blow a whistle on this event. We often speak about survivors on this blog, but here we have to describe Percy as a victim. Six forms of abuse coming from two distinct institutions, operating with an extraordinary level of malice, is enough to put anyone into a breakdown. No one going through such an experience is easily able to fight back. Humanly, the force being used is barely survivable. The only human strength that can operate here is that provided by supporters, family and friends.
Two things need to happen if the Church is to emerge from this disaster with any integrity.
One is that all the clergy who have been guilty of dirty tricks and abuse against Percy should be named in a new Clergy Discipline Measure process. There have been so many procedural dishonesties in this episode. One mentioned by Archbishop Cranmer, is what I call the dirty dossier. This is a fraudulent risk assessment document submitted with the CDM documents to the Bishop of Oxford. The College have admitted that they were wrong to back this document but the damage has done in creating the over-the-top risk assessment which has now been put in place around the College.
The second thing that could save the day and rescue the Church’s integrity from a mire of self- destruction, is for someone of stature to come forward. They would then ask for all the destructive church processes to be halted for a while. The one person that could do this is the Archbishop of York. The Archbishop of Canterbury is likely to be entangled with the same legal firms as have been advising the Diocese of Oxford and Christ Church College, as well as the various bodies that work out of Church House. Stephen Cottrell, hopefully, can recognise what a disaster these events are for the whole Church of England. I believe that the paths of Dean Percy and Cottrell have crossed in the past. If that is true, he will know that Percy is not a sex-crazed lunatic, which is how his enemies at Christ Church have been trying to portray him for their own political ends. If the Archbishop pf York could put in place a moratorium on the church processes for three months, this might help to calm things down and stop the current madness infecting and afflicting the church in Oxford and elsewhere. There is a crisis; we need something dramatic to happen to resolve things. Stephen Cottrell, you are our last hope!
About Stephen Parsons
Stephen is a retired Anglican priest living at present in Cumbria. He has taken a special interest in the issues around health and healing in the Church but also when the Church is a place of harm and abuse. He has published books on both these issues and is at present particularly interested in understanding how power works at every level in the Church. He is always interested in making contact with others who are concerned with these issues.
3 thoughts on “Averting a catastrophe in the Church of England. Is it too late?”
John Wallace Stephen, you are so right in this. Nearly 30 years ago, the children’s home where I worked was subject to allegations of abuse as a result of a new deputy Social Services Director, who wanted to make her mark. 52 of us were suspended. Fortunately, through the strength of numbers and putting pressure on councillors, we eventually got an independent enquiry which exonerated us and resulted in the Director and the deputy resigning and the rest of us being redeployed or receiving a financial settlement. Even at that time, the enquiry was reckoned to have cost the County Council around £1m. Martyn does not have the luxury of these numbers, but perhaps those of us who want to see fairness for Martyn – and believe in his integrity – should start a campaign of writing to + Birmingham (as in charge of the CDM), to +Oxford as the diocesan and to ++ Canterbury and ++ York (copying the Charity Commission into our correspondence). I believe totally in Martyn’s innocence and integrity but equally believe that any challenges to this should be based on fairness, openness and, dare I say, the spirit of Christian charity and humility. Initiating CDM processes during absence due to sickness is certainly bad practice and could well be illegal. I’m sure our legal participants to this blog will clarify this. Martyn has already suffered enough at the hands of vindictive academic and ecclesiastical manipulators. It is time for more vocal support for fairness and transparency of process.
Rowland Wateridge If, and we have to say if, a fraudulent document was used in initiating the CDM procedure, the CDM should be set aside, no ifs and buts about that. You can’t have a legal disciplinary procedure based on illegal material. So, the full facts about that document including how and by whom it was produced must be established urgently. I believe steps to that end are already in hand.
