by Gilo
Having written a piece about the use of ‘core groups’ and the Clergy Discipline Measure, to be discussed by the House of Bishops this month, Surviving Church has received a further contribution on the topic from Gilo. Gilo’s current piece focuses on the Martyn Percy saga at Christ Church Oxford and explores the way that Church of England official safeguarding procedures have somehow become entangled in the affair. The process has become messy and it is hard to see a good outcome when good practice and the pursuit of fairness appear to have been bypassed along the way. It would not be an exaggeration to suggest that the entire structure of Church of England safeguarding is on trial in this one case. And yet the situation presents to survivors a new opportunity to bring legitimate complaints about many serving bishops. In the past, complaints have been routinely dismissed, but now we would expect to see core groups and action. Ed.
The National Safeguarding Team has instigated a ‘core group’ to investigate complaints against Professor Martyn Percy by disaffected members of Christ Church alleging safeguarding failures. This follows the comprehensive dismissal by Sir Andrew Smith (a retired High Court judge) of the original case brought against Percy by members of the Governing Body seeking his removal from office. To many who have followed the media stories on this saga, this latest development resembles a kangaroo court with the deployment of weaponised safeguarding in a desperate attempt to oust the Dean. It was reported by the Church Times (29 May) that Percy has no representation on this core group but must adhere to its diktat. It seems likely that this action by the NST will add considerably to the reputational damage already done Percy by the group of college dons.
As has been previously written on this blog and elsewhere – NST core groups are already a deeply contentious issue. There’s a striking parallel here with they way they’ve been used in survivors’ cases as little more than a PR management exercise. In my case, the NST had the lawyer present who led the settlement for Ecclesiastical Insurance – but I had no representation and didn’t know a core group had taken place for 18 months. The appropriation of the NST in Percy’s situation is likely to rebound heavily on an already mistrusted and discredited Church of England national safeguarding.
It has been reported that two of the dons pitched against Percy sit on this core group. If either of them sent or received proposals to “poison” the Dean and fish his “wrinkly withered little body” out of the river, then the NST has entered the realm of Ortonesque farce. In most organisations emails at this level of delinquency about a colleague, and circulated widely amongst a professional body, would result in disciplinary action. Survivors have frequently written angry letters to and about bishops – I openly include myself in their number but have never expressed a wish to see particular Bishops fished out of the Thames from Lambeth Bridge! The media reported that the Senior Censor tried hurriedly to get the College Council to self-delete the full report in what appeared to be an attempt to bury these juvenile emails. The Senior Censor apparently sits on this core group. You couldn’t make it up!
But more disturbingly, I have heard on good authority and am aware that others have also heard, that at a recent Governing Board of the college, one of the senior college figures boasted to the Trustees “the wily Censors have made sure they complained to the right part of the National Safeguarding Team”. If true, both ends of that statement are extraordinary. I don’t know if the NST are aware of this. I don’t imagine so. There would be an outcry across the Church if the NST had been complicit in their own ugly appropriation. It would raise questions about who is controlling different bits of this structure, and in particular who is pulling the strings of the “right part” of the National Safeguarding Team. I suspect Synod members would throw their hands up in horror and ask: how the hell does one rescue a Church’s national safeguarding so far down a road of ethical dysfunctionality?
But this core group sets an interesting precedent. Quite a few Church of England Bishops have been accused of safeguarding failings, cover up, poor response or no response towards survivors, gaslighting, blanking and fogging, dishonesty – yet how many have had core groups convened about them by the National Safeguarding Team? It would now seem that a complaint from a single source against a senior church officer is no longer time-limited, but will result in the formation of a core group on which the complainant can be personally represented. The person under investigation will presumably be asked to step aside from safeguarding responsibilities during the investigation. Although the circumstances in which this has come about are ugly and point to church officialdom targeting a well-known critic – the situation has unexpected potential for survivors. There are a significant number of survivors who have credible and legitimate claims that serving bishops have mishandled disclosures of abuse or have been dishonest in their response. We might welcome the opportunity to have core groups established, and to have complaints acted upon at last. I suspect the number of bishops who could feasibly be asked to stand down through such action might be surprising.
