It is entirely disproportionate that this matter should be referred to a tribunal. With these and other similar words, Dame Sarah Asplin, the President of Tribunals and the most senior legal voice in the Church of England, delivered her verdict on the Martyn Percy affair. The legal effect of this judgement is that process of the complaint under the Clergy Discipline Measure has been killed stone dead. When and how all the existing Kafkaesque prohibitions imposed by the church lawyers against Dean Percy will be lifted, remains to be seen.
The CDM against the Christ Church Dean has been dragged out over seven months, backed by several members of the Chapter at the Cathedral, two diocesan bishops and other senior advisers and church officials. The effect of heaping so much in the way of blame and calumny on one person has created an environment of tension, toxicity and hatred in a relatively small institution. The church authorities who backed the CDM should, by the norms of natural justice, face a day of reckoning. The public have watched the horror of so much institutional loathing being poured out on to Percy. Every single person involved in this calculated organised torture should have to do something to help mitigate the poison that has spread so far within the Church around Oxford. If there is no sign of remorse or regret for this behaviour, the implicated church authorities are going to symbolise psychological bullying in the eyes of many. It has taken a top legal mind to see the obvious. Whatever was said or done in the vestry on that October Sunday, the alleged offense does not merit a tribunal. Such a response ‘is entirely disproportionate’.
What happens next? Clearly the Church CDM proceedings against the Dean have nowhere to go. The Core Group will have nothing further to discuss and the entire CDM process and the sanctions they imposed should be allowed to fade away. Quite how the Church authorities, the Bishops, the National Safeguarding Team and the local safeguarding group who allowed this accusation to get so far will explain things, remains to be seen. Perhaps the silver lining is that the whole CDM process discussed in an earlier blog, will be further undermined and discredited in the eyes of reasonable people, inside and beyond the Church. If this Christ Church nonsense reflects the workings of the church justice system, then we definitely deserve something better.
But, of course, Dean Percy still faces another legal process, the tribunal being set up by the College to judge whether his actions are ‘immoral, scandalous or (of a) disgraceful nature’. This tribunal has an independent judge appointed and two internal assessors. Clearly the two internal assessors could outvote the independent chairman Rachel Crasnow QC. We can hope that Dame Sarah Asplin’s existing assessment will carry some weight in this other process. In which universe can it be claimed that touching someone’s hair in a non-sexual manner is immoral disgraceful behaviour. On the side of natural justice is also the fact that the Charity Commission is watching. They have already served notice back in January that they dislike the fact that Christ Church trustees have been spending exorbitant sums of money on this vendetta against the Dean. If they regard the next tribunal process as in any way falling outsides the College’s charitable purposes, the individual trustees will be expected to be personally liable for the cost. Each trustee could be required to pay around £56,000 to the case if the CC deem it necessary. It may be that the independent judge will take a similar view to Dame Sarah and declare the proposed punishment of the Dean disproportionate to the alleged offense. Even if she was outvoted by the internal assessors, that fact would be noted by the Commission. Can the College really claim that charitable money is being expended for charitable purposes with these tribunals against the Dean? The Church has also just spent vast sums on its own CDM process and now the College wants to repeat their first tribunal process. The total spent in 2018 came to millions.
The judgement of Dame Sarah Asplin is an important step towards justice for Dean Percy and the rediscovery of common sense in a college in Oxford in crisis. We are possibly looking at the end of the beginning in the process. Many institutions and individuals are effectively on trial in the Percy affair. Reputations are being put at risk for decades to come. It is not just the Cathedral that has suffered a blow to its reputation; it is also the Diocese of Oxford, its safeguarding team and the NST. The integrities of a range of individuals, from clergy, within and beyond the Cathedral, to a number of disgruntled dons, are being put under close examination. Already the judgement by Dame Asplin has exposed the disproportionate reactions by those who were involved in the CDM process. The inhibitions against the Dean in the name of preserving the safety of the College community, have been so absurd as to discredit and devalue the whole process. This is not the time to go back over this long-lasting saga. Clearly my readers will long ago have made up their mind as to whether Martyn is a ‘sex-pest’ or the grossly wronged persecuted victim of vindictive misbehaviour.
