The Church of England has been rife with safeguarding crises recently. Those of us who watch these sagas as they unfold on the internet or in the Press have a hunger for one thing. We long to see the power to engage in independent scrutiny being entrusted to people of high professional expertise. They will then proceed to analyse the people and institutions affected by these events, before delivering a calm clear verdict as to what has been really going on. This forensic examination will then perhaps point to the way that the affected institution, the Church, can deal with the past safeguarding event. It will involve successfully learning what needs to be learnt and providing healing to those wounded by the past. In this way the institution and its safeguarding victims can be helped to move into the future.
Examples of safeguarding excellence do exist. I offer three examples as a gold standard which the Church of England frequently fails to reach. The examples of safeguarding excellence I mention share in common the fact those who provided it were writing from positions of complete professional independence. Attempts by the Church to achieve the same level of independent scrutiny seem often doomed to fail, as ‘marking your own homework’ is not a good basis for providing independent and just outcomes. In summary, the three I bring forward are the IICSA reports, the Elliot Review on the case of the Church’s treatment of one survivor and the work of Thirtyone:eight, exemplified by the recent report on the Crowded House.
Each of these reports was marked by high levels of professional independence, coupled with a real understanding of all the issues involved. I have often referred to the fact that expertise in safeguarding is spread out over many disciplines. It needs some understanding of law, psychology and the social sciences. Abuse taking place in a church context also requires a working knowledge of theology and church life. Few people have all these skills. In an ideal world the so-called ‘expert’ would need to consult widely to ensure that any knowledge and skill deficits are made up when necessary. A readiness by an expert to consult other professionals will take a certain degree of humility on the part of an examiner. Such humility is not what we seem to find among the in-house professional people the Church employs. They appear always to assume that their previous professional skills, such as those gained in police work or social work, are quite adequate to do the complex task of examining safeguarding events that take place in the Church.
With these qualities of independence and expertise in our minds, we may turn to two ongoing safeguarding incidents in the Church on the go at present. One is the reporting of a incident about abuse, stretching back thirty years, involving John Smyth and the Iwerne camps. The disclosure by a survivor was made in 2012. This story is one that involves our own Archbishop of Canterbury and one of his senior advisers, Canon David Porter (a layman). The story is set out in The Spectator last Thursday 21st January. A point that the author, Ysenda Maxtone Graham, makes very powerfully in the article is that the Archbishop is deeply beholden to this adviser for many of his public utterances on matters of contemporary concern. It is not, however, these statements on a range of public issues that concern us here. It is the way that the Archbishop seems to be cocooned and protected by Porter from engaging properly with safeguarding scandals that have hit the Church throughout his primacy. One particular safeguarding issue that Canon Porter seems to be shielding the Archbishop from is that involving John Smyth. This disturbing failure by the Archbishop to engage properly with this story is made worse by the fact that the abuser was personally known to him in his younger days. Although the relationship between the two is not thought to have been close, there is another fact which often gets overlooked. The Smyth scandal is particularly shocking in the way that it has been buried in the minds and memories of a large group of alumni of the Iwerne camps over a long period. Among this privileged group of ex-public school boys who attended the camps, many personally known to Welby, are effectively in some cases witnesses to past criminal activity. Most have remained silent to this day. The Augean stables of Smyth’s behaviour in England and Africa need to be cleansed. The Archbishop and many of his old camper friends need to begin telling us all that they remember. Instead of that, as the Spectator article suggests, David Porter has advised the Archbishop to do absolutely nothing. His passivity and silence are causing the victims a great deal of additional anguish. In a Channel 4 interview, the Archbishop promised to meet with John Smyth survivors. So far, he has failed to do so. We are left to suspect that he understands too much about their suffering and is unable to face them. Whatever the reasons for this non-engagement with Smyth survivors, it also does not inspire confidence in the Archbishop’s personal readiness to offer a lead in the total arena of Church safeguarding. The two things that the Smyth affair needs are those we have already indicated. One is a clear knowledge of all the facts, Then we need to gather all the needed resources to help and plot the path forward for the future. Expressions of regret uttered at General Synod are no substitute for the kind of energetic engagement that is required. We need to see the light of honesty, truth and justice being shed on these shameful areas in the Church’s past. So far we do not appear to see real concern on the part of a leader to help the Church forward out of this tragic and damaging episode in the history of the Church of England.
