By Martin Sewell
Followers of the prolonged saga of the Dean of Christ Church Oxford, Martyn Percy, will know that one of the prime movers of the failed processes to date has been Senior Censor, Professor Geraldine Johnson. She is an historian with particular interest in the history of art, and although her specialism appears to be in earlier periods, she must surely be familiar with Rene Magritte’s famous and subversive work “This is not a pipe” which appears above. It challenges us to question what we are looking at, and to think clearly about what we are discussing. A surreal work of art is a good starting point as we try and make sense of what is currently going on at the college where Lewis Carroll wrote Alice in Wonderland in which words mean what the speaker wants them to mean and where, today “safeguarding” and “vulnerability” become vehicles to an end.
I an a retired solicitor, and a former member Law Society Children’s Panel. https://www.lawsociety.org.uk/career-advice/individual-accreditations/children-law-accreditation. There are currently 2128 members, and the Government figures tell us that between June and September 2020 alone, they conducted cases for 7910 children. The Church does not choose to engage one of them to advise in this complex specialist area.
I may be forgiven for suggesting that such lawyers are a principal repository of experience and expertise when it comes to understanding safeguarding and risk assessment. Their daily work exposes them to what “dangerous” looks like,; they understand that not every person bringing a complaint is bona fide, that not every concern is serious per se, or justifies disproportionate reaction. Above all, they are governed by the principles of the Human Rights Act, specific rules and codes of conduct. All members are required to meet the selection criteria, to undergo annual training, and to be subject to strict rules for the management of cases. Importantly, they routinely argue cases for all participants within the process. On the same morning one might be representing an infant, a mother with learning difficulties, a “Gillick competent” young person, or an alleged abuser. That range ensures perspective.
The Church employs nobody from this panel, neither does Winckworth Sherwood, the solicitors who advise the Church, the Diocese of Oxford, Christ Church College, and Lambeth Palace. This is perhaps a good place to start an appraisal of the divergence between Dean Percy’s persecution and standard safeguarding practice.
I often received instructions in such cases at short notice. I might return from a morning in Court to receive a brief from my PA on a new case urgently starting that afternoon. Already she would have undertaken a conflict-of-interest check for me. It was utterly routine. Even with care, things slip through the net; mothers change their names; they cohabit with another client’s ex-husband. If a colleague draws attention to a potential conflict you walk away for a very practical reason for if an undeclared conflict arises at the hearing, the slipshod lawyer may face a wasted costs order of many thousands of pounds. None of this good practice is observed by the Church or the lawyers in the Percy case. Our core groups are routinely riddled with conflicts of interests. Nobody is sanctioned for this neglect of good practice.
At first hearing in the secular world, it was commonplace for lawyers to confer to determine what was a proportionate response to the allegations. We were routinely mindful of the right to family life. Sometimes interim restrictions were justified, but they were constructed by people who were serious about real risks, and not to accommodate grotesque imaginings. Not so in the Church. Dean Percy a man pf previous unblemished character has, inter alia, been put under a restriction not to meet with his 27 year-old son or to have coffee with a friend unless supervised. There is not a scintilla of evidence that either is a vulnerable person in need of safeguarding, or that such a restriction is proportionate or relevant to the allegations in the pending case. Such lack of analysis speaks of either malice or lack of intellectual curiosity on the part of those imposing such requirements: wherein lies the “risk” presented by the Dean who, let it be noted, should enjoy both a presumption of innocence and a full recognition of a blameless safeguarding practice to date? This cannot, of course, be said about certain dons who have a track record of false accusation. For clarity, I have never seen such disproportionate restrictions advanced, let alone upheld in a case of safeguarding within the Courts where such work is done properly.
Sometimes cases were resolved, but the birth of a further child triggered a fresh evaluation. In those cases it was routine to re-appoint the original Children’s Guardian and lawyer to look at the new matter, informed by what went before. It saves time and repetition. Contrast this with how Winckworth Sherwood and their clients approached the fresh Percy allegation. In the preceding case in which he had been comprehensively exonerated, Dean Percy had taken the point of principle that a retired police inspector who was a former work colleague of the Core Group Chair, should not be appointed to investigate his case (see conflict of interest above).
With the new matter arriving, normal good practice would have been to reappoint the same investigator – the one that the NST and Winckworth Sherwood had eagerly advanced as competent and of integrity – but they did not; their original choice had failed them, he had not produced the goods and had to go. This is what happens when the same people are acting as lawyers to the accusers and the tribunal, and so, a former Lambeth Palace safeguarding advisor ( also a former Police Officer) was instructed without consultation and ignoring legitimate objection.
Readers of this blog will have read about, and heard directly from, the latest NST approved Investigator, Kate Wood. I have not read, and do not refer to, any matter of substance from her report but ought to flag up the stages by which a safeguarding risk is assessed. First, one has to ascertain that the person against whom there is an alleged safeguarding infraction, is indeed a “vulnerable person” under the 2014 Care Act and the 2003 Clergy Discipline Measure. If they are not, the matter may still need investigating but not within the emotionally charged sphere of “safeguarding.” “Vulnerability” needs to be a contained concept for those needing truly special regard. If everyone is “vulnerable” (even for a moment) then functionally nobody is. The concept is supposed to give privileged protection to certain people for good reason. If everyone has a privilege it is not a privilege.