“This morning, on a sister blog Archbishop Cranmer [and elsewhere – Ed], we heard new details about the Dean Percy affair… Two things need to happen if the Church is to emerge from this disaster with any integrity. One is that all the clergy who have been guilty of dirty tricks and abuse against Percy should be named in a new Clergy Discipline Measure process. There have been so many procedural dishonesties in this episode. One mentioned by Archbishop Cranmer, is what I call the dirty dossier. This is a fraudulent risk assessment document submitted with the CDM documents to the Bishop of Oxford. The College have admitted that they were wrong to back this document but the damage has done in creating the over-the-top risk assessment which has now been put in place around the College. The second thing that could save the day and rescue the Church’s integrity from a mire of self- destruction, is for someone of stature to come forward. They would then ask for all the destructive church processes to be halted for a while. The one person that could do this is the Archbishop of York. The Archbishop of Canterbury is likely to be entangled with the same legal firms as have been advising the Diocese of Oxford and Christ Church College, as well as the various bodies that work out of Church House. Stephen Cottrell, hopefully, can recognise what a disaster these events are for the whole Church of England. I believe that the paths of Dean Percy and Cottrell have crossed in the past. If that is true, he will know that Percy is not a sex-crazed lunatic, which is how his enemies at Christ Church have been trying to portray him for their own political ends. If the Archbishop pf York could put in place a moratorium on the church processes for three months, this might help to calm things down and stop the current madness infecting and afflicting the church in Oxford and elsewhere. There is a crisis; we need something dramatic to happen to resolve things. Stephen Cottrell, you are our last hope!”
You may have seen a recent letter to the Church Times...about the case of the Revd John Roberts in Woolton. Liverpool…But it was Justin Welby’s behaviour when John Roberts was ‘helping’ at the cathedral that really struck us. In that situation, Welby sided with a convicted abuser against a genuine complainant. Clearly, he has very poor judgement on occasion, as was abundantly shown later by his ‘significant cloud’ comment. Private Eye has covered the case to some extent but, so far, Welby has largely escaped as far as the national press is concerned. At the time of IICSA, the John Roberts case was going through the courts, so there are only veiled references to it in their reports. Liverpool diocese is undertaking a review of the case, so we shall see if that says anything much about Welby’s involvement.
‘M’– 21/03/2021
It brings it all back, doesn’t it? I don’t think my anger and disgust will ever go away and my regard for the Church of England which was low anyway has pretty well gone…
‘J’ – 20/03/2021
Thank you for sending me this article by David Jasper. Whilst its contents will be familiar to those of us concerned for Bishop Bell’s reputation, it brings the necessary material together for a wider readership. I wonder whether copies of it have gone to Welby and Warner, though in the case of the former it would probably be intercepted by his staff and kept from his sight, and Warner remains obdurate in his refusal to admit his errors and those of the group which tried to trash Bell’s reputation. After the Carlile Report, an honourable man would have apologized and at least have offered his resignation. It was suggested to me that Warner’s chief concern is protecting his safeguarding team from all blame. I do not know whether this is so, but it is a black day for the Church when matters of truth and justice take second place to defending diocesan functionaries.
I also wonder whether a copy of the Jasper article has gone to the Church Times – not that I have much faith in the paper to concern itself with the Bell case. I believe several letters have been written to the Editor on this matter, including one from me, none of which has been published.
However, the important thing is that Welby and Warner must by now be aware that Bell’s defender’s are not going to “put up and shut up”. Warner, in particular, appears oblivious to the fact that it is his own reputation, and that of the diocese and the Cathedral, which are now in the gutter.
‘B’ – 20/03/2021
Lamentable
‘G’ – 22/03/2021
What a devastating summary of the case! I hope that the press will pick it up – not just the Church Times, but the national dailies as well
‘T’
I think what distinguishes the present situation from what has gone before is the suggestion that there has now been a breach of criminal law, not just irregularities in the Church’s own procedures, very serious as some of those have been. We can only wait to see whether this latest development changes things. It may be that only outside intervention will do so
‘R’– 22/03/2021
Surely it would be better for him to go elsewhere.” That’s what the Governing Body wants. It’s called giving way to bullying
THE Sub Dean of Christ Church Cathedral, Oxford, Canon Richard Peers, issued a pastoral letter on Wednesday to assure the congregation that the Dean, the Very Revd Professor Martyn Percy, who has currently stepped back from duties while a complaint of sexual harassment is investigated (News, 19 March), is prayed for daily in the cathedral. He rebutted rumours on social media that Dean Percy, who is unwell, had been refused communion and was unsupported. He wrote: “Throughout all this, I have encouraged friends and colleagues to make contact with the Percys to offer love and support and prayer in what must be an extraordinarily difficult situation.”
