The almost universal availability of the Internet has made it possible for any persistent enquirer to have access to vast amounts of information. In the past, only specialist researchers with permission to use university libraries could expect to find so much material. While filing cabinets and confidential computer files do still bury secrets away from prying eyes in Bishops’ offices and elsewhere, the ordinary diligent searcher by the use of the net can still discover many truths that organisations, like the Church, might prefer to remain hidden.
In the past few days, I have had reason to pull out of my filing system, all the paperwork I have accumulated from the internet about the case of John Smyth. It is quite a large pile of paper. To remind readers, John Smyth QC was closely identified with the Iwerne camps run for public school boys by a group of conservative Christians. These still operate today. Smyth was, at the time of his unmasking in 1982 chairman of the trustees body which ran these camps. He was revealed to have been administering brutal sadistic beatings to some of the boys. This was claimed to be for their spiritual benefit. This behaviour was not reported to the police at the time and the story only came fully to light more generally in 2013. The whole saga about Smyth and the lengthy suppression of information about his behaviour was made the topic of a Channel 4 documentary in 2017. Smyth himself died in the summer of 2018. An independent review of the events surrounding the story was announced in the middle of 2019. This is being undertaken by Keith Makin and the original completion date was that it would report in May this year.
The complete story of John Smyth is an immensely complicated one and what I write here will only cover certain salient points and questions that have come out of my personal perusing of the internet material that I have collected. Having re-read many of these documents over the past few days, I am moved to summarise all this massive amount of material with a single word – cover-up.
In many ways, the savage beatings that took place in Smyth’s shed in his garden in Winchester and at Iwerne (and later in Zimbabwe) are the least interesting part of the saga. For the sufferers, of course, they were deeply traumatic and life changing. We must never lose sight of that. But, of far more interest to those of us trying to understand the story in its entirety, is the way numerous other people in Smyth’s network were caught up in the scandal. The way that so many individuals were part of the story, not just as bystanders, but sometimes as active colluders, is striking. Together they have, with varying degrees of culpability, conspired together to suppress the truth about a pernicious evil.
The word that I have used to describe the whole debacle, ‘cover-up’, is a word that suggests secrecy, lies and conspiracy to hide information. It is sometimes possible for an individual with knowledge of immoral activity to believe that they have to remain silent for reasons of ‘confidentiality’. The situation changes considerably when criminally evil actions are revealed. These same witnesses are required ethically and legally to reveal what they know. The claim of confidentiality is a poor defence in such a situation. ‘Amnesia’ also seems like a suspiciously weak excuse for a witness to evil to make. They seem to have chosen to become fairly active participants in a conspiracy to bury illegal and immoral behaviour.
Looking at the Smyth paperwork in my possession, there are at least three areas of questioning to be opened up by the reviewer. In 1982 a written report about Smyth’s activities was made under the chairmanship of Mark Ruston, the Cambridge Vicar of the Round Church. He was a key figure in Cambridge and was known by all in the conservative Christian orbit. This report named the abuses by Smyth and also identified some of the victims using initials. The authors accepted that evil had taken place but, for reasons of their own, nothing was done either to help the victims or to bring the incidents to the attention of the authorities in Church or State. Many of the individuals identified as having received this report are dead but others are still alive. We would expect that this early attempt to respond to Smyth’s behaviour should be investigated, as far as possible, by speaking to those who are still with us.
Winchester College, which most of the teenage victims attended, also knew about Smyth’s activities. The headmaster at the time, John Thorn, wrote about the case in his autobiography. There are also numerous other potential witnesses, chaplains of the school, parents of the victims and other masters. One would hope that some are queuing up to give their accounts of what they remember of the traumatic episode. It is inconceivable that the headmaster, who extracted a signed agreement from Smyth, did not share some information with the housemasters at the school. The head chaplain at the school who was there when the abuses were discovered, has claimed a complete failure of memory. Is such selective amnesia to be compared with that afflicting Prince Andrew? For most of us the expressions ‘I do not recall’ or ‘I have no memory of’ are either coded admissions of guilt or an attempt to shut down questions which have got too close to the truth.