It is not enough to assert that that a person being notionally protected is “vulnerable”. There are supposed to be rules, definitions, and predictable criteria. In law, a word does not mean “what I choose it to mean” and it is legitimate to ask – and share- why a person falls into an asserted legal category You cannot just speculate that a notionally vulnerable person might be upset by certain behaviour. One needs chapter and verse; it is the sine qua non of the process. Further, an independent tribunal needs to make an early clear finding of fact that specific events occurred which only then trigger a proper safeguarding risk assessment by a suitably qualified person. The first question at that stage would be, “What is the risk that something similar might recur?” One then separately asks: ” Might something more serious arise?” One would also consider whether some intervention might manage or mitigate the risk. These are importantly distinct questions, and each will require careful evaluation with the appropriate reasoning clearly set out for the conclusion either way. I offer a neutral example.
If I close the door of a small room as I leave it, that may prove very alarming if I leave behind a person with claustrophobia. How one deals with my having done so would necessarily require ascertaining if I, or anyone else, had been told of the claustrophobic propensity. It could be a very spiteful act, or it could simply be an inadvertence. Whether I pose a generalised risk of every possibility that a fevered imagination might extrapolate from that event, might require a proper risk assessment, and here we enter the world of experts of which the Church of England has demonstrated scant knowledge experience or competence.
The legal profession has devised clear protocols for the use and management of experts and their evidence. See
http://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/family/practice_directions/pd_part_25a These rules underwrite sound process By following these, the specialist safeguarding lawyers deal with dozens of cases every day and here in a nutshell is how it is done. Whilst the judges retain overall responsibility, they delegate much to the children’s lawyer who has carriage of these arrangements. Thus, advocates arrive at the first hearing with the names and availability of their preferred experts. All the lawyers settle into the robing room and discussions begin. Usually a consensus emerges, the fact that the judge is readily on hand to resolve disputes ensures it rarely comes to that. The wording of questions can be finessed – usually by the children’s lawyer. Care is taken over the qualification of the expert. A paediatrician might know a great deal about a child’s injury, but if the timing of a broken bone is a crucial issue, they will defer to a consultant radiologist, so a specialist will be engaged. I was one of those lawyers managing the process in a routine way.
There is no such thing as “an expert in what is going to happen in the future”. If you ask an expert for a prediction of future risk you know that you will be told “The best predictor of the future is the past,” so a full history is prepared. Making a prediction is at best an educated guess by a highly specialised expert. There are some specialist social workers with academic research to their name who might be trusted with such a task, but generally a court would expect to hear from a consultant forensic psychologist or psychiatrist. The Church does not do this. They appoint a generic investigator they hope has some expertise, then leave it all to them. There is no discussion as in the Courts.
Drawing an instruction letter for a Court is always a joint exercise by the lawyers for two simple reasons. First, the purpose is to obtain a full and rounded opinion, with all relevant questions considered. Second, the expert is like the proverbial computer; “rubbish in – rubbish out”. If the instructions are weak, you will only end up with an application for a second opinion on which to challenge the first. As in all its cases, the Church, the Diocese, the College and the malcontents have not sought to prioritise a fair process by permitting meaningful respondent input to the choice of expert or instruction letter. The HRA “right to a fair trial” is not respected; you can speculate whether this is as a result of incompetence or something else, it matters not to the respondent.
In 2017 the Clergy Risk Assessment Rules were debated by General Synod. It is not a lengthy debate (!!) but well worth reading by anyone trying to understand how we came to be burdened with slapdash legislation The three Synod members with recent professional experience in these matters, I, and barristers Carl Fender and David Lamming, all urged Synod not to rush an approval of the scheme until the accompanying guidelines were produced for scrutiny.. We were not heeded.
The debate can be read here beginning at page 199. https://www.churchofengland.org/sites/default/files/2017-10/General%20Synod%20-%20February%202017%20w.%20index.pdf
Carl Fender pointed out the risk that “where the person does not have legal representation to input into the instruction letter it “can easily lead to bias in the report that is received, …. the letter of instruction can often be critical in terms of the answers that you get.” David Lamming wanted us to see the whole scheme before rushing it through. I addressed varying concerns including the right to a fair trial. Andrew Gray identified the absence of an appeal process and asked, “Why is it that an appeal is considered to be logistically problematic?” The Bishop of Leeds, Nick Baines, added “In my experience, I have yet to read a risk assessment that does not at best conclude that a person is a “low risk”. I can only say that makes all of us low risk, but at the end of it, someone, where there is no evidence to suggest they have done anything wrong at all, still has an assessment that says they are a low risk… I think that is fundamentally wrong and we need to be looking at this a little bit further to ensure justice is done to all parties, including the accused.”
Ignoring these interventions, the General Synod negligently set the scene for the shabby charade which we are being served up by the NST, Christ Church College, the Diocese and Winckworth Sherwood.
In summary, we have dreadfully conflicted lawyers instructing an “expert”, whose CV and sphere of expertise has not been shared for scrutiny. The resulting report, lacking any mechanism for quality control, is sent to those who have a well-evidenced track record of bringing false allegations against the Dean. Two of them will be “judges in their own cause”, deciding if their own case that- that the Dean is a risk- is justified. That would not have taken them long. These two members of the Cathedral Chapter have no qualification assistance to evaluate this assessment, but nevertheless felt able to assert that the Dean presents a “medium to high” safeguarding risk.