Personal reputations and possibly raw fear are being aroused when the whole Smyth story, and this festers away at the heart of the Church. A block on further scrutiny of the episode seems to be what is recommended by lawyers and advisers. Another way of putting it is to say that up till now the people who could throw further light on the story have been impeded from doing so lest vested interests and inconvenient truths be exposed. Clearly there is a need here for independent scrutiny. We will see whether Keith Makin is able to deliver a report that measures up to what IICSA, Thirtyone:eight or Ian Elliot might have provided.
When we look the other ongoing saga in the Church which cries out for independent scrutiny, the Christ Church affair, once again we encounter blocks on expertise and independent justice. There are simply too many unanswered questions and apparent failures of process in the CDM report that I have been allowed to read. This utilises the College investigation, written by Kate Wood, as the basis for a separate Church CDM process. I have already pointed out that there are bound to be serious concerns if people with known enmity to Martyn Percy are allowed to take a prominent part in his legalised persecution. There are above all, real problems in allowing one of the original College complainants, Canon Ward, anywhere near the Church’s CDM process. Did not the Bishop of Oxford see immediately that Ward’s role as a CDM instigator in this case should not be allowed? I do not propose to repeat all the queries that I have already had about the independent status of the College investigator. Since writing my earlier comments, I have discovered that Ms Wood worked for the Diocese of Chichester in a safeguarding role. This was in addition to her working relationship with the NST over the Whitsey report. Even if she was indeed in ignorance of the Percy affair and knew nothing of his active support for the memory of George Bell, her closeness to others who would have known, gives a strong appearance of a conflict of interest.
Other queries from a reading of the Wood report are, as yet, unanswered. Witness A, when talking about the episode in the vestry, is recorded by Ms Wood to have exclaimed: ‘I knew it was a massive deal. People wanted the final blow. I was thinking is this important enough for that to happen? Could this be the killer blow? ‘ These were the actual words of the witness when she/he first heard of the allegation against the Dean from the ‘victim’. Ms Wood showed absolutely no curiosity about what these words were implying. Her accuracy in recording interviews seems impeccable but the absence of any comment or follow-up question is surprising. An ordinary person hearing these words in the context in which they were uttered, would conclude that the witness might already be biased and possibly tempted to ‘big up’ the incident. Speaking of witnesses, there is a further potential witness to the episode who was mentioned in the report but not questioned. A further cause for disquiet is that there is also no explanation over the truncated time frame of both processes. The appointment of the investigator, the conduct of the enquiry and writing up of the report all took place in a matter of a few days. Did the investigator need no time for a preliminary background enquiry over the case before accepting, or was she already well known to one of the accusers among the Christ Church censors or lawyers? It is also suggested that the Oxfordshire police who took the trouble to visit the college, the Cathedral and the site of the alleged harassment did a far more thorough job. The police dismissed the accusation. Ms Wood seems to have done most of her investigation remotely.
Independence and detailed scrutiny of all the facts are possible when writing reports about past safeguarding incidents. We have the expertise of IICSA lawyers working collaboratively with other experts, the team of examiners at Thirtyone:eight and the vast experience of Ian Elliot to show us the way things can be done. Sadly, as the Spectator article and the Percy CDM papers demonstrate, the Church is content to allow itself to use flawed processes. As long as this continues, enormous damage will be done both to individuals and institutions. Safeguarding will always involve the telling of truth and that process will involve the pain of metanoia.
I have reluctantly come to the view that the CofE and NST does not care a jot about poor practices or malpractice. The lack of due process for Smyth victims is telling. I cannot imagine an NST, a Lambeth Palace or a Bishop putting their collective hands up and saying, “we need some external help, expertise and scrutiny here”. Pride, the hubris of the NST and the vanity-fear axis of most bishops will ensure injustice and a culture of incompetence and negligence continues. My view is that as long as there is an appearance of process, that’s enough for the NST. Like a corrupt police force from a bygone era, as long as someone gets arrested and imprisoned, they can presume that people think the job is getting done. Dean Percy’s case is instructive. The NST have all been pursuing him for almost a year now, and this is pure institutional bullying. As in the case of victims of Smyth, so with Percy. There is not the slightest semblance of an fair or just process. Stephen Parsons’ article is brilliant. But it does put a spotlight on a dirty, rather disgusting side to the CofE and its practices.