The version of the risk assessment leaked to the Church Times lists a timeline, including a “Second risk assessment” as having been carried out by Kate Wood on 22 October 2020. Instead of “Second risk assessment”, it should have read “Investigation”: this is what was carried out by Kate Wood and submitted on that date. That subheading was corrected in subsequent versions of the documents.
None of this has any bearing whatsoever on the complaint itself, or indeed the assessment of risk made in the documents. The risk assessments are confidential, password-protected, and with very limited circulations, designed to protect all those involved, including both the young member of staff who made the allegation, and the Dean of Christ Church himself.
It has even been sensationally suggested that the risk assessments in some way restrict the Dean’s freedom to be visited and supported by friends and family, or even to receive communion. None of this is true; and pastoral support has been in place for Martyn throughout.
It is very disappointing how one heading from those preliminary documents is being disingenuously used to imply that the assessments are somehow invalid, to generate mistruths, and to cast doubt on the CDM process itself.
GRAHAM WARD (Canon) Christ Church Oxford OX1 1DP
From Mr Martin Sewell
Sir, — I read your report last week about the wholly disproportionate irregular risk assessment concerning Dean Percy. Taking the document at face value, I was one who criticised the independent investigator Kate Wood for exceeding her area of expertise.
The affixing of her name gave that document the authority of her experience and independence, which, it transpires, it did not have. Accordingly, she did not deserve my criticism, though legitimate criticism must now be considered elsewhere.
I hope that you will allow me to apologise to Ms Wood publicly for the upset and frustration that this aspect of the scandal will have caused her, and my inadvertent part in it.
MARTIN SEWELL Member of General Synod 8 Appleshaw Close Gravesend Kent DA11 7PB
“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
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
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 AthenaBut 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 WateridgeNo 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.
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
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”
“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”
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 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”
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
The post relating to Christ Church Oxford has been taken down as some of the material has not been substantiated.
I hope to publish a revised version of this piece in due course when I am able to get a clearer picture.
About Stephen Parsons
Stephen is a retired Anglican priest living at present in Cumbria. He has taken a special interest in the issues around health and healing in the Church but also when the Church is a place of harm and abuse. He has published books on both these issues and is at present particularly interested in understanding how power works at every level in the Church. He is always interested in making contact with others who are concerned with these issues.
John Wallace Thank you Stephen for this comment. When I read it, there seemed to be a lot of ‘thin ice’ that you were bravely treading on. As a great admirer of Martyn, the truth does need to come out and the Augean stables of Christ Church cleansed.
Angela Tilby Thank you, Stephen. Please continue and do not be disheartened.
EnglishAthena Good. Don’t be downhearted. You’re one of the people who’ve kept me sane.
Stephen Parsons I am hoping to republish soon!
Mary
When you have checked Stephen, please publish the facts you can prove. When I am in position to, I hope to do the same. Those who are in sympathy with your blog know and often can prove misconduct and/or disreputable actions by those deputised to deal appropriately with safeguarding issues. This, of course includes persecuting the innocent as well as protecting the guilty. It is with great sadness that I too can report that those at the highest levels are knowingly and deliberately allowing misconduct to continue even now. This gives me no hope that Meg Munn will be able to say that churches are safe places any time soon. The Church hierarchy are forcing us to use whatever legitimate tactics we can to remove this egregious sin. Thank you for your bravery. Those in the know respect your moderation and just dealings. From the reaction to your blog people are taking note. If those at the higher levels redirected their efforts and time to dealing justly with those clearly guilty of misconduct of whatever kind in relation to safeguarding, we would be closer to Meg Munn being able to say parishioners are as safe in their churches as they are in secular organisations.
6.
Alyson Peberdy
What you are concerned about re Christchurch needs to be said and listened to. Thank you so much Stephen.
The Church of England’s child protection boss has quit after 18 months amid claims that she faces too much resistance from clergy.
Melissa Caslake was appointed as the church’s first permanent Director of Safeguarding in April last year. She will take up a role as Director of Children’s Services with a local authority in the New Year.
However, The Telegraph has spoken to sources who claim that after just over a year and a half in the role, Ms Caslake “wouldn’t be leaving unless she felt that task had become impossible”…
…A source said: “Half of the leadership of the Church of England knows that it needs to change to survive, but the other half feels that survival depends on preventing change at all costs.”