Another cluster of questions concerns the charitable mission, the Zambesi Trust. This provided Smyth with an opportunity for further abusive behaviour in Zimbabwe. Setting up the charity involved trustees and the raising of considerable sums of money in this country. Somebody had to provide written references for Smyth for him to be received by the church in Zimbabwe. Was that a carefully constructed piece of fiction, adding to the deceits already circulating around Smyth? According to the independent Coltart report written to address concerns about Smyth’s work in Zimbabwe (of which I have a copy), some of the British trustees were extremely unhappy at some his activities. In the end all but two resigned. One would hope to hear from some of these disgruntled former trustees and also from the two that remained. Sue Colman, married to one of these remaining trustees, and evidently involved in financially supporting Smyth, remains an Anglican clergy person in good standing. Should not an apparent failure of safeguarding on her part (by failing to follow up abuse complaints) result in an automatic suspension of her PTO? We have recently heard how the rules have been rigorously applied to the Dean of Lincoln. Providing money, which enabled a known or suspected abuser to flee the country, is a serious matter. It is everybody’s business that such collusion in evil should not be overlooked even if it happened over thirty years ago.
The overall suppression of information about Smyth (and Jonathan Fletcher) within the Iwerne/Titus/ReNew networks leaves us with a continuing sense of unease. There were many high up in the network who knew what was going on. The failure of a single one to come forward, suggests that the word conspiracy is an accurate one to describe this corporate behaviour. A similar series of questions surround the events of 2012/2013. All the personnel with responsibilities at Lambeth and Church House are alive and there should be no problem with obtaining a clear narrative about who did what and who told whom, particularly in the light of the disclosure of Smyth’s abuse by the survivor known as Graham. Archbishop Welby admits to knowing about Smyth in 2013. He suggested at an interview in February 2017 that there had been a rigorous enquiry and he had been kept in touch. Victims have no evidence that this was the case. Given that he was himself part of the same Iwerne network as many of those who knew Smyth well, there was a lot that he could have done. Having heard about the scandal, it was possible for him, as a senior churchman, to have required members of that network (his friends) to come forward with what they knew. His silence and apparent unwillingness to reach out to survivors suggests a deeper complicity on his part in the story. We are at present left to speculate what the truth in this really is.
The success or failure of the Smyth review will very much depend on the readiness of individuals involved the events of the past to be willing to share freely what they know. If they are Christian people, they should surely prioritise truth over tribal loyalties and the defence of a churchmanship brand? If Keith Makin is unable to penetrate through the cover-up and suppression of truth that I believe has marked the whole episode for years, I sincerely hope that will be clearly stated in the report. If the former supporters of Smyth and those loyal to his brand of conservative theology continue to obstruct through a failure to fully cooperate, that needs to be highlighted also. Secrecy, lies and cover-up have no place in a review that is trying to make the Church a better place. The eventual report is expected at the end of the year. I shall be reading it carefully to see whether the Church can move on to be a better place of healing for the broken and a place of light and truth for those who live in a place of darkness.
I pray every day that the people that know what happened to all victims will reach deep inside themselves for the bravery to come forward and speak out. Loyalty for Christians HAS to be with Christ and Christ is TRUTH! Do not let these atrocities go unheard in a court of law. Justice must prevail. I pray also, for the full healing of each heart shattered by these evil deeds.
Many thanks for this. I had thought that the Charity Commission were looking into the Titus Trust, at least in 2017 (although I do not know on what basis), but cannot ascertain what became of that inquiry. As you know, the Titus Trust is still a registered charity, and is not an exempt charity.
The Zambesi Trust, to which you allude, was closed in 2018. I wonder whether the Commission should be presented with a FOIA request in order to determine what the circumstances of its closure where and whether the Commission took action against any of its trustees for malfeasance.
I would have thought that there should be, or should have been, a formal investigation by the Commission of the Titus Trust under Section 46 of the Charities Act 2011.
To change tack, it has been noted on previous posts that a decent indemnity fund should be established for victims. My admittedly inexpert take on the coronavirus tragedy is that the financial consequences for the Church (both the dioceses and Commissioners) might be so drastic, and the disruption to their income streams so serious, that they will be relatively more likely to fight tooth and nail to prevent any further erosion of their capital (which must presently be in free-fall). Yet the needs of some victims might become more pressing as the slump makes their employment prospects ever more grave.