Now please pause and remind yourself of two things. The “expert” on whose judgement they appear to rely is a former police inspector. She, too, has none of the qualifications that we were expecting when we passed the risk assessment regulations. No court would commission a conclusive risk assessment from her. That is bad enough, but at least Ms Wood accepts her limitations. Although she apparently purports to offer an unqualified view on the Dean as a “medium to high risk” everyone involved appears to be themselves “at risk” of overlooking her important – and fair recommendation which I have been given and reproduce here. It is a simple procedural point.
“Conclusion 11:
From the Terms of Reference S.5.i Advise on whether a further safeguarding risk assessment should be undertaken as a result of this allegation or any other information that comes to light in the course of the investigation
This report is not an assessment of risk. In my opinion safeguarding policies should be followed in managing this allegation, and an Independent Risk Assessment should be undertaken as a result of this allegation.” [Emphasis added]
So, as the various and confusing procedures lumber on, the College and Cathedral surely now need to accept that even with all the breaches of ordinary good practice, all the ignoring of Human Rights principles, and failures to observe well established sound secular practice and natural justice, they have before them a document well short of what they hoped. The world knows they have behaved dreadfully, and now it knows that their current home-made risk assessment stands on nothing of substance. It is the product of flawed process, and inadequate expertise, highly seasoned with pre-existing prejudice and self-interest.
Their approach to justice is surreal; this is Christ Church performing “Malice in Wonderland.” Perhaps Professor Johnson might offer her colleagues a helpful lecture on surreal jurisprudence entitled “ This is not a Pipe, This is not a Risk Assessment. This is not a fair process”
I understand that some of the people posting on this blog have been supporters of Martyn Percy and have more knowledge than is in the public domain about his side of this case.
I’m sad that this is making this a less safe place for survivors.
I cannot prove the abuse I experienced. I didn’t have a video camera with me. There were no witnesses.
My abuser denies it and in fact tries to blame me. Possibly I would not meet Martin’s definition of ‘vulnerable’. (Bear in mind though that the 2014 Act talks about people in need of care and support’).
The young woman in Martyn’s case may not meet that definition, none of us know. I do know that the behaviour she describes (hair-stroking) is creepy, smacks of grooming and goes against Covid social distancing rules. I know that even if it is not itself a safeguarding incident, it suggests a lack of boundaries and sexual misconduct which could suggest a risk of safeguarding issues. I don’t know, but it certainly justifies a proper investigation. I do know that victims like me and her have no reason to make this stuff up. No-one chooses to go through this shit. There’s no reward.
I also know that Martyn quoted the paedophile-created, discredited False Memory Syndrome argument in defending Bishop Bell.
Martin Sewell is of course right that we need people with appropriate expertise, and an appropriate process, to deal with these incredibly difficult and complex issues.
But let’s just remember that there is scant evidence of victims lying about these things . Much more evidence of abusers lying about their actions and trying to blame victims or others.
Let’s not allow our friendships turn our focus in this blog from providing a safe space for victims.
Right now I am no longer sure if this is a safe space. If I named my abusers and they were your friends, would you defend them and question my veracity or the seriousness of my allegations?
I am no longer sure what the answer to that is.
And I remain most concerned for the young woman who reported the abuse. To be honest, I am surprised and disappointed that no-one else here seems concerned about her.
Hi Jane, I haven’t found this to be a safe space at all, but a locus of potential insight into areas of mutual suffering. I’ve shared bits of my own story to be met with a wall of silence, which feels like disbelief sometimes or indifference. I’m not sure which is worse.
The internet has massive limitations but is allowing us to spread the message among concerned others in a way that was impossible a few decades ago. It’s a great leveller too. Every one has a voice, from novice to expert. The latter can be infuriated by the influence of the former.
I’m still not sure how we’re supposed to relate to each other in this medium, and with how much intensity. For me, I’m still in the trial and error phase, which given the changing nature of the online world, will doubtless continue in perpetuity.
What I do know is that without your contributions, your humanity, this would be a poorer place.
Best wishes, Steve
Steve, I am so sorry that you have experienced silence and felt disbelief here. I apologise for any time I ignored anything you wrote.
You are write that a blog like this can never be the safest if places. Anyone can post and we don’t know who they are.
For me there has now been a little trust and safety develop here, as I have got to know some of us who regularly post, and get a sense that while we bring different insights and perspectives, we’re united in wanting to reveal abusive behaviour and poor responses, and hold the church accountable.
Like you say, it’s hard to work out how to relate ‘virtually’ with people we may not ever meet outside here.
I’m with you in the perpetual lessen!
Thank you for your very kind words.
I value the revelation that happens here very much, and I am grateful for everyone’s contribution to that, and our common humanity.
Thanks Jane!
Steve, I echo Jane in saying I’m sorry you’ve sometimes felt unheard after sharing difficult experiences here. That ha sometimes happened to me here and elsewhere, and it’s a very unpleasant feeling.
It can be hard to know what to say when someone shares a personal experience. Sometimes I’m silent because I don’t what is the right thing to say, and am afraid of getting it wrong. There have been many occasions when I’ve missed the emoji buttons provided by Facebook and Twitter. The ‘care’ button would be especially handy.
Whether we make a comment or not, I think most of us here are supportive of each other. However, a blog site whose purpose is to challenge injustice and think through issues can never be entirely safe, because we can have no idea where other people’s sensitivities are. I know Stephen tries to make it a safe space, and does not allow personal attacks.
Note to self: when someone shares a difficult experience, say something supportive – even at the risk of getting it wrong or sounding patronising or priggish (something I was accused of on a different site recently).
Thanks Janet and I concur myself about not knowing what to say.