What can we hope for? We can hope that attempts by the Church of England to incriminate Dean Percy will cease immediately and that a little shame may descend on at least some of those who have ‘bigged-up’ what is, even to take the worst interpretation, hardly a serious sexual assault. All the elements of vindictiveness need to be challenged. The Church, in spite of its teaching, is, however, not good at saying sorry. The second thing we can hope for is that the second tribunal set up by the College against its Dean may be seen to be a potential threat to the financial well-being of the trustees. The Charity Commission may become, like the Chair of Tribunals, the purveyor of reason, common sense and proportionate dealing within the ugliness of an internal dispute within a college. It is unlikely that the path forward will be smooth, but we do dare hope, one day, for peace and justice to descend on this corner of the Church and one embattled college in Oxford,
It’s essential for everyone to understand that the Christ Church Internal Tribunal under the Chairmanship of Rachel Crasnow QC is a specific procedure under the Christ Church Statutes to dismiss the Dean. It’s emphatically not to be confused with a disciplinary hearing carrying some lesser penalty – or a grievance hearing in the civilian employment world. The two assessors sitting with with the Chairperson are respectively one member of the Governing Body (i.e., representing the College) and one member of the Cathedral Chapter. As Stephen says, together they could potentially outvote the Chair.
The public statement put out today by the Governing Body makes it clear that they intend to proceed with the Internal Tribunal, and that they will be making no further public statements about it.
Not much cause for rejoicing, then. Let’s keep praying.
Thank God for the judges decision. I fear Dean Percy and his family will suffer for some time yet after the trauma he has undergone. Like the victims of church sexual abuse, he may never totally recover. How have we allowed our church to be come the abusive aggressor? The hierarchy do no represent parishioners, nor their values, which are Christian. What, I wonder can the ordinary parishioner do to get rid of this scandalous blight? I have stopped supporting the church financially. Not the answer and problematic I know, but a financial crisis may do a little to by my our leaders to heel. Any suggestions for collective action? We have stayed too quiet for too long.
The member of Chapter sitting in judgment on Dean Percy is rumoured to be the Archdeacon of Oxford. Does the Archdeacon have no confidence in the CDM process, such that he is proposing to re-run the trial of the Dean with the same evidence? Perhaps he hopes another tribunal will arrive at a different conclusion and one that accords with Chapter’s paid-for investigation by Kate Wood, and with the terms of reference set by lawyers for the Diocese, Winckworth’s? As there is this alternative means available for the Archdeacon to destroy his neigbour, even after the fourth most senior appeal judge in the country has dismissed the case,and a legal tribunal as disproportionate, the Archdeacon feels that this other aveune is still worth pursuing. Jesus wept.
I came upon this blog via the “Thinking Anglican” where someone also posts as “Faith”. Although it may well be this is a different person, it is why I noticed your post. Either way, I suggest that, if you have not done so already, you read the decision linked from that site: In her decision, the President of the Tribunals explicitly mentions the internal process as a means of redress for “Ms X”. The Chapter member who has been deputed to act in that process might thus feel the President was exhorting him or her to investigate the matter fully. The suggestion that they would be asserting a lack of confidence in the President by following through with the internal proccess seems completely misplaced.
One must also ask what “rumors” there are about the Chapter member deputed to act in this matter. An internal process would normally be run confidentially, so whoever passed on to you the identity of that individual (accurately or not) may have been acting inappropriately. If that is the case, disseminating that information on a blog-post seems unwise.
I wonder if those who were cowardly enough to make a public accusation will now be brave enough to make a public apology. Not holding my breath.
Hello, Hare! Good to “see” you again.