There are bishops on the National Safeguarding Steering Group (NSSG) who in mine and others view shouldn’t be on that group until retraining, moral reorientation and proper apologies render them fit to respond to survivors with honesty, decency, compassion and a sense of urgency to situations. The same could be said for other bishops. Matt Ineson could justifiably bring legitimate complaints against four bishops and one retiring archbishop. If the NST were to follow the same route as they have done with the Dean of Christ Church – all five would be required to abide to the conditions imposed by the core group while those investigations take place. And Matt Ineson would have representation on each of the core groups, or one combined core group, and could be present himself presumably if he so wished. And that is only one such situation. There are plenty of others. Incidentally the CDM complaint against the Bishop of Lincoln is also proceeding out of time, which again raises questions in relation to CDM complaints made against other bishops – all of which were ruled out of time. It would seem sensible to find out from the Director of Safeguarding what the formal route now is for complaints to be made, so that several bishops can be asked to stand aside without further delay while core groups are set up. The NST can hardly ignore any such request. Survivors might speculate as to which part of the NST is the “right part” to complain to for action. If, for example, you send an email to safeguarding@churchofengland.org, does that go to the right part, or the wrong part?
Returning to Martyn Percy who I know a little, he wrote a chapter for Letters to a Broken Church and has been an unwavering ally for survivors. My personal view is that he has more integrity and courage than many current bishops whose response to the abuse crisis (with a few notable exceptions) has shown them to be a run-for-hills culture … insipid at best, downright dishonest at worst. I end with a quote from his chapter in our book:
Like many loyal servants of the Church of England, I have watched IICSA over the past three weeks with a growing, troubling, deep sense of shame. This is a hard thing to admit. To know that you belong to a body where you can no longer believe of trust the account of the polity or practice that is being offered in defence of its behaviours by its own leaders. To know that the real victims in this tragic farce who are still waiting for basic, fundamental rights that should be givens for the church – recognition, remorse, repentance – are abused twice over.
In the first instance, it is by their actual abuser. The second time, and far worse, is the subsequent abuse perpetrated by the Church. For this is a church that is deaf, dumb and blind – and seemingly wilfully indifferent to the suffering undergone by those abused – and then addresses this with little more than an incompetent veneer of safeguarding practice, which only further compounds the original act of abuse.
Gilo,
Thank you very much indeed for this very useful piece! Apologies for my ignorance, but I still can’t quite understand what a ‘core group’ is or what it does. Is it essentially the inquisitorial part of the process, rather like a juge d’instruction or an examining magistrate? Then, the core group produces a report which is essentially followed by the NST top brass, much as in the ECJ (for instance) it is the opinion of the advocate general which is the decisive input, the judges typically following that opinion?
Also, how does this core group discern the ‘right’ part of the NST from the ‘wrong’ part?
It seems to me that Dr Percy’s time in office is effectively sunk, not because of what he has or hasn’t done, but because things have become so acrimonious that there is simply no way out bar his resignation. It is more plausible to have one person resign than >60 students. It also seems obvious that the students are ‘playing’ the NST because they are wanting to game the outcome of the ET. They just want to throw enough at Percy in the hope that something – anything – sticks and that will then affect the quantum of the award he receives and/or the costs.
The question is why the NST is allowing itself to be gamed in this way. Surely it could issue a sharp rebuttal and say that in the alleged dealings which were the basis of the safeguarding investigation Percy was acting in his capacity as head of house rather than in any ecclesiastical capacity? Of course that raises interesting questions about whether the office is bifurcated in any way, which might affect future arguments about it being split (itself now a live political question). However, I also wonder whether Percy has made himself so unpopular with certain people in authority (with his periodically provocative criticisms of the bench) that it is more than a matter of happenstance that his case has been sent to what the core group consider the ‘right’ part of the NST.
Although almost all of the governing body has died or retired since I attended Christ Church (1994-7), I have discussed some aspects of this case, though not recently, with one emeritus student who is essentially neutral. However, I know that several of his very distinguished erstwhile colleagues – including a former censor theologiae (actually a lay philosopher) – are four square behind the other students. It does seem that the division is now fairly comprehensively between most of the students and most of the chapter. The departure of the sub-dean, whom I suspect was a moderating influence, has recently left for parish work in Rugby, indicates to me that any chance of a compromise or reconciliation is long past, and that Percy will seek to get what he can from the ET, knowing that it may prove difficult for him to obtain another senior post, whether in the Church or in academia.
I can’t comment on the merits or demerits of the case made against him; I don’t know enough about it.
James
Gilo and Stephen, thank you for this informative article. I am grateful for the insights.
From Gilo’s description the Core Group has not been constituted in accordance with Lord Carlile’s recommendations in his report on the Bishop Bell case which included that both sides were to be represented on the Group. I understood that the Church accepted those recommendations with one exception which is not relevant to the present situation.
Further, fresh, allegations are now also reported on the ‘Thinking Anglicans’ site.
