Readers of my blog posts will not need to have much by way of comment on the Statement below. It is an expression of Matt’s criticisms of the official Church of England’s conduct of Safeguarding business and his case in particular. We would hope that his refusal to co-operate with the review into his case will result in some change in the ways these reviews are done. We can hope so and we and many others will be watching. The way out of this failure to protect and care for survivors will surely involve radical changes in leadership, both in the safeguarding industry and the episcopal oversight that is supposed to be in force. Whether this will will happen is unclear but the status quo is now so flawed that we all should be clamouring for change so that transparency and justice can be found.
This statement is issued on behalf of Matthew Ineson on Tuesday 30th July 2019
STATEMENT FROM MATT INESON
The Church of England has announced a “Lessons Learned” review into my abuse. I will not be cooperating with the review.
At General Synod in July 2019 the Bishop of Bath and Wells announced three ‘independent’ Lessons Learned reviews into the Church of England’s handling of the disclosures of abuse by The Revd Trevor Devamanikkam, Bishop Victor Whitsey and John Smyth QC. All three reviews had in fact been previously announced, but all three have been delayed by the church for almost two years.
I am a victim of Revd Devamanikkam. On the basis of my evidence he was charged with three counts of rape and three counts of indecent assault of a child. He took his own life in June 2017 on the day before his trial. I had disclosed my abuse to Archbishop John Sentamu, Bishop Steven Croft, Bishop Peter Burrows, Bishop Martyn Snow and Bishop Glyn Webster. None of them took appropriate action on my disclosure. The re-abuse I have suffered as a result of the negligence of some of these bishops since my disclosures can only be described as wicked. I recently testified under oath about my abuse, and the church’s appalling response, at the IICSA Inquiry.
The Lessons Learned review into my case was originally announced in September 2017, but the church has repeatedly made many excuses for not starting it. This month, under pressure from the IICSA Inquiry, the church announced that it was ready to go ahead. After waiting for two years I was given a matter of days in which to comment on the Terms of Reference and the chosen reviewer.
I have decided it is not possible for me at present to engage with the review. These are my reasons:
- The entire process seems to have been constructed so as to avoid proper scrutiny. The so-called “core group” set up by the church to investigate what happened consists only of representatives of the bishops against whom I had complained, together with communications professionals from the church. Neither I or my abuser are represented. Nor are there any external authorities or professionals.
- The “independent reviewer” proposed by the church is in fact a contracted employee of the church and therefore cannot be seen as independent. This is clearly unacceptable, but appears to be a growing pattern. The recent review of the case of Bishop George Bell was also conducted by a church employee.
- The terms of reference proposed by the church have been written in such a way as to limit the information available to any reviewer. A time limit has been set on the scope of the reviews that deliberately precludes the investigation of individuals who were at the very core of wrongdoing. Again, this is a growing trend. The proposed review of John Smyth QC has been designed to exclude three quarters of his victims.
- The church’s National Safeguarding Team have said that they will only give the reviewer evidence that they judge to be relevant. That means that the parties under investigation are controlling access to crucial material.
- The church has not given a commitment to publish the review. This is another unacceptable trend. The church decided that the recent review in Birmingham Diocese should not even be shown to the victims. How can lessons be learned if the review is not published in full?
Along with many other victims of church abuse I regard the church’s Lessons Learned review process as worse than useless. The overriding motive is clearly not to learn lessons but to protect bishops. This repeated cover-up happens at the expense of victims of abuse. We can have no confidence while the church seeks to mark its own homework.
The purpose of a review should be to investigate what has happened, thoroughly and transparently, and to bring to account those who have done wrong. The Church of England’s view is that it must be ‘seen’ to have done something, whilst in reality doing absolutely nothing. I cannot agree. There must be accountability. Lessons cannot be learned if no one is held to account.
I have repeatedly asked the church’s Director of Safeguarding to meet me to discuss my concerns, but he has refused to do so.
For all these reasons I regard the proposed review into the abuse by The Revd Trevor Devamanikkam as a sham and I will not participate in it. Instead I plan shortly to commission a truly independent investigation into my abuse and the subsequent failings of bishops and others. The Church of England will be invited to take part, and the results will be published so that lessons can truly be learned.