I wouldn’t be surprised if a lot of survivors will be reporting various bishops to the independent panel, once it is announced, for failures to follow safeguarding practices. I suspect many bishops realise this and that the panel will either be delayed or its terms of reference set to avoid scrutiny of several black holes.
Two comments, intended to be helpful, not contentious.
During the currency of Keith Makin’s investigation fresh allegations and additional personalities have appeared in the saga, extending what was always a substantial brief. As a very senior social worker, Mr Makin must be well-equipped to undertake this formidable task independently. However, unlike IICSA or the police, he does not possess legal powers to compel witnesses (except, possibly, to the extent that all C of E personnel are expected to co-operate in his inquiry), but there is no constraint on others choosing not to do so – although inferences might be drawn in the case of people staying silent.
Oxfordshire Police have carried out, essentially, a criminal investigation at Christ Church, as Stephen states, taking all the steps that one would expect, ascertaining facts and visiting the scene of the allegation as basic standard police procedure. The CDM, however, is concerned with a different matter, essentially alleged clerical misconduct. The two issues are different.
There is, of course, the added complication of the separate and additional action being taken alongside the CDM in the Christ Church Internal Tribunal proceedings relating to the same subject matter – in itself an anomaly.
Metanoia rather than paranoia. A good aim.
Unthinkingly I had always assumed that Canon David Porter was a senior ordained Anglican cleric. I am shocked to learn that he is an Anabaptist and seems to have taken over the Archbishop of Canterbury’s brain and soul. He seems to be the equivalent of Dominic Cummings who was not a member of the Conservative Party, loathed MPs, but had immense power over the PM. It explains so much, such as the Archbishop’s comment last year that church buildings are non essential, public worship is non essential, receiving communion at Easter is non essential, unless you are ordained and have a kitchen in which to stream a celebration online. No requirement to share the body and blood of our Lord.
The Archbishop will be going on sabbatical ere long so I can see him holding out for some considerable time. Appalling.
I just cannot understand why it is so difficult for Justin Welby to meet with the Smyth victim. There is at least one other survivor waiting for that personal meeting with teh Archbishop about his case, and a long overdue apology. It’s incomprehensible. The important background you provide, Stephen, and in the Spectator article, actually make it even harder to understand. If David Porter has such experience of conflict resolution, why is he unable to use it in this context?
I don’t really see any issue with Kate Woods, though. As her testimony to the IICSA investigation show, she has extensive experience in investigating safeguarding concerns. I understood she is not employed by any dioceses, but acts as an independent consultant. That is the same case with 31:8, who I understand have also worked with a number of dioceses. I am reluctant to comment on confidential matters regarding the case which I don’t think should be brought into the public domains. Suffice it to say as I support the call for both Martyn and the complainant to have a fair hearing, I think we need to be careful not to make it more difficult for that to happen.
I was also disappointed that you used inverted commas when referring to the victim/complainant. Please, let’s not minimise her complaint or leave her feeling we support Martyn but not her.
I don’t know what happened in the vestry any more than the rest of us, but I do know that it take an enormous amount of courage to report these matters, and is incredibly distressing to have your claim debated on public like this. she deserves out support as much as Martyn does, and I am sad if we cannot provide it.
Is it beyond the bounds of possibility that the reason Welby won’t meet with Smyth victims is that he himself is one?
I believe ++Justin graduated in 1977 and so was a year or two older than the oldest of Smyth’s victims. But he will have known the networks around (and protecting) Smyth and Jonathan Fletcher. There were dozens of people that should come forward to speak to Keith Makin. It will interesting to see the level of cooperation that he receives.