“Melissa Caslake is a dedicated and competent safeguarding professional. She was brought in to reform the church’s safeguarding practice. She wouldn’t be leaving unless she felt that task had become impossible. Perhaps she has discovered what many victims know from bitter experience – that the church is simply too complex, too defensive, and too self-absorbed to face up to its own cruelty…”
…In response to the claims surrounding her departure, she said: “I have been privileged to work with survivors, members of clergy, diocesan and safeguarding professionals and others in the national church and beyond.
“I hope their expertise will continue to be respected and heard. I would like to thank all those who have supported the safeguarding journey so far, and wish the church well as it reflects on how best to implement the IICSA recommendations for the future…”
This morning no official announcement from the Archbishops’ Council has so far appeared, but this afternoon the Church Times has published: C of E safeguarding director resigns.
THE Church of England’s Director of Safeguarding, Melissa Caslake, is resigning after just 18 months in post (News, 12 April 2019), it was announced this week.
Ms Caslake is to take up the post of director of children’s services for Devon County Council…
…A small group of survivors replied on Thursday with a statement wishing her well, saying that she would “leave with respect from many in the survivor community and beyond, for the energy she brought to transforming the Church’s safeguarding, and rescuing a moribund National Safeguarding Team.
“Some have offered legitimate criticism of the controversies over which she nominally presided, but still recognise that she has left a good mark of the changes required for the future. Indeed, she has done more than anyone to change the culture. She ‘got it’. We note that she came from a local authority context and returns to a similar position where she will have clear unambiguous roles, rules, and structures, none of which currently exist within the Church of England in general and Church House in particular.
“Until these are sorted out the position of Director of Safeguarding is virtually impossible to do with integrity, and we don’t blame Melissa for leaving whilst hers is still intact. . . It is crucial that her successor picks up on and carries forward the direction of change and reform. We wish her well.”
The Bishop of Huddersfield, Dr Jonathan Gibbs, the lead safeguarding bishop, said: “Melissa has brought experience, skills and commitment to her role and I would like to express my personal thanks for her support and leadership within the NST and National Safeguarding Steering Group. . .
“I am conscious that this has been a very demanding and personally costly role, facing challenges from many different directions. Melissa has sought to help the Church to become a safer and healthier place for all and we owe her a real debt of thanks for all her work on our behalf.”
The full text of the statement from survivors mentioned above is as follows:
Melissa Caslake will leave with respect from many in the survivor community and beyond, for the energy she brought to transforming the Church’s safeguarding, and rescuing a moribund National Safeguarding Team. Some have offered legitimate criticism of the controversies over which she nominally presided, but still recognise that she has left a good mark of the changes required for the future. Indeed, she has done more than anyone to change the culture. She “got it”. We note that she came from a Local Authority context and returns to a similar position where she will have clear unambiguous roles, rules, and structures, none of which currently exist within the Church of England in general and Church House in particular. Until these are sorted out the position of Director of Safeguarding is virtually impossible to do with integrity, and we don’t blame Melissa for leaving whilst hers is still intact. We suspect Moses would struggle to reshape the culture and mindset of Church House. We feel Melissa Caslake has done well to survive there for eighteen months. It is crucial that her successor picks up on and carries forward the direction of change and reform. We wish her well.
ANON – An incisive article, and one that leaves the reader in little doubt that the CofE is at a major fork in the road here. Trying to replace Melissa is going to be hard. I’d go further and say it’s not what is needed. NST 3 would make a decent PR coup for CofE comms for about a day, but the trouble is that all the systemic problems Stephen’s article so elegantly sketches remain in place. The trinity is: a concentration of ecclesiastical civil service power; comms, PR and a prioritisation of reputational management; episcopal power that retains command and control, who in turn are dominated by only a very tiny number of law firms and legal advisors. The system cannot avoid its inherent and consistent conflicts of interest, and to be frank, they are so multiple it is hard to find a single case the NST deals with that successfully surfaces, let alone manages, such COI.
It does not really matter where you drill in to the NST. Once you get through the thin veneer, it’s cheap chipboard. Take Core Groups. Nobody has any mandatory training to be on one. You might be lucky and have someone on it with legal expertise. Odds on, alas, it will be a church lawyer, with more of an eye for any reputational damage limitation. The predictable Comms person from the diocese or NCI will just be doing their jobs, and you can hardly blame for that. But why PR gets priority over victims or the accused is a question no one answers. There is no training in confirmation bias. No training on sifting evidence, or on distinguishing between facts and interpretation.