I find the remark about knowing to contact the ‘right’ part of the NST particularly concerning. It’s the thing about clubs and connections and wheels within wheels again. How big is the ‘right’ part of the NST? One person, or a group? Is this person/group operating to a different set of guidelines than the rest of the NST, or do they have a particular grudge against Martyn Percy? How did they override the rest of the NST to set up this core group?
If we had a well-run system, this kind of anomaly couldn’t happen. It illustrates yet again how unbalanced and unfair our procedures are.
It’s astonishing isn’t it, and raises many questions.
I’ve no reason to doubt it and gather many people know that this boast took place. But if true, who guided the Censors to what they considered to be the ‘right part’ of the National Safeguarding Team? The Christ Church academics would have no experience or presumably much interest in the inner politics of the Church’s safeguarding structure. They would have little notion of how many people are employed in the NST or who the personnel are. Someone or some organisation must have led them to the bit of the structure they thought advantageous. Who – anyone’s guess!
There are certainly a number of church-associated bodies involved in the ugly war being conducted against Percy. The Censors hired Winkworth Sherwood, the church’s own lawyers – and the church’s favoured PR firm, Luther Pendragon, has been deployed to brief selected journalists. Is it possible that either of these have given the Censors insights into how the NST can be best appropriated? I don’t know. But to my mind the veracity of that boast needs investigating quickly. I would hope the NST would be asking all members of the Governing Body to confirm or deny this. And if the NST are aware in any way of this – and yet have still gone ahead with this core group – then I think the Church would need to set up an independent inquiry into how the NST has been so appropriated. The NST would then presumably face restructuring following root and branch reform. I am quite sure Synod members (who many of us know have far more integrity than is present in the senior layer) would view this as a very serious misuse of the NST.
It needs investigating.
But of grave concern also is the failure to include representation of Martyn Percy’s interests on the core group. As matters stand, the Church hasn’t followed Lord Carlile’s recommendations, which it accepted, about core groups.
Lord Carlile said “The Core Group should have, in addition to someone advocating for the complainant, someone assigned to it to represent the interests of the accused person … ”
How can this core group as at present constituted continue to function? Isn’t this tantamount to the Church having shot itself in the foot?
Rowland, one of the biggest frustrations for survivors is that when the church is told they are not acting in accordance with a document or policy they have already accepted the recommendations of, their stock answer is “the document is for guidance only and each case must be assessed on it’s own merits.”
Until I had read the terms of reference of my learning review I did not realise the English language contained so many ways of saying, “we dont have to act on anything,” and that Lord Carlile or any reviewer has no power to complain when they don’t. I held the Elliot report up to them so many times and shouted “look” that it became too distressing to keep doing it in the end and gave up.
My recollection is that both the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Bishop of Chichester accepted Lord Carlile’s report and recommendations with one exception, and, interestingly, that exception was their insistence that there must be transparency on the part of the Church! They ruled out any suggestion that claims might be settled subject to a confidentiality clause, and transparency was to be paramount.
It would be doubly ironic now to say that they don’t, after all, feel obliged to afford Martyn Percy representation on the Core Group. That is what I meant about the Church shooting itself in the foot.
But, as an outsider, I am powerless and can do nothing but sympathise with others who have been badly treated.
So as a legal person (I think you have said you are!) what do you make of the terms of reference in the Carlile report, paragraph 35 )? These are fairly standard terms of reference in learning reviews and as most survivors struggle to find the bus fare to the meetings let alone legal representation I am curious to know. They sound alright but a lot of get out clauses for not acting. Recommendations of reviews are accepted within the scope of their terms of reference which uses a lot of vague language.
I think outsiders have a lot to offer because they can see things far more objectively but as far as the church taking any notice, well, join the club!
Oh, you have to be high status to be listened to.
Trish: I am not ‘a legal person’ except, I hope, in the sense of not being an illegal one!
Lord Carlile was instructed to make recommendations “to help the Church embed best practice in safeguarding children and adults in the future.”
([C] Terms of Reference: 2. Objectives of the Review: Para. 4. Page 9.)
Obviously, the Terms of Reference did not commit the Church to accepting such recommendations but, as I have said, my recollection is that the Archbishop and the Bishop did so in the terms I quoted in an earlier post above.
However, as matters stand at present, we know very little about this specific Core Group, how it came into being and how it is currently constituted. Gilo and, to my knowledge, others far better qualified than I are watching the situation closely. Clearly there will be more to come.
The Archbishop Cranmer pingback deserves to be read. Slowly and while sitting down with sal volatile to hand. It’s truly one of the worst incidents I’ve come across. I really have no language with which to comment.