Jane, my understanding of the Percy case is that he was referred to as ‘perpetrator’ early on, and the other party as ‘victim’ by the complainant. This is the “story” Percy’s detractors want us to adopt. But, and this is really important, the complainants in this case are Prof. Ward and others. The woman did not use any of the complaint or the conciliation processes open to her under the college or cathedral HR or disciplinary apparatus. Rather, she was and has continued to be used by others who simply want to cause damage to the Dean.
The actual testimony of this woman was that she did NOT want to complain, go to the police or even felt that her encounter in the vestry (and which the Dean denies) was especially noteworthy. But she had her story hijacked for other purposes by people who are not defending her. Rather, they are attacking the Dean. The woman has just become a weapon in their hands. This is the real abuse, is it not? A bit like warring parents in divorce courts, where one parent makes an appalling and unfounded allegation about the parenting of their former partner/spouse. The child/ren just become collateral in this. Justice is not served. Nor truth. Nor the child/ren.
In the Percy case, the woman did not want to report anything. She kept saying so. One suspects that is because she was uncertain as to what took place. But since she mentioned the encounter to enemies of the Dean, she now finds herself signed up to three or four different legal tribunals, each of which will involve her being investigated and cross examined. There is no doubt that these tribunals were not for her benefit. They are only intended to cripple the Dean.
Personally, I think she really IS being abused now – made to go through tribunals that will be lengthy and probably some time away. And for what? Her allegation was “he touched my hair”. The tribunals will doubtless consider this allegation. But as we know from normal court cases, both the defendant and the accuser can expect some searching questions about their private life and conduct.
The Dean’s detractors may savour this – if the Dean has got a string of similar offences behind him. Knowing his reputation I think that unlikely. But I guess we should all keep an open mind. But the Dean’s enemies won’t have given a moment of thought or care for this woman, who is almost bound to have her own private life and her conduct scrutinised, as she will be the accuser.
It is unfortunate that this woman talked to people who have now decided to use her against the Dean. Her interests will not now be served until there has been a proper independent investigation. That will have to deal with all the material Kate Wood chose to ignore or refused to report. I don’t see this ending well for anyone involved.
The woman who has made the complaint has done so via the standard complaints procedures. I don’t know Prof Ward but he is certainly not the complainant and the police would not have entertained any third-party complaint. They responded only to the alleged victim’s report (no inverted commas round victim here). The person concerned DID use the complaints and conciliation procedures, and this can be proved. She DID complain formally. She is NOT a “weapon in the hands of others” as you suggest. To suggest that she is being weaponised is a serious attack on her personally and more generally the rights of those who claim to have been abused.
There are certainly political battles happening in that unhappy place but to try to locate this claim only as a subset of those is to ignore the complainant’s rights and diminish her status as a victim. What do you mean when you say that “both the defendant and the accuser can expect some searching questions about their private life and conduct”? This reads very strongly as a threat. I know nothing whatever about the victim (I do not know who she is) but if you’re suggesting that her “private life” might be relevant to this complaint, then you’re on dodgy ground legally.
Your whole post assumes without question that the complainant is being deployed as part of a larger campaign against the Dean, for which there is no evidence whatever. You assume that she is being used. Again, no evidence. You say “I guess we should all keep an open mind” and then, in the next paragraph, allege that any investigation “will have to deal with all the material Kate Wood chose to ignore or refused to report” — not exactly an open-minded comment!
Your comments are typical of those who think that any critique of the Dean is illegitimate. You assume that this matter, which is entirely separate from the long-standing governance issues, is driven by those. Your comment “It is unfortunate that this woman talked to people who have now decided to use her against the Dean” is astonishing! “This woman” (I note the echo of Bill Clinton’s infamous description of Monica Lewinsky as “that woman”) talked to the people who were charged with helping anyone who had been subject to abuse or alleged abuse. She followed the procedures (safeguarding procedures that the Dean is on record as believing to be of paramount importance), and she should not be abused in the way your post abuses her. Shame on you.