Apology – I doubt it Hare. As Stephen wrote I have been a complainant. My request was for an apology. That’s all but it never came. The response to my request was cruel and contained several false comments by the vicar, leaving me in bits. Who do you think the Archdeacon believed? (That is a rhetorical question.) She could have done some verification but saw no need as vicars never lie.
Ah, yes. It’s always the victim who is checked out in any investigation, never everybody.
Jayne, I have been in the same position. Having been subjected to bullying behaviour by a clergyperson, I submitted a Subject Access Request to obtain e-mails.
The situation was even worse than I thought. They had been systematic in trying to reduce other people’s opinions of me, including ahead of meetings. I was advised to pursue a CDM against them for conduct unbecoming, but as this clergyperson has a family and I wanted a swift conclusions for us all, I wrote to the bishop instead to ask for a full apology from the clergyperson involved, and if that was given, I would consider the matter closed.
The bishop’s response was shocking. They clearly thought that there was nothing wrong with the clergyperson’s behaviour, and that there was no need for the clergyperson to retract defamatory comments as they had only been sent in e-mails to specific individuals. I would have been lucky to have kept my job if I had behaved similarly at work, but the bishop clearly thinks that such behaviour is acceptable by their clergy.
Like Mary, I have long since stopped supporting the Church financially, and wonder if the current bench of bishops are really up to the job of leading a Church which will evangelise the nation. When people like me find a Church which has lower professional standards than what we uphold in our own workplaces, it is easy to work out why most people find other ways to occupy their Sundays.
‘When people like me find a Church which has lower professional standards than what we uphold in our own workplaces’ – totally agree. Also I believe the idea of tithing is supposed to go to the poorest, not a hugely rich institution misusing its power.
James – I decided not to submit a Request. I have already seen lies told about me by a vicar. He is untouchable so there is no point doing anything more, other than leave Church of England. There is no way the archdeacon is going to hold him to account. He can do what he likes, say what he likes, tell lies about me. I am by far the first complainant to be treated like rubbish by the Church of England.
I am not a lawyer and so I am floundering a little about the technical niceties but I did find it very helpful to have the context of hair incident explained. Context is vital. And it was new to me. The woman was having her hair cut to donate it to charity, therefore any comments made were not out of the blue, it was a matter that was known about, and bound to elicit interest. Maybe it was going to be a sponsored event to raise money for charity? One of our granddaughters did this, so it was something that needed to be very public.
The other concern I had goes back to the outset of this business, surely those early emails by censors containing references about killing Martin Percy and looking forward to seeing “his withered little body floating down the river” are sackable offences? I found it extraordinary that no action was taken against the writers of these emails.
By the way I am not the Kate who posts on Thinking Anglicans.
I’m confused by the phrase “serious sexual assault” in the article. All sexual assaults are serious surely.
Forget the larger structural political issues here. The crux of the matter is “Did Percy touch the woman without consent?”
In such scenarios I tend to believe the woman.
Even a touch is technically an assault if unwelcome. Fair enough, a woman’s body is her own, and her personal space should be respected. But I think most people would draw a distinction between that and rape, for example.
The criterion ‘welcome’, which you employ, is precisely the problem. DIfferent things will be welcome to different people, and (as everyone knows very well, however much they pretend otherwise) there is no way of telling that in advance. People are expected to be mind-readers.
An embrace from George Clooney would be welcome to many; if many other men were in his shoes it would suddenly become unwelcome. No-one can ever make a gesture even of simple affection (affection of the sort that is common and everyday in healthy families and cultures), for fear. How negative and unwelcome.
You’re right, Chris, it’s a nightmare.But it’s like stepping on someone’s toe, accidentally. You apologise. And if you were gooning about, you learn, and don’t do it again.
You can’t generalise about believing ‘the woman’. That is dangerously counter-productive. Women are not an amorphous mass. Those women who know that the woman will be believed over the man (which borders on simple sexism) may use that very climate as an opportunity to make false accusations with impunity, which is a very serious matter indeed.
How dreadful that is for the many women who do have a just cause.