I have always appreciated Jesus’ words that there is nothing covered up which will not be revealed. Also in the letter of James, confess your sins to one another and you will be healed. That implies openness. Should I cut myself, then a plaster is appropriate to begin with to stop the bleeding, but once that is over, I like to open it up to the air to aid healing.
Thank you so much for this, Stephen. But a quick comment. You say in paragraph 4: “In many ways, the savage beatings that took place in Smyth’s shed in his garden in Winchester and at Iwerne (and later in Zimbabwe) ….” There is no evidence that any of this behaviour took place at Iwerne. It is really important that those of us who are fighting for the full recognition of survivors and for their wellbeing are accurate in what we say. All we actually know, from survivors, is that the beatings took place in Smyth’s garden shed near Winchester and that some took place in Zimbabwe. Best wishes in all you are doing.
One of his victims has reported that Smyth beat him savagely at a Iwerne camp. Certainly, both Smyth and Fletcher used the camps to groom their victims. There would have been opportunity for Fletcher to abuse young men at the camps or at least off site while the camps were going on.
Re Justin Welby’s involvement in Iwerne, he has insisted that he had no knowledge of Smyth’s abuse before 2013. Certainly, former Iwerne officers who were roughly the same age as Justin Welby when he was a dormitory officer in the late 1970s knew about Smyth’s abuse quite soon after the Ruston report was circulated in 1982. The reason Justin Welby was not taken into the know may have been because he was perceived as ‘a bit charismatic’ having got involved in Holy Trinity Brompton. But Archbishop Welby did get re-involved in Iwerne in the late 1980s. In fact, I saw him at a Iwerne students’ conference in early January 1990.
My memory of him as he was when he was a business man in the 1980s is that had he found out about Smyth’s abuse he would have been a whistle-blower. Maybe that combined with the charismatic suspicion was the reason he was not told.
Thank you so much for correcting me. I am very grateful that you took the trouble to comment. Isn’t this one of the problems, that there are so many different stories and ‘facts’ that we need to remember that none of us knows it all. Thank you Julian and Stephen for making your comments.
Anne I have heard direct testimony that beatings did take place at Iwerne. I am in touch with the survivor concerned. This may not be in the official paper work but I can point you in the right direction should this direct evidence be required. I hope Keith Makin can reach this evidence and give it circulation.
This is an anonymous contribution from a contact known personally to me. I have no reason to doubt his utter veracity.
“The most savage beating of all, 800 strokes, took place in a Boarding House at Clayesmore School. The beaters ( Smyth and Doggart) had to take a break at lunchtime, as they were too tired. The victim was allowed to sleep until they restarted. The Police have been aware of this for three years, and it is well recorded in a contemporaneous account. It is only Titus Trust and Justin Welby who deny this.
Secondly “some took place in Zimbabwe”. There were far more victims in Zimbabwe and they were much younger children. There were 70 children referred to in the litigation against Smyth.
Julian comments that Welby attended Iwerne in the late 1980s. Here is the quote from his Biography “Welby was involved in the Camps as an undergraduate and again as a businessman and theological college student in the 1980s and early 1990s.” ( page 35). That sounds like more than the occasional visit. He attended the Camps that he now claims were not Anglican in the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s. His degree of knowledge before 2013: I have first hand testimony from someone very close to him that “of course he knew something. He knew Smyth had gone, and under a cloud, he just did not know why”. It would be a very uninquisitive Officer who learned no more than that. The New York Times quotes a source who says Welby definitely knew.
David obviously has some knowledge of the Camps. However, it is not true that Scripture Union ran the Camps. The Camps may have been in their name, but the reality was the cabal of Officers around Bash and David Fletcher believed themselves, and their brand of Christianity to be far superior ( for goodness sake, not every SU employee had been to a top public school like them). They viewed SU with disdain. The Iwerne Trust did effectively run the Camps. The Ruston Report was sent to Iwerne Trustees John Eddison, Dick Knight, David Fletcher and David Wilkinson. It was not sent to SU. That reflects the realpolitik of who actually ran the camps.