Hope. On a point of fact, the complainant is not the person who was allegedly abused/harassed. It was Prof Ward who took on the role on behalf of X as the safeguarding person for the Cathedral.. That changes the dynamic of the whole case towards what Faith is telling us and from what I have been told since writing my piece, her whole account is entirely credible in every detail. I too have seen the CDM paperwork. Faith evidently knows a great more than me about Ms Wood’s past. Now that the Charity Commission have become involved today we may at last get some clarity over the whole sad episode.
Stephen,
Safeguarding victims are usually warned against taking out CDMS because it is such a painful process. (Let’s hope the current reform changes that).
That’s why there have been very few safeguarding CDMs.
As I am sure you know, there have been other cases where one of the safeguarding professionals have acted as the ‘complainant’. Including Melissa Caslake.
The victim’s role then becomes one of ‘witness’. But this is semantics. We all know what we mean.
Thank you. Exactly what I meant but wasn’t quite brave enough to say so clearly.
Please all remember that women like this complainant – I am one of them – are reading this blog right now.
To me your actions in defence of Martyn, resulting in minimising the victim’s experience and thus silencing her voice, is the kind of behaviour that we have criticised in past church cover ups. I’m left wondering if you would treat me the same, if I disclosed my abusers and the bishops who covered it up, and they happened to be your friends.
And the shredding of Kate’s evidence, in a totally inappropriate public arena, where she cannot defend herself without breaking confidentiality, is not only just obstructs due process, as it makes it much harder for her (and Martyn) to have a fair hearing.
Also, from what I have seen in the published material, the IICSA inquiry into the Ball case, the Whitsey Report, Kate Woods has been a competent professional; she was not criticised by the Inquiry, in fact she was the one really who ‘blew the whistle’ on the previous bodged reviews.
By all means advocate for a fair process for Martyn Percy. But please stop persecuting the complainant and Kate Woods in the process. It goes against everything this site is supposed to stand for.
Thank you Faith for your astute observations. Some of your account has been brought to my attention since writing my piece, so it is good to have your material as an addendum to what I was able to gather from reading the CDM and the Wood report. You have evidently read it with a great attention to detail.
I will not discuss confidential details of this case which should not be brought into the public domain. The Kate Woods report is not a public document so I don’t consider it is proper, or serves justice, to debate its content here.
I agree that it makes this whole process more damaging for everyone that it is caught up in this very public conflict between Martyn Percy, the college and the church.
I am deeply disappointed and concerned that people who wish to support Martyn, feel it is ethical to do so by trying to minimise her experiences and undermine her complaint and Kate Woods investigation. That is falling into the kind of behaviour that we have exposed others in authority for doing, and continue to do, for example in the Smyth and Fletcher cases.
I am certain that she has made a clear complaint of sexual harassment that could indicate a safeguarding issue and this needs to be properly investigated, for the sake of everyone concerned. We should be careful here not to interfere with the possibility of a fair hearing.
Jane – the issue with Kate Wood’s investigation lies in its flaws, bias and evidential shortcomings. Her report has been shared with 65 members of Christ Church Governing Body. It has also been hawked around to journalists by enemies of the Dean. The CDM against the Dean was also sent to journalists.
Leaving the leaks against the Dean, I can’t agree that it is fair, moral or just for Kate Wood and members of Chapter to brand the Dean as being a ‘high risk’ and ‘medium risk’ for safeguarding. That is public. The Dean is currently not permitted to enter his own Cathedral unless supervised by a member of the Chapter who has made the complaint against him. No person – staff, student, friend, colleague – is allowed into the Deanery unless accompanied by another person. This is all public as Christ Church have issued press statements and written to everyone they can. The Dean was told that having coffee with a friend, and even seeing his adult son (28?) was a “breach of safeguarding”.
All of this is a clear breach of his human rights. Plainly, Kate Wood did not conduct a fair or impartial investigation. You only have to read it to see that. The conclusion of Janet Fife’s article on thus website signs off with a quote from Lord Carlile:
“The (NST) process used against George lacked independence and objectivity. They provided inadequate opportunities for George’s case to be heard, and no opportunity to challenge their witnesses such as they were. There should be root and branch reform, to provide a proper investigative and disciplinary process comparable with that for doctors and other professional groups.”