Stephen’s blog is a valuable site and well moderated. Civilised disagreement is essential to build a fuller picture of the truth.
By writing here we encounter something not a million miles from Freud’s “blank screen”, his couch where the analysand couldn’t see the analyst’s face. There’s value in sharing even when we can’t get the warm response that in other contexts would be appreciated.
Steve: At first I was reluctant to reply, but I recall that we shared here our childhood experiences of abuse (in my case in a C of E primary school) where we both realised that we were unaware that this was sexual abuse until we became adults. Nowadays that would be put down to naivety (something actually said to me by a psychiatrist) – maybe ‘innocence’ is now thought to be an obsolete concept. I have also come to realise that I was specifically targeted by one teacher. Unfortunately the headmaster (what they were called in those days) was a sadist, and that rubbed off on other members of staff – not all. But this in an ostensibly Christian environment and children as young as five being beaten with a ‘Borstal’ cane. In those days, corporal punishment was accepted as the norm, even in primary schools, but this went far beyond ‘reasonable’ punishment. I am 100% with Hare’s comment below. The decency and courtesy towards women, inculcated in me from an early age, just as one example, has become debased in this secular age.
So, as a relative outsider, but regular reader here, I haven’t detected any lack of sympathy. It may be just a matter of perception.
Yes, I’m sure you’re right about perception Rowland, and expectation too perhaps.
I’ve had a great deal “inculcated” into me at school, home, colleges, churches and I’ve had occasion to question almost all of it at one time or another. It’s a bit weird being an old dog and learning new tricks, but I’m giving it a go!
Jane, please be assured that I remain committed to good process for the benefit of all. It is not perfect but it’s the best we can do.
I have made a commitment to not knowingly putting material into the public domain: I do comment on what is put there by others. NB the dons employed a PR agency – now why would they do that if it were not their purpose to leak and brief?
Today I reference a procedural point because justice demanded it. When all the facts come out you will understand and be assured.
The latest twist is extraordinary. https://www.chch.ox.ac.uk/news/house/statement-response-media-interest
Three months after setting the safeguarding hare running with all the prejudicial implications of it, having been told by the Diocesan Registrar at the outset that it was not a safeguarding matter the “ wiley Dons” have been Slytherin away from it and recasting the matter as sexual harassment. So be it, let us consider it on its merits.
There is a useful pointer. You may recall that the dons attempted ( and failed ) to blame Martyn Percy when one of their number was convicted of possessing child pornography images in France. They referenced the crime on the website in tiny writing. It was Gilo who pointed out that they had neglected to say a word about the victims.
They have learned that lesson this time, but do not be of any doubt; the woman concerned is not their primary concern; they leapt on the safeguarding bandwagon as it was potentially damaging; when it ran out of road they switched tactic. It is hard not to conclude that they are deeply manipulative and cynical.
We shall continue to examine what we can and shall see in due course if they have followed good practice for the benefit of all parties. I will not be holding my breath.
Martin, I’m not clear what this latest ‘extraordinary development’ is. The Christ Church statement you link to isn’t dated, but to me doesn’t suggest anything new. Oxford Diocese released a similar statement some time ago, if I remember rightly.
Perhaps you can clarify?
I’m not Martin, but I will try to clarify. The Christ Church statement to which he has linked was posted yesterday, and appears to relate to the two separate news stories in both Telegraph and The Times this morning, both behind paywalls.
The statement omits any mention of either Safeguarding, or Clergy Disciplinary Measure actions, which is curious given the history of this incident.
Martin, this is a fascinating and useful post. When the allegation was spelled out, I too thought it was creepy. I presume that is exactly why it has been leaked. I’m sure most of us here would always consider a potential victim first. This has been a different theme for us, to consider what seems to be a whole series of false accusations. People like us need to support all victims and potential victims, because we know better than most what it’s like. And many of us have also been falsely accused, and not treated according to the rules. You are right to spell those out, and to explain how important it is to use the correct legal terms. If this is always done, victims and those falsely accused will both benefit. If we don’t know all the ins and outs, we can pray for all those affected.
As many victims of church abuse have learned to their cost, justice is not justice when those dealing with cases act improperly. Either there is justice for all, or there is no justice. I have sent Stephen details of former police officers acting improperly to the detriment of victims. Why is Lambeth employing them? I can’t help thinking it is for their propensity to act improperly. This must be highlighted. I want, as do many victims, only those who act properly in regard to safeguarding to be employed by the church to do so. However much I want those who have deliberately acted unjustly to be dealt with, it must not include injustice even to those proved of misconduct to victims/survivors. How can we trust those employed by Lambeth to deal with our cases when their improper conduct is in the public domain? They will only find in favour of those Lambeth and dioceses wish to cover up for. It is important for justice to be done for all, and seen to be done for all. Jane, I can understand and sympathise with you, as someone who has, and continues to be treated unjustly. But if we desire justice, we will only receive it when Lambeth and dioceses employ only those who act properly and justly. I am sorry this post has caused you pain, truly. But it highlights a great deal which was wrong in my case. I hope this helps a little Jane, and that you can still feel confidence in this post. Stephen has details which are not always in the public domain, and the blogs posted here may be helpful to survivors even when they may not appear to do do. God bless.
Let’s say hypothetically that the “case” against Dean Percy is “proven”. That would be very difficult to do as Jane points out, as there may have been no witnesses, but Percy is finished and thrown out. College “wins”.