Survivors and those falsely accused – who have had their lives wrecked and their own reputations trashed – wait patiently in the wings for signs of justice and pastoral hope. I no longer believe the CofE can deliver either.
The cost of running a proper in-house scheme would be eye watering for the CofE. It does not have the imagination, intelligence or financial resources to manage this. The honourable, honest, decent and humble thing to do now is to admit its failures, make some attempt to confess its egregious sins in this arena, and set money aside for an independently run body that has the same kind of clout as the GMC for doctors, or the SRA for Solicitors. The CofE could set aside money to compensate victims.
The CofE is a small, dwindling sect, in which nearly everyone employed or in ministry will have some kind if connection to an alleged victim, alleged perpetrator, or even a member or two on a Core Group. The law firms that trade in this market all know each other, and can be numbered on the fingers of one hand. Under such conditions, its not possible to find a neutral jury or judge.
That’s why independence is the way forward. Melissa Caslake was the CofEs first full time Director of Safeguarding. She made a good fist of it. But after 18 months, I hope and pray she is also the last full-time Director of Safeguarding. Archbishops’ Council: get a grip, and do the right thing.
Four months ago, there was a formal complaint by ‘Graham’ against the Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby [June 12 2020].
Three months ago, Paul Handley – Church Times Editor – wrote an article ”NST considers safeguarding complaint against Welby [CT, July 28], and quoted the NST [National Safeguarding Team]: “Since a formal complaint has now been received by the NST, it is reviewing the information and will obviously respond on this to the person who brought the complaint and take any further action if needed.” A core group had been set up, according to the Church Times report, which also quoted ‘Graham’ as saying “there is no evidence that Archbishop Welby took steps to ensure that the allegations [against John Smyth] were known to the authorities in South Africa”. Lambeth Palace was contacted about the allegations against Smyth in 2013 – five years before his death in 2018.
“The key person who seems missing in action is…Justin Welby” ~ Stephen Parsons
This raises serious safeguarding concerns:
(a) ‘Safeguarding’ is the responsibility of all – including Archbishops.
(b) John Smyth was left to abuse others in South Africa for a further five years.
(c) Public interest in the outcome of a serious complaint against a Church of England Archbishop.
NB Archbishop Welby has not been suspended for these safeguarding failures, whereas the Bishop of Lincoln Christopher Lowson was suspended, and the Permission To Officiate [PTO] of former Archbishop George Carey revoked.
CHANNEL 4 NEWS
John Wallace Stephen, you are so right in this. Nearly 30 years ago, the children’s home where I worked was subject to allegations of abuse as a result of a new deputy Social Services Director, who wanted to make her mark. 52 of us were suspended. Fortunately, through the strength of numbers and putting pressure on councillors, we eventually got an independent enquiry which exonerated us and resulted in the Director and the deputy resigning and the rest of us being redeployed or receiving a financial settlement. Even at that time, the enquiry was reckoned to have cost the County Council around £1m. Martyn does not have the luxury of these numbers, but perhaps those of us who want to see fairness for Martyn – and believe in his integrity – should start a campaign of writing to + Birmingham (as in charge of the CDM), to +Oxford as the diocesan and to ++ Canterbury and ++ York (copying the Charity Commission into our correspondence). I believe totally in Martyn’s innocence and integrity but equally believe that any challenges to this should be based on fairness, openness and, dare I say, the spirit of Christian charity and humility. Initiating CDM processes during absence due to sickness is certainly bad practice and could well be illegal. I’m sure our legal participants to this blog will clarify this. Martyn has already suffered enough at the hands of vindictive academic and ecclesiastical manipulators. It is time for more vocal support for fairness and transparency of process.
Rowland Wateridge If, and we have to say if, a fraudulent document was used in initiating the CDM procedure, the CDM should be set aside, no ifs and buts about that. You can’t have a legal disciplinary procedure based on illegal material. So, the full facts about that document including how and by whom it was produced must be established urgently. I believe steps to that end are already in hand.
Angela Tilby Thank you, Stephen. Please continue and do not be disheartened.
EnglishAthena Good. Don’t be downhearted. You’re one of the people who’ve kept me sane.
Stephen Parsons I am hoping to republish soon!
Mary
Alyson Peberdy
The Bell Society 