As with Abp. George Carey, so with Martyn Percy. Nobody I know has the slightest confidence whatsoever in the NST. Kate Wood is an unlicensed, unregulated and unaccountable consultant – and her work on the Percy case reflects the hopes and views of those who commissioned and paid for her work. He who pays the piper calls the tune. Wood has duly delivered to her client. But her work had nothing to do with justice or fairness.
Faith, I hear that you feel strongly about this, and I respect that we have different views and perspectives.
Like I said, I just don’t think that this is the place to discuss the confidential content of a report that isn’t in the public domain, and so I won’t comment on that.
Certainly I agree with you that and safeguarding management undertaken pending the outcome of investigation, should be proportionate and not breach human rights.
I am concerned that in appearing to discredit Kate Woods and her report, this is reducing the chance that the complainant and Martyn Percy will get a fair hearing.
I would be surprised if a freelancer like Kate Woods, with her professional background and experience, would risk her reputation by producing a biased or inaccurate report. Having worked as a freelancer, I would say you make even more effort to produce work of highest integrity and quality. And her work e.g. on the Peter Ball case (in IICSA evidence) does demonstrate diligence and was clearly significant in bringing the truth of the church’s cover up of this case to light.
I have many criticisms of the core group process, both from my own current experience, and hearing about that of others. But I do still recognise that the NST members are professionals with considerable experience, trying to do a safeguarding role in a very challenging environment. Their role is set up to be entirely risk management; the CDM process is a blunt and ineffective instrument; in cases where there isn’t a statutory decision-making body, such as this one, there really isn’t an appropriate place for a finding of fact to be made.
That is one of the major reforms I hope we can campaign for, as the core groups process and the CDM are reviewed.
There is no chance at all that a ‘fair hearing’ can happen.
Not until the Kate Wood review and much else besides is in daylight and an independent judicial review of Christ Church governance and culture takes place. Any attempt to deal with this latest chapter as separate from the rest of the long and bitter saga is flawed in my view – as it fails to take into account that many of the same driving forces are involved. If Faith’s insights are faithful to the facts, then Christ Church is operating a kind of ‘rogue state’ in safeguarding terms. And a high calibre judge with no attachment to Christ Church, Winckworth Sherwood, Kate Wood, NST, Luther Pendragon, Nobody’s Friends, etc should investigate.
Christ Church has sounded a thoroughly toxic setup for some years now. But someone of the stature of Baroness Hale would get to the heart of what has been going on amongst the cast of players. It is very unfortunate that the college has chosen to push an alleged victim into the pathway of all this – as seems to be what has happened. And deeply unfortunate that a different approach (internal college HR) might have been used in a more balanced way for a much fairer resolution for all. A leap to CDM and NST core group accompanied by a leak to Mail on Sunday by one of the Governing Body members does not paint a picture of a college/cathedral acting with much care or wisdom.
And it is unfortunate too that the college or Kate Wood (?) has chosen to place restrictions on the Dean that one might usually associate with someone on the sex offenders register with electronic tag and police record and prison sentence behind him! If this has been sanctioned by Kate Wood – I would hope the Church would take a look at whether it is appropriate to use her services again. I am already aware that critical questions have been raised to the NST and a former lead bishop about Wood in relation to lack of proper process and diligence in another case. The former Director of Safeguarding and MACSAS are aware of these questions.
The whole of the Christ Church scandal needs daylight.
The Governing Body of Christ Church will now be on the back foot following trustees’ receipt today of a letter from the Director of Regulatory Services of the Charity Commission questioning the decision to set up a second tribunal, and, in particular:
“seeking further information and assurances from the members of the Governing Body about why establishing a Tribunal is:
• in the best interests of the charity and its beneficiaries.
• a responsible use of the charity’s resources.
We will also examine how, when reaching this decision, the members of the Governing
Body:
• took account of our published guidance and previous regulatory advice; and
• identified and managed any conflicts of interest and / or loyalty .”
The letter adds: “This is not an exhaustive list. Full details of the information and assurances we require will be set out in a separate letter to the charity’s registered main contact.”