Let’s say the case is not proven. No smoke without fire. Dean’s reputation still damaged. College self-righteously can justify their actions in investigating the claims. College wins.
Is this whole thing really about safeguarding at all?
Surely this is much more about power and control. And that’s exactly what this blog is about.
Collectively we make the College’s arguments for them as we take sides and stand up for the victims, be it the woman or the Dean. We can’t possibly know which is and which isn’t of course. Which is exactly their point.
And when this has been demonstrated after the present round of ineffectual procedures, I’ve little doubt there will be another round.
Every person has a right to go about their lawful business unmolested physically, sexually, intellectually and wholesomely. But good luck enforcing that right.
I think what I am trying to say – and I admit to feeling a little vulnerable about it at the moment, because of recent developments in my case, so forgive me if I am reacting emotionally – is that both things may be true. The sexual harassment experienced by the woman concerned may raise a genuine safeguarding issue (we don’t know if she is vulnerable and it does sound like grooming behaviour).
This may be being used by the ‘college dons’ in order to continue an unjustified or undeserved vendetta against Martyn (as described in other posts). To be honest I don’t feel qualified to judge that, and like Martin, can only keep calling for due process to ensure we are all protected by the truth.
The college using the process does not diminish the seriousness of the current accusation against Martyn and we should not be deflected from supporting the woman who has made this report, in our attempts to protect the Dean or anyone else from any other miscarriage of justice.
If you were her and read in Martin’s post the words: ” they understand that not every person bringing a complaint is bona fide, that not every concern is serious per se, or justifies disproportionate reaction” how would you feel?
I know how it made me feel, as someone whose truth has been vehemently denied by my abusers and who has been told by the NST that actions to hold people to account in my case is ‘disproportionate’.
I realise Martin was not specifically referring to the woman at this point, but in the context… the impact of the words we choose to use on our readers matter.
The procedural points you went on to make, Martin, are very important and helpful, particularly in understanding about then flaws in the church’s current risk assessment practice, whether you are the victim or the person being assessed. And of course any risk management and safeguarding procedures need to be in line with the Human Rights Act – to be restricted from meeting with a member of your own family does appear to breach that.
These are difficult and complex matters, especially when, if there are no witnesses, we can never know the whole truth. And that is the case with many of us. We need to be balanced, even in our support for survivors and for justice, and calling out of any kind of abuse of power. We won’t get it right always and at least we are brave enough to try.
I just feel concerned that in this particular case, it is beginning to feel like defence of a respected character, at the cost of defending another victim. Whereas we need to hold the possibility that there are two victims here, that there are justified serious concerns about Martyn’s behaviour and that we should be calling for justice and safeguarding for her with the same energy and rigour as has been applied to Martyn’s defence.
That is why I was saying it no longer felt very safe. Any of us could be her. If she is reading this blog, what impression do you think she is gaining?
Spot on Jane, well put. Have a virtual hug! Pointing out that not every accusation is true is unfortunately, a necessary precaution when discussing these matters, or a falsely accused person will be hurt. It’s tough on anyone who has been mangled by these things. Hopefully, anyone who finds their memories have been triggered by such discussions has friends who will encourage them to take it as a neutral point made during a general discussion.
As I have made clear I will not place specific material from the case into the public domain, although the dons employ a PR agency for that very purpose.
The Bishop hypes the College narrative by referring to the incident as “ very serious “.
There is a difference between taking all allegations very seriously and all incidents being of equal severity. “ That is a nice dress” might offend someone in certain circumstances;
Proportionality is important.
I am aware of the character of the allegation. I have three decades of working with abuse in all circumstances and I need no tuition in the manipulative character of sexual predators. Suffice it to say that knowing what I know and taking the allegation exactly as presented, if my son told me that my granddaughter was going for a sleepover with a friend in the Percy household, I would not lose any sleep.
It’s difficult, Martin. We need your expertise. So let’s just all pray for a speedy and equitable resolution.
While I would be saddened if Martyn had behaved inappropriately, I recognise that all humans are fallible and it is near-impossible to be certain of another person’s innocence while facts are still being gathered and assessed. One of the problems with the Church of England leadership’s slipshod and visibly biased approach is that it makes it harder for even justified allegations to be believed. Many people are indeed in denial about the fact that someone one likes and admires may nevertheless be an abuser – and it is all the more important for those handling concerns to observe the highest professional standards. There is also a major risk that other cases may be facing long delays because of repeated investigations of the same person which do not use previously-gathered information adequately.
The most recent statement uses the word ‘victim’, which forestalls the need to investigate at all: the judgment has already fallen in the use of that word. Yet in fact there is a need to investigate: hence the use of the word is wrong.
‘Complainant’ would be accurate; ‘potential victim’ is a bit biased, like ‘potential’ anything else: because it seems to be awaiting or hoping for one particular outcome. Wait for the judgment, which itself may be a balance of probabilities.
There is a second point. I suspect MP may freely admit stroking her hair, and put it down to a combination of differing codes/ages and stress (scarcely knowing what one is doing).
The third point is that it may transpire that what happened was relatively minor, so that the word ‘victim’ would be overblown even if (as seems to an outsider not unlikely, for what that is worth) it did in fact happen.
The fourth point is that the origin/impetus of the complaint may (or may not) have involved any of the same individuals as before whether or not the incident is in any way related to the former ones (it is presumably not).
Whether the PR firms engaged by the Church have been effective or not is a matter of opinion. If I were in that profession I’d certainly demand a high fee for the risk to my own firm’s reputation of the Church’s poor judgment.
