Martin Sewell writes:
In a week when one might have though the behaviour of MP’s over Brexit had placed the term “honourable member” beyond parody, evidence to the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse demonstrated that the low point may not yet have been reached.
Whilst giving evidence at IICSA last Thursday Lord Steel admitted that he had recommended his party colleague Cyril Smith for a knighthood, having not only heard rumours of his involvement in child abuse, but having received a direct admission of guilt from his criminal colleague. This is outrageous on two levels.
First, through such complicity, Lord Steel placed other young people at continuing risk, facilitating Smith’s narrative to victims that he was too well connected to be held to account for his abusive behaviour. This is a familiar theme to regular readers of this blog who will know that for many, many years Bishops and senior clergy in positions of prominence and influence within both the Anglican and Roman Catholic Churches knew of credible evidence of abuse by known malefactors, yet permitted them to continue predating the vulnerable for reasons of corporate reputational management.
This resulted in abusers being quietly moved on, sometimes within this country, sometimes abroad yet as in the case of Lord Steel, it denied protection to those who thought they could trust those receiving the imprimatur of trusted Establishment institutions. There were approximately 144 victims, many residents of local authority care homes in Rochdale who were already vulnerable and known to be in need of protection. The sheer weight of numbers is shocking.
Second, by recommending the honour, Lord Steel misled his Sovereign by representing Smith to be a fit and proper person to receive it when he knew this not to have been the case. He had learnt of the allegations in 1979 but rather chose to see his colleague honoured because it was not a matter for him. That was a severe misjudgement. Can an advisor who has served his monarch so badly really continue to remain a member of the Privy Council?
The Queen had necessarily relied upon her advisor in such a matter; he was a senior Parliamentarian with a history of principled stands on matters that he considered rightly or wrongly to have important moral dimensions. He later served as Presiding Officer (Speaker) of the Scottish Assembly and was also known to be a significant member of the Church of Scotland which he later served as Lord High Commissioner of the Assembly of the Church of Scotland. Radical thinker he may be, but you do not get much more Establishment than Lord Steel, and his recommending status meant something both at the time and now.
Yet like politicians and indeed Bishops before him, he has demonstrated a dreadful blind spot where the terrible effects of child abuse were concerned. I note it is still being described as sexual and physical abuse whereas, as my previous blog highlighted, it is the institutional Emotional Abuse and re-abuse that is especially wounding. In passing one ought to note that in this, he is far from alone. The crass remarks of Boris Johnson on the subject demonstrates that the under appreciation of the issue in public life is depressingly widespread. https://www.bbc.com/news/amp/uk-47560192
To their credit, the Scottish Liberal Party have moved swiftly to suspend and investigate Lord Steel’s case. In this they put to shame the Church of England. At virtually the same time problems have again hit the Church of England with reports
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/03/13/longest-serving-church-england-bishop-faces-calls-resign-court/
from Chester Crown Court that the local Diocesan Bishop had received an admission from a priest abuser but accepted an assurance that he “would not do it again”. This has resulted in campaigning journalist Andrew Graystone writing to directly call for the Bishop’s resignation. The basis for this call is that whilst a clear admission was made to the preceding Bishop, Victor Whitsey ( himself a recently accused abuser ) the fact of this matter having been discussed, came to the attention of the Diocese in 2009 and yet no proactive steps were taken to protect future potential victims, or to alert the police.
In both cases, plainly those exercising misjudgement are not bad people. I constantly remind readers that the context of the time must be factored in. However, the time for this to be an excuse allowing us to continue, simply apologising, undertaking a “learned lesson review’ and moving on, has surely passed. That scenario has been played out too many times in too many places. Victims need to see more robust responses either from the individuals concerned or from the relevant institutions.
Until such public figures pay a price, either through voluntarily resignation, through the withdrawal of honours conferred upon them, or through being shunned by the court of public opinion, we shall continue to have a culture of minimisation and cover-up. Hitherto the only ones who have paid a price for these matters coming into the public domain are the victims who have to revisit their history of pain, humiliation, anger and all the tragedies within their personal lives that go with this.