For further information please contact Matthew Ineson on 07780 686310 or castellan6@aol.com.
Matthew Ineson gave evidence to the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse on 10th July.
The transcript of his evidence is available at https://www.iicsa.org.uk/key-documents/12767/view/public-hearing-transcript-10-july-2019.pdf
Has Matthew Ineson requested that you share his mobile phone number so widely? The purpose of putting a phone number in a press release is to enable journalists to contact the sender not every single reader of a news report.
Would you have any other comments, I wonder?
Hi Andrew.
I’m fine with it
Matt
Already today I have received massive support and agreement to what I have said from many many people including a large number of clergy. The overwhelming comments are that the church should engage with victims and cooperate with us but this cannot ever be done only on the church’s terms. That is an abuse of power-an attempt to control victims…again.
I, and many other victims, are more than willing to engage but there must be independence and accountability. The church cannot mark it’s own homework and then put it in the bottom drawer anymore.
Other comments being made are whether under the current leadership of Justin Welby and John Sentamu things will ever improve for the church. The overwhelming opinion is that the current leadership is weak and things can only get worse. Many clergy and laity are very worried about this.
It really is time to say enough is enough. The churchs and bishops reputation must not be put first. Care of the abuse should. It is time for genuine change.
You’re still on my prayer list, Matt. This is disgraceful.
I really can’t understand why they are still behaving in a way which is not only damaging to you, Matt, but is not even in their own best interests. It reminds me of various Old Testament pronouncements that when God wants to destroy a nation or other human organisation, he ‘hardens their heart’ so they keep pursuing cruel and self-destructive courses. I don’t actually share that view of God’s nature and the causes of hymn perversity, but I can understand why they thought like that at the time.
After your convincing testimony at IICSA and the revelations of the appalling way you’ve been treated – including both archbishops’ refusal to apologise even for the original abuse – their best course now is to co-operate with you (and other survivors) and show that they have genuinely changed. Instead, they are even more determined not even to speak to you. That’s both shameful and stupid.
Having just read through Matt Ineson’s testimony to the ICSA Inquiry I don’t know what to say. How utterly appalling. God bless you Matthew for your courage and tenacity in face of huge organisational power.
Church House operates almost as a ‘rogue state’ within the Church. It is allowed to make up its own rules, bend rules, and distort truth with no accountability. I tried to tackle this in totally fruitless meeting with Bishops Hancock and Mullally over a year ago. But was told that in order to complain about the NST you have to complain to the NST. It enjoys the protection of being inside its own insulated bubble. Often toxicly dishonest and led by a deep malevolence – it is allowed to do enormous reabusive harm to survivors and bring deeper damage to the reputation of the Church. Any sensible Bishop would take one look at what is going on with this review and find it dishonest and disturbing. But somehow Bishop Hancock and others, who presumably have awareness, lack the wisdom and courage to say Enough.
In similar vein, the senior bishops on the NSSG (Hancock and Mullally again) stood by and watched another review repeatedly and publicly rubbished by Ecclesiastical. The Bishop mandated to champion that review never lifted a finger to challenge the obvious weaselry of the church’s insurer. In fact Bishop Mullally was happy to go along with the lies of Church House as they supported the rubbishing of the Elliott Review. The mendacity of Ecclesiastical was finally fully laid bare in a momentous recall to Ecclesiastical to address misleading evidence at the Inquiry. Worth watching the full 40 minutes to see just how much this corporate group wriggled like slippery eels.
https://youtu.be/Ybk4ml1YMD4
I agree wholeheartedly with Matt. This cycle must end. Church House must not be allowed to wreak further reabusive harm. And the deep dishonesty of the senior layer, which includes both Archbishops and many other senior bishops, must be addressed and faced properly. This existential crisis will continue to be addressed squarely and directly by survivors until this dysfunctional senior layer is authentic in acknowledging its collective dishonesty. Nothing less than Truth and Reconciliation can redeem the scars left by such a powerfully dishonourable Church.