But good communications are important and I would defend anyone’s right to engage professional assistance.
In one sense we could all take a leaf out of their book and listen to our own communications, which often seem to be this: repeating the same message (with minor variations or extra detail) again and again and expecting a different result. The Church hasn’t listened or changed. We therefore need to think laterally and try something different.
Oh Steve, you are so right! I have been thinking the same myself for a while. Repeating the same thing in a different way, because surely that will make a difference? But of course it does not, as the issue isn’t that they didn’t hear or understand. The issue is they don’t agree, or have another agenda.
Still working on how to try something different!
‘Thinking Anglicans’ carries a report that the Christ Church Governing body is actively considering a second internal disciplinary Tribunal against the Dean. That would be additional to the Church CDM already in progress authorised by the Bishop of Oxford who, however, recused himself from handling it and has delegated responsibility for its conduct to the Bishop of Birmingham.
‘It is claimed’ (we read) ‘that he complimented her on her appearance’. What an earth shattering allegation! Who are these dictators who just assume that everyone must follow their thoroughly joyless code that no-one should ever even compliment anyone else on their appearance (over which they may have taken considerable trouble), or else?
People are dying of COVID. What sort of priorities are these?
I don’t usually agree with you Shell, but on this occasion I do.
I have lived a number of decades and I have watched with sadness as human interactions have become more and more sexualised in assumption. It is tedious in the extreme.
I have been blessed with a good head of hair and when I sometimes let it grow long I have had compliments and the occasional touch.
I don’t particularly want to be touched but neither have I immediately cried ‘assault!’ ‘Grooming!’ Sometimes people must be allowed just to show aesthetic appreciation without it being thrown back in their faces.
It makes me think of the men who get shouted at because they have held a door open for a woman. If someone, anyone, holds a door open for me I say thank you. I frequently hold doors open for other people because I think it is a kind thing to do. It has nothing to do with gender.
Of course there are those who have been abused (been there) and those who make false accusations (despicable). But there are also people who misunderstand and misinterpret situations and – as I alluded to earlier- society immediately leaps upon the sexual interpretation.
It has even infiltrated the language. I have lost track of the words one can no longer use without being sniggered at.
Something has to calm down.
I agree. You can use my first name if you wish (the use of my surname alone is an idiosyncrasy reserved for this site, for unknown reasons). I won’t bite.
For all concerned in this case, including those that seem to be completely forgotten, the students from Christ Church who I am sure in their most difficult and disappointing of academic years would rather their college was publicly involved in something life affirming rather than this situation it does seem a real shame that the detailed and well thought out anti- harrasment policy that is on the Christ Church website has seemingly not been attempted. Of course I do not know for certain that this is the case but as it took me 18 months to arrange proper mediation with the church I am assuming that from an incident that took place in October this has not happened.
Formal complaints rarely bring understanding and insight into a situation just defensiveness and hostility on both sides. I appreciate that in some circumstances that is the only way forward but surely only after every other avenue, that the college rightly promotes, has been attempted.
I do not agree that the college wins either way Steve, a college is not about the dons, the dean or its employees it is about whether students want to attend, whether it is the first choice on their UCAS form.
The other people who never seem to figure in anyone’s thinking are the laity of the Diocese of Oxford. This is their cathedral.
“There’s no such thing as bad publicity” (Barnum). Whether he was right of course is one thing, but Trish raises an important point: what about the students?
I did think originally that the shenanigans at Christ Church would put people off applying there. It’s a grubby unedifying story and of course no one really wins from an outsider’s perspective.
The powers are insulated by thick layers of endowment and centuries of public esteem perhaps salted with a topical drama. It probably won’t scratch the surface of their impregnability. I really hope I’m wrong.
I have used this blog to say what I have seen and experienced. But I have most often found it helpful to read what others think and to see that I am not alone. Personally, I do try to say hello to someone new, or express condolences. But if you’re not on for a couple of days, it can take off and then you miss some posts. A couple of times recently I have not made a response because I was unsure how to put it. And then some one else has put it much better than I would have. I don’t want to fill the thread with posts that just say “agreed”! Recently I’ve just felt completely overwhelmed by the amount of emotion expressed. This isn’t meant as a reply to anyone, but I’m glad of this place.
I am grateful to Mr Sewell for his observations, and I would second some of the comments made about the value of this blog and that it should – first and foremost – be a safe space for survivors. That was, as I understand it, why it came into being to begin with.
There are now real concerns about the ongoing viability of Christ Church. This has led me to review some of the history of college scandals at Oxford and Cambridge, and I have to stress that there has *never* been anything like this. Indeed, I would be hard pressed to find any institutional analogy, but the Jackson/Davies dispute at Lincoln in the 1990s or the impact of the Blunt affair on the British Academy (the subject of an OUP monograph last year) come close.
This is not to say that there haven’t been acute crises, several of which occurred during the reign of James II & VII: the expulsion of the fellows of Magdalen in 1687 when James tried to make the RC Anthony Farmer president; the attempt by James to make John Massey dean of Christ Church in 1686; the conversion of Obadiah Walker, master of University College to the RCC, and his having the mass held within the college. There were other dramatic incidents, such as the flight of Robert Thistlethwayte, warden of Wadham College (then at the pit of its reputation), in 1737 following allegations of sodomy, etc.
But there has been nothing like this, because it has festered for so long, and because the legal position of the dean has been relatively strong, forcing his opponents to adopt tactics which seem somewhat extreme.