In the light of this letter, which will undoubtedly receive publicity in tomorrow’s newspapers, the setting up of the tribunal must surely be paused until the Charity Commission have completed their inquiry and published its outcome. Moreover, it is surely ironic that the letter should be questioning the way the members of the Governing Body, as trustees of the charity, have fulfilled their fiduciary duties, after 41 of them wrote to the Charity Commission on 20 May 2020 alleging that Dean Percy was “not fit to remain a trustee”! In the light of that letter, the answer of the Governing Body to the question of how they “identified and managed any conflicts of interest and/or loyalty” will be of particular interest.
Agreed with Gilo. No chance of the Dean getting a fair hearing. Just look at the facts re
Kate Wood’s Report:
a. Kate Woods did not mention her involvement and potential conflict of interest in the botched safeguarding work on Bishop George Bell and Bishop Peter Ball. The Dean had been extensively involved in both cases, advocating for the restoration of the reputation of Bp. George Bell, and for greater professionalism in the CofE and NST in handling cases such as Bp. Peter Ball. Despite the Dean’s articles, blogs and media work in both cases, Ms. Woods claimed to have “no knowledge of the Dean”.
b. The Dean expressed concern to Ms. Woods about the involvement of Canon Ward and/or Canon Foot in the allegation. Ms. Woods claimed that she had not met or heard of Canon Ward (Cathedral Safeguarding lead, and a commissioner for Woods’ work) nor met or heard of Canon Foot (Chapter Treasurer, despite Foot being identified as an interviewee of Ms. Woods’.
c. There were concerns about the potential conflict of interest with the NST, and Elizabeth Pollard (aka ‘Polly’), who is a senior caseworker at the NST, and a close friend of the Senior Censor at Christ Church. Ms. Woods received a written note of this concern and yet it was redacted from her report.
d. The Dean was not allowed to see Woods’ report. It is apparent Woods had:
i. Redacted his evidence in key places.
ii. Not interviewed witnesses who could corroborate the Dean’s account
iii. Disregarded medical evidence (Dean’s extremely poor eyesight).
iv. Not taken note of the sight-lines in the cathedral.
v. Not constructed a time-line of events in her investigation.
vi. Not been honest about some witnesses and their conflicts of interest.
vii. Failed to follow College, Statute, ACAS and Cathedral standards and protocols for an investigation that could lead to a disciplinary hearing, and dismissal.
viii. Had not noted the wearing of face-masks.
ix. Had not enquired what the Chaplain meant by stating that the incident that had been curated could be “the final blow”.
x. That the alleged victim had repeatedly stated she did not want to complain, or go to the police – but was remorselessly pressed to do so by other members of Chapter, which breaches their safeguarding training etc etc etc
Shoddy work, basically.
Maybe. I agree with Jane also and her concern for the victim. I never reported the senior cleric who repeatedly sexually assaulted me in my mid teens in the late ’70s. I knew I wouldn’t be believed and as an adult I cannot bear physical touch. In general terms when I read of someone’s hair being stroked, I feel queasy as I know I could not bear it. I also react badly to compliments as I cannot see innocent intention.
It is a great shame that whatever happened in that vestry has not been dealt with in a more sensitive less public way.
Petra, I am sorry you were badly abused, and how that still affects you. I hope you have some good support? Triggers like touch are incredibly hard, but therapy can help with this.
Do you know about the Safe Spaces project for victim-survivors of church abuse?
Totally agree about it should not be being dealt with in public.
Point taken re definition of complainant — thank you
I’m so sorry to hear what you went through. There is nothing I could possibly say on this kind of forum to help, but it’s awful that you had to endure that, and the consequences for you in later life must be grim. It’s important that something as apparently inconsequential as stroking hair is given this kind of context. It’s not trivial. It really isn’t.
Absolutely Hope it’s not trivial.
It’s creepy and if another man did that to me, my husband would be joining me to report him.
It feels like grooming behaviour.
We don’t know what happened in this case. There were no witnesses to the actual incident. (As is common in these situations).
Like all reports of sexual harassment, that could be safeguarding issues, it needs properly investigating.
We should be careful not to interfere with due process by debating confidential matters. Especially if we have an personal interest.
This thread has reached a level of bad feeling that I have decided to close it down from this point on. Future contributions will be removed.