Lastly, the parents of boys were not all informed. And while many were Wykehamists, many were not. Two parents confronted Smyth with John Thorn. It is recorded they were put under great pressure “by senior evangelicals” to take this no further. I am a victim of John Smyth. I do not recall my opinion ever being asked in 1982. That is not to say that I would not have begged the whole thing to be kept under wraps.
I am not going to get drawn into a debate around this. Some “facts” ( like no beatings at Iwerne) are being repeated. They are untrue. I was there”.
I think it needs to be clear that the Iwerne Trust did not “run the camps”. It was a trust set up to fund the camps. The camps themselves, with other camps, were under the umbrella of Scripture Union, in a part originally called “Varsity and Public School Camps” (aka “Very Posh Schools Camps”), and later “Scripture Union in Independent Schools”. When those involved in the Iwerne Camps thought that SU was getting ‘unsound’ (those in the other camps did not always agree…), the Titus Trust was set up to run all of the camps in the group.
When this all came out, I read one report which said that when the Ruston report was taken to Winchester College, it was the parents of the boys concerned who did not want this taken to the police. If this is true, it does put the issue in a rather different light. Should the Iwerne Trust (who did, after all, instigate an investigation) or the school have gone against the wishes of the boys concerned?
Back then the guidelines were “no”. Today the answer is yes.
I find it interesting – and disturbing – that there is still an ongoing effort to distance the Iwerne camps from Smyth and his appalling behaviour. It has been known for some time, and stated repeatedly, that at least one boy was savagely beaten while at Iwerne. I too have been told this by a Smyth survivor with reliable data.
While Iwerne circles continue in this denial, we can have no confidence that the camps and other activities are safe places. If they continue to cover up events of 30-40 years ago, would they deal any better with abuse if it were (God forbid) happening now?
I have no doubt that as a starting point Keith Makin will have prepared a chronology of all events, people and places available to him from existing material and records. That is how all ‘abuse’ investigations begin. He will doubtless consider the extent to which the Iwerne Trust (or whoever was legally responsible for the Iwerne Camps) and Winchester College (and others) were in loco parentis to Smyth’s victims at the times and in the places where the assaults took place.
In relation to Winchester College, my understanding is that David’s and English Athena’s posts above correctly state the position. When the facts came to his knowledge, the headmaster warned off Smyth. As to reporting to the authorities, he states that he deferred to the wishes of the parents. I believe he has since admitted that he would act differently today. The Church’s brief to Keith Makin expressly instructed him to report his findings having regard to conditions and accepted standards and practice at the time of the events, and not to apply later, current ones with the benefit of hindsight. I believe that from his experience as a very senior social work manager he will be able to draw that distinction.
Just as a single random example of how crucial it is to have an accurate chronology, wasn’t Justin Welby abroad during some of the relevant years?
His five year placement with Elf Aquitaine in Paris was 1978-83. Smyth’s activities were essentially 1978 to early 1982.
This was an incredibly busy period. His marriage was at end of 1979 presumably preceded by preparation. Any travelling would have had to be short term. The summer holidays of 1980 were spent Bible smuggling in Czechoslovakia, and those of 1981 Bible smuggling in Romania. He was in UK 1982 autumn however briefly to speak of the said smuggling to us at Harrow. This talk was a one off (the only time he addressed us), whereas most other Iwerne-linked CU speakers would return from time to time. Also in 1982 they were expecting their first child, born at the end of the year.
An extremely busy time for the family therefore, and one uniquely separated from Iwerne.
The other point I always make is that some cannot conceive that there are Christians who take the injunction not to gossip seriously. That says more about them and their norms IMHO than it does about the people they’re speculating about.
Welby was in Paris but did return to speak at at least one Iwerne camp during that time. I have seen the programme with his name on it.
And note also this Times article from 1 June 2017: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/welby-changes-his-tune-about-link-to-sex-abuse-camp-zdp06nl8b
‘The Archbishop of Canterbury has changed his account of how much he was involved with a Christian summer camp run by a Trust whose chairman is being investigated by police for abusing children.