The crisis at Lincoln led to the Howe commission and the Cathedrals Measure 1999, which ended the monopoly that capitular clergy were able to exert over the management of cathedrals (but which exempted Westminster, Windsor and Christ Church under Section 36 (6)). The Christ Church imbroglio has arguably been a more severe breakdown in governance, and it indicates that the 1867 reform, which was predicated on responsible behaviour by dean, canons and students, is no longer fit for purpose.
Leaving aside the deeply painful human element of the whole crisis (about which others have commented far better than I can hope to), what matters now (at least to me) is the future of Christ Church.
This is *not* a contest between dean and students; it is also a civil war between clergy on the chapter, which echoes the Lincoln debacle.
In England the tradition has been to tolerate anomalies save unless they become toxic. Christ Church has become toxic, so it is now time to end the anomaly. On this basis, the connection between cathedral and college should be abolished, and the two remaining chairs reserved to clergy laicised (as they were at Cambridge once the last connection with Ely was severed in 1980). I think the cathedra should be removed to some other significant church in the diocese, and would suggest the university church of St Mary, faute de mieux. A nice clean break with the past.
Moving the Cathedral elsewhere would bequeath to the college a chapel far greater (larger and more magnificent) than any other, possibly even including King’s College, Cambridge. Would St Mary’s be large enough? Is there available accommodation for the Dean and Canons if, as one assumes, they would vacate Christ Church? Likewise the choir, which has an international reputation. It actually ‘belongs’ to the Cathedral, as does the ‘organist’ who is, however, also a don. There is some measure of separation already, the college and Cathedral having separate accounts and seals. The extraordinary thing about Christ Church is that prior to this saga, the Dean was absolute ‘supremo’, embodied in one person, of both bodies. (In theory, he still is apart from the present suspension.)
Another rhetorical question (with apologies to other readers): how is the Dean susceptible to two concurrent disciplinary codes both of which can potentially remove him from office: the CDM under the auspices of the diocesan Bishop of Oxford, and the Christ Church Statutes at the instance of the Governing Body and Canons. I’m trying to think of an analogy in the lay world.
William Nye justifies the former by saying that clergy in a non-Royal peculiar are subject to the CDM. The Statutes undoubtedly have legal force and, as we know, have already been used, although unsuccessfully.
Then, we have the further anomaly that the Bishop of Oxford is not the Visitor in his ‘own’ cathedral, although he undoubtedly exercises considerable other jurisdiction there: a ‘non-Royal peculiar’ but, nevertheless, having the Crown as Visitor of both Cathedral and college!
So, it would be unlikely to be an easy or straightforward transition.
Many thanks. St Mary’s would be a decent size, but the size of a cathedral is of scant account, and we have many (too many?) parish church cathedrals. The cathedral at Christ Church is already very small – and there are parish churches in the diocese (I would think of Wantage, Thame, Dorchester, Witney, St Helen’s Abingdon, Great Faringdon, Bampton, Bloxham, Chesham, Wendover, Newbury, Thatcham, Amersham, High Wycombe, etc.) that are either larger, as large or almost as large as Christ Church. It would be larger than other Oxford chapels, though not that much larger than New College, but then Christ Church is a much larger college than most other Oxford colleges, and the chapels of St John’s and Trinity at Cambridge are also sizeable. Henry VIII nearly made Eton College chapel (which was, at that time, also parochial) the cathedral for a diocese of Buckinghamshire.
If St Mary’s becomes a parish church cathedral then the vicar would also be dean, and why have any residentiaries? Christ Church would convert the canonries into student accommodation or use them for teaching or administration (this has happened to several canonries already).
As you know, Magdalen and New College also have choirs of international reputation (as do King’s and St John’s at Cambridge), and there would be no need to abolish the choir school; it would simply service a college chapel rather than a cathedral. It would make scant difference. Christ Church would be serviced by a college chaplain (as at present) who would conduct the services as at any other college, and would be subject to the same disciplinary arrangements.
As to visitorial ‘duties’, which these days mean practically nothing at all, there is no reason why the sovereign should not continue to be visitor of Christ Church; she is also visitor of Oriel, St Antony’s and Univ.
The only reason Christ Church exists is because was was an expression of royal authority within an Oxford which was doubtfully committed to the royal supremacy, and because Henry VIII wanted to increase the number of sees on the cheap (there were proposals at the time to equalise and cap all episcopal incomes). As Christopher Haigh – one of Dr Percy’s antagonists – remarked in 1996 lecture ‘1546 Before and After: The Making of Christ Church’:
“But the king had a larger vision: he wanted Christ Church to dominate University and become the means by which the Crown controlled Oxford. In a period of religious change, it was important for the Crown to regulate the education of the clergy. Trinity Cambridge was founded with the same purpose in mind… Christ Church was not only a royal foundation: it was to be an instrument of royal policy. Christ Church was stuffed with the men who ran the University…Christ Church’s hegemony was to be academic as well as political.” (15-16)
I think that the split, which would require legislation and some consequential repeals, would be far simpler than many might imagine.
Proportionality in all things is important. So is fair-handedness.
But please let’s not fall into the trap of minimising people’s experiences. I’m sure that none of us here want to inadvertently gaslight a victim of harassment or abuse.
Remember that the people who abuse, and their supporters, usually do a very good job of that.
I am not going to comment on the particulars of this case. None of us were there so we don’t know.