No-one wants to look at a newborn baby boy and say ‘Your gender is your destiny; you may find it hard to be believed even when you are truthful.’. Yuk.
You need to understand here that the only people characterising this as a
“serious sexual assault” have been those seeking to bully the Dean from office.
The Judge has properly agreed with those indicating it was not a sexual assault and insisting on proportionality. I can define sexual assault for you if you wish but would prefer not to.
I understand many survivor’s sensitivities and prejudice in such matters but legal fairness cannot be ignored and over ridden by subjectivity.
If it is not a sexual assault ( and it just isn”t) just ask yourself this. Many women noticed the hair that day and some commented. If one of them, in the course of the of the conversation over the charity donation had done and spoken exactly as the Dean is alleged to have done, would you have insisted upon their being rendered a social pariah for months and ruined emotionally, financially and reputationally on the strength of those few remarks?
The tragedy is that the people involved were denied the opportunity to resolve the matter ( including discussing the need for and terms of an apology ) because outside interests intervened.
But both should face consequences surely. Of different extents obviously.
Apparently you don’t deserve consequences if others deem you a nice guy as it would appear in the reactions to Percy.
I think people feel sorry for him over the persecution he has endured. And the assault was weaponised, hence the initial reaction of disbelief. So, here we are, his enemies took a sledgehammer to crack a nut, and have been told that was inappropriate. But he did do it, and shouldn’t have. Most unsatisfactory for the young woman, too. And now they’re trying to dismiss him. He needs a smack on the wrist, isn’t there any inbetween measure? Ridiculous. If you trawl through the old threads, you will find people here said much of this when it first came out. We don’t want to brush it aside. People used to pat me on the bump when I was pregnant. Very irritating, and I wished they wouldn’t, but I never felt threatened, and it wasn’t sexual.
He only needs a slap on the wrist (a) if he actually did this nefarious deed – and since there is one person who says he did and one that says he didn’t then sexism is at work in preferring the female account; (b) if (supposing for the moment that touching was indeed involve, which we don’t know) he could have known in advance that touching it would be unwelcome, which is something no-one could possibly know; (c) if fairness was operating, so that women touching the same hair would receive the same sanctions.
That is quite a few ifs. The only way that we can agree with the proposition ‘he needs a slap on the wrist’ is if we are forced to ignore all 3 ifs. No-one has the right (nor the evidence) to force any such thing.
Subsequent comments have made what I wrote less clear. But I’m not sure what the problem is in understanding the weaponised bit. There is a lack of clarity over exactly why Ms. X took the action she did, but it does appear that the dean’s enemies used the incident to advance their intent.
I think the last two replies were a little out of order although we do understand the feelings behind them. Although I was abused, I wasn’t raped. Both should be treated seriously although clearly it would be worse to be raped so that’s what is meant by taking it more seriously. In appropriate touching must also be handled seriously, but we would expect the rapist to receive a severer penalty than the person who say, touches your hair inappropriately for a few seconds. Nobody on this site minimises the seriousness of all kinds of abuse as you will find if you carry on reading. I hope you do and hope you find some support. A number of us have really suffered at the abuse we we encountered by. the church after we made our complaint we know how distressing g that can be too. Be assured you are among friends here. But justice demands proportionate responses depending on the severity of abuse and the damage caused. We will not be taken seriously if we fall below the standards we set others and as Christians we aspire to live accordingly. I do hope you find us compassionate but fair.
Well I didn’t mean a slap literally. I think most people would be surprised to be trotted off to the tower for a friendly tap on the hand or something. Let’s get a little proportion here. And in another post, I mentioned being patted on my bump, so no, not a man. I’ve been touched without consent, and I’m a victim of abuse. Bullying in my case. And if you look back, you’ll see others weighing in on this young woman’s behalf. Not ignored, I promise you.
There’s a range of penalties under the CDM extending from a ‘rebuke’ to prohibition from ministry for life.