The Most Rev Justin Welby said in February that he had been a dormitory officer at Iwerne Christian camp during the mid-1970s after allegations that John Smyth, chairman of the Trust that ran the camp, had groomed and beaten more than 20 boys and young men.
The archbishop had previously said that he had “no contact” with the organisation between moving to Paris in 1978 and his return to Britain in 1983, the period during which the abuse is alleged to have taken place. It is understood that the alleged abuse happened away from the camp.
Last night it emerged that Mr Welby had come back to the UK and given a talk in 1979 to people at the camp, which was also attended by Mr Smyth.
The archbishop told Channel 4 News: “Many of the officers in the camps gave talks at some point – there were approximately 14 talks per camp and four camps a year so this was not an unusual occurrence at all. A talk on reading the Bible, which I did as a one-off in 1979, does not make anyone a member of an ‘inner circle’.”
Previously unseen documents belonging to an alleged victim of Mr Smyth show Mr Welby’s address in Paris and the topic of his talk on August 20, 1979 – “Why read the Bible?”
The documents show Mr Smyth gave talks to the camp during July and August. Another document showed a newsletter sent by the camp to Mr Welby’s French address in 1983.
Mark Stibbe, one of Mr Smyth’s alleged victims who was given the documents by another alleged victim, said: “My friend must have had a conversation with Justin Welby at an Iwerne event crucially after 1978.
“If this address was given to my friend in the UK at an Iwerne event, that again would suggest a discrepancy between what is publicly asserted and what is actually factual.”
The archbishop did not deny the veracity of the documents and said: “My details in the address book were of my office at Elf Aquitaine, a very large French oil company, not my personal home address. Iwerne circulated newsletters to me as they did to a broad range of people and organisations.”
Mr Stibbe told the programme: “It’s clear to me from listening to the archbishop’s comments . . . that he was saying he had no connection with Iwerne Minster between 1978 and 1983 because he was in Paris at that time.
“He has sought publicly to distance himself from all things Iwerne in that five-year time frame. But this document tells – if it’s true, if it reflects reality – a very different story.”
He added: “We have lived, recently particularly, and in some cases for many years, with the impression that people knew. Senior people in the Church of England knew that John Smyth…
Unless there are two independent witnesses prepared to go on the record that before 2013 Welby definitely knew about the criminal abuse Smyth committed, no responsible journalist in the UK would touch that story with a barge pole. ‘Welby is lying’ is a big story and that one would need to be thoroughly lawyered.
For what it’s worth, I think it’s entirely plausible he didn’t know. By the time Welby got re-involved in Iwerne in the second half of the ’80s and Iwerne commandant David Fletcher had moved on to become Rector of St Ebbe’s Oxford, the organisation had very successfully swept the scandal under the carpet.
It’s also worth remembering that Welby had been out of the Iwerne game as a business man by the time the inner circle had got the Ruston report and David Fletcher had included some other selected officers in the loop. Had Welby been a teacher at one of the ‘top 30’ public schools before becoming a clergyman, it would be harder to believe he was not in the know.
In case you don’t realise it, Christopher, ‘gossip’ is an emotive word and will be deemed insulting by many. The issue of whether and when Welby attended Iwerne camps in that early period is never a question of gossip. It is a matter of facts. Gossip is information based on hearsay or speculation. Whatever else is being said, the claims being are not based on gossip but are based on clear evidence both written and eye-witness. These can be checked if necessary. Fact-checking is not something that this blog wants to engage in particularly, but sometimes it is essential. Please stick to factual observations.
Clarifying point from Christopher Shell. ‘Janet’s and Stephen’s data on Justin Welby’s contact with Iwerne 1978-82 are undoubted and could indeed be amplified. That was not what I was referring to in my reference to ‘gossip’ – I was referring, rather, to the possibility that Justin Welby’s peers successfully kept mum to him about why John Smyth had emigrated, partly because of what the Bible says about gossip.’.
I can’t over-emphasise the importance of an accurate historical chronology in establishing what happened. I don’t want to offend anyone, but shouldn’t we all leave this to Mr Makin who has an official brief and professional expertise. Although by now his investigations are possibly already at an advanced stage, I assume that it is open to anyone to make submissions to him from their personal knowledge.