Let’s just remember how hard it is to report harassment.
And be mindful that language can have lots of meanings. “My Dad disciplined me” can mean he calmly, firmly and lovingly chastised me for some misdemeanour or my part. Or it can mean he beat me.
The important thing is that everyone concerned is treated with care and respect, and there is a thorough and fair investigation.
Thank you Jane. This is a point which must never be lost. A common experience of victims of abuse is that they are ‘not believed’ – which then compounds the wound caused by the original abuse. I know that bitterly to be the case.
Worse still, when groups ‘champion’ someone who has been complained about, not only does that expose a possible victim to a kind of belittling of their complaint (which has often involved great courage to voice), but it can also create a climate of repudiation and disbelief that puts other abuse victims off coming out, with all the fear and vulnerability that can involve.
Any abuse victim within the Church who witnessed how ‘Carol’ ‘s credibility was steam-rollered by a huge and public campaign by the defendants of her alleged abuser in a separate case, and the way her complaints were dismissed as ‘proven’ to be invalid (when in fact there was no proof one way or the other, and the case is still out on what happened – she may have been correct about the person who abused her)… might be put off taking the courageous and exposed steps of making formal complaint against a ‘respected’ member of the Church.
Now in Martyn’s case, I am making no comment on anything that has happened between him and the complainant. For the record, I think he himself has been the victim of an appalling witch hunt already, at the hands of what I regard as a moribund clique who – allegedly clever – have acted with crass stupidity and malice at great financial and reputational expense to Christ Church. My own opinion is that they have acted disgracefully.
However, the individual complaint of the woman being discussed in Martin Sewell’s article is a standalone issue for the woman concerned, and deserves to be handled with scrupulous care, process free from conflict of interest, and by people with truly professional experience to handle such cases. That approach offers respect for every complainant. In contrast, association with the hugely criticised Christ Church opponents of the Dean potentially devalues the credibility of outcomes.
It goes without saying that those who are accused can be victims and deserve such scrupulous and independent processes too.
But it is absolutely essential that a climate of disbelief is not promoted in the Church – because the more that happens, the fewer people, men and women and children, will find the courage to speak out. That experience of ‘disbelief’ or trivialising of complaints happens again and again to abused people. What I really hope is that this woman’s complaint will be taken seriously, but what I fear is that her complaint will be weaponised in the ongoing vendetta that I believe is being waged against the Dean.
She does not deserve to have her case embroiled in all that.
Every case should be treated the same – regardless of the reputation of the person accused. Great people sometimes do awful things. Human fallability. Abuse victims need to be protected by…
[last sentence must have overrun the word limit – sorry!]
…impartial, highly professional, and independent processes, conclusions, and recommendations/directions.
Thank you Susannah.
You have articulated what I was trying to say, much more eloquently!
TBH I am a bit discombobulated by it all at the moment. The whole thing of disbelief and silencing has been a difficult recurring theme in my life and work recently. I was beginning to wonder if I was saying something controversial. You make such an important point about the climate of disbelief.
It was one of the aspects of the Whitsey Report (which of course Late Woods co-wrote) that especially encouraged me. They didn’t duck out of making findings on the credibility of accounts and the balance of probabilities, even when there was no decisive corroborating evidence. As Martin has pointed out, it is these ‘grey’ cases that are problematical.
In my case, I have made some serious allegations of rape and sexual abuse, including grooming and spiritual abuse. I cannot prove it. There are no witnesses to the rape and abuse. (A common situation). The case worker has said that there is no reason to disbelieve me. But then also said that about the account given by my abuser, which tried to lay the blame on me and suggest I initiated it (an extraordinary lie!)
This is impossible. We completely contradict each other. You cannot say that you have no reason to disbelieve either account, because both cannot be true. You can say ‘not proven’, but in the end you have to believe one or other of us, or some other version of truth. You cannot believe us both.
That is the thing. If we disbelieve victim-survivors, we collude with abusers. There is a csa & rape victim in Ireland being taken to court by her abuser for defamation of character! When less than 10% of rape cases get to court, this is monstrous. It is clearly an attempt by her abuser to silence her. One of my abusers similarly threatened me (supported and advised by his bishop) and got his solicitor to send me a letter threatening to sue me. Thankfully I was able to access pro bono advice and call his bluff. We both knew the truth and he backed down. It was terrifying at the time, and when I reported again this time I woke up every morning anticipating the solicitor’s letter.
That is the danger of the culture of disbelief. It allows the abuser to perpetuate their coercive control. One of the biggest problems with the current core group system, in my view, is that it doesn’t attempt to establish the truth. It is only concerned with risk. That is of course of first importance, but we also owe it to survivors to attempt to establish the truth, and then act accordingly.
Susannah, I just took a peek at your blog – amazing, loved what you wrote about kindness. Thank you.
It is possible to remain neutral if you just don’t know. And you should. But your own advocate should always be on your side, even if you’re wrong. If you understand that! A bit double dutch!
I wonder what a solicitor should do, if he has accepted an affidavit from a client, in which the client swears on oath, that he did not commit the assault, or rape, that has been alleged, and the solicitor later receives evidence that his client has lied on oath. What should happen next?
Martin
If you are so concerned about Winckworth Sherwood why haven’t you as a former solicitor with Safeguarding experience 1) asked the relevant partner to justify their conduct, 2) asked the senior/managing partner for an explanation, or 3) made a formal complaint to the SRA of professional misconduct and breach of the Code of Conduct?