If the Establishment, secular or faith, is to retain any credibility, it is time for its members to grasp the personal responsibility that such cases require. Great reputation and personal advantage goes with public status: with great privilege goes great responsibility. Respect for both victims betrayed and the institutions served requires no more feet shuffling but bold moral acceptance of consequence through principled resignation.
Anything less would demonstrate precisely the kind of cynicism which our Archbishop advised us to give up for Lent when he addressed the General Synod last month. It will continue to poison our public discourse unless or until those privileged with public approval voluntarily surrender it when public confidence is no longer merited,
Ooh, I’m not giving up cynicism anytime soon. Boris is one reason. How can anyone equate raping children with a childish public school boy game? Or at least, how can he still be a Prime Ministerial candidate when he does? I’m disappointed in Steel. But didn’t he say he passed it on to the police? That does make it their responsibility. He certainly shouldn’t have recommended the knighthood, though.
I regret to say that I think Johnson’s vile comments were most likely deliberate and politically calculated. In a time of great political uncertainty, I see him sowing seeds in the public mind of himself as the man of action who will get things done that need to be done now, the one who will get things properly sorted out, rather than throwing money away on things that are ancient history. It makes me shudder.
Yes, quite so. I read an article, in the i I think, which pointed out that if he had used correct grown up words, everyone would have been appalled. But using childish words made it seem ok. So simple, and it has worked.
The whole population must know by now that our so called democracy and its parliament can achieve little. The church seems to be floundering. We do need reminding sometimes that good overcomes evil.
The Telegraph report on the Chester case “Longest serving Church of England bishop faces calls to resign after court hears he knew about paedophile priest” was, to say the least, inaccurate and unfair to the present Bishop of Chester. You have rightly clarified that what the court heard related to a previous bishop, Bishop Whitsey. Few people reading the Telegraph’s account would have made that connection, nor does the Telegraph’s report mention the court at all – just an irresponsible sensationalist heading leading to an unfair innuendo. The abuse occurred in the 1970s. No one condones that. The abuser has been convicted and sent to prison at the age of 89. I have attempted on another website to persuade people to hold fire in their premature and possibly unjustified criticism of the present Bishop, still less to call for his resignation. I find these attitudes quite shocking when not all of the facts are known and media reporting both by the Telegraph and the local press has not correctly presented the facts. There is to be an internal Diocesan Inquiry and everyone should await the outcome of that.
from the Telegraph report:
‘The Bishop of Chester, Rt Rev Peter Forster, found out Rev Gordon Dickenson had become embroiled in a child abuse scandal decades earlier when the retired vicar wrote a letter about the affair in 2009.
Dickenson was convicted earlier this month of eight counts of sexual assault after pleading guilty to abusing a boy during the 1970s inside a church hall and even his vicarage.
But ten years ago, Dickenson had written to the Diocese of Chester which was conducting a review of past abuse cases admitting he been accused of the abuse during the 1970s and had promised the then Bishop of Chester he would “never do it again”.’
I replied to this belatedly, but my computer seems to have malfunctioned.
I still consider, emphatically, that the Telegraph’s report dealt with this serious matter far too superficially, but rather than rehearse the reasons, events have now taken a new turn. The Bishop has delegated his safeguarding responsibilities to the Bishop of Birkenhead.
We must await the outcome of the Official Investigation. It is wholly inappropriate for people to speculate what may, or may not, have happened and to pass judgement without knowing all the facts.
The CofE will do nothing where abuse is concerned. the Bishop of Oxford has been under investigation by the major crime unit at South Yorkshire Police for well over a year and was interviewed under caution last October for misconduct in public office for ignoring disclosures of abuse…but the CofE and Archbishop of Canterbury do nothing. The Bishop of Chester ignored disclosures of abuse, the former bishop of Liverpool the same along with the Bishops of Beverley, Doncaster, Leicester and of course York etc etc etc.
They say they will conduct internal inquries. Victims of abuse say NOT GOOD ENOUGH. Perhaps the Archbishop of Canterbury should spend more time being rigorous with his fellow failing bishops than having snuggling up to them having dinner with them in Lambeth Palace
The Telegraph reports that a CDM has now been taken out against Bp. Forster by Sir Roger Singleton. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/03/29/bishop-accused-covering-child-sex-abuse-scandal-gives-safeguarding/