This CDM fell within the Bishop of Oxford’s jurisdiction, but he delegated it to the Bishop of Birmingham. So much has happened in the C of E of late, I forget why this was referred further along the line to the President of Tribunals.
For those who wish to read more, David Lamming wrote an analysis on ‘Thinking Anglicans’ and the thread is current there.
“Survivor” has a point if no further sanctions are being considered. Only the current process which could result in his being sacked. I know the guy is having a rotten time, but what possessed him to intrude on someone’s personal space?
The Bishop dealing with the matter has to decide which of the courses under section 12 should be followed. Most require some form of admission and/or consent; failing those being available he can “refer it for investigation”. At that point the Designated Officer carries out an investigation and submits a confidential report to the President of Tribunals. The President then decides whether to refer it to a tribunal hearing. In recent years the President has adopted a test of whether it is proportionate to do so. That has resulted in a number of less serious complaints going no further. All very unsatisfactory from several angles and shows the need for a a distinctive grievance and less serious complaints process to be available as well as one for serious misconduct. We can only hope that the legislation about to be proposed contains that clear distinction and two separate tracks.
Indeed.
From what I’ve read here (including this article and some subsequent comments) and elsewhere (e.
g. Twitter, Church newspapers’ letters pages) there seems to be a clamour for no further sanction.
How on earth is that equitable, justice or fair?
It wouldn’t be. But it needs to be proportionate. And I think you should read people’s posts more carefully. You missed my identifying as female, and you are reading stuff into some posts that isn’t there. I can’t speak for other blogs, and they can be offensive, but this one generally is not. And people apologise to each other, and sympathise. If you stick with us, I think you’ll get something out of it. All the best.
I also share concerns for the woman who had her hair touched without invitation but the amount of publicity it has attracted has highlighted how important it is to be thoughtful in our actions. There are few of us who will not have, however unintentionally, harmed someone with a careless action or ill advised words.
The sanction we all need to be faced with for this, is to challenge ourselves to grow in self awareness.
If we don’t and we mess up again then certainly up the ante.
Hi Trish. Nice to see you. It’s a sad business altogether.
Some of the comments here have become personal and intemperate. I have had to remove them. Please remember that the issue of abuse is deeply personal and sensitive but there are limits to what can be achieved in open discussion on a blog. Please keep to the norms of courtesy and respect in what you say to others.
Ah, so this website that pretends to be a safe place and advocate for those abused in church settings actually advocates for a priest who touched a member of the laity without consent.
Interesting.
2 Corinthians 11:14-15
Thank you Anonymous.
I’m being portrayed as the bad person and have words put into my mouth. I see those who accused me of not believing that any response to Percy’s actions should be proportional are allowed a free pass.
Of course the response should be proportionate (as I said much earlier) but he’s yet to even show contrition.
If I may weigh in here – I am a woman and I was the victim of a sexual attack a long time ago. I am probably older than most of you here and have been around the block a few times.
Although the assault on me was serious and there are still things that freak me out (people coming up behind me, for instance) I have never used the attack as a weapon against men in general. If I had, I would have become bitter and aggressive.
Men are not all abusers. I agree with Christopher Shell about how sad it is that men are confused and scared about how they should act around women if everything is going to be misconstrued.
The majority of men are good, decent and respectful and we should allow them to be just that without their having to look over their shoulders the whole time.
Equally, the majority of women are also good, decent and respectful. But, alas, there are members of both sexes who make false accusations and untold harm is caused.
I have become increasingly disturbed over the years at how aggressive and vindictive parts of our society are becoming and I think we are possibly one of the coldest cultures on Earth. I fear that the next stage is that we shout ‘abuse’ when we are merely looked at. We need to recover some balance and both sexes learn to respect each other. We should not be at war, we should be at peace.
Thank you and welcome, Agnes.
I am really sorry to read this, Jayne. I too decided to take time away from the CofE. Ultimately, the circle I couldn’t square in my mind was the tolerance of behaviour by clergy which would get me sacked in my own profession. For what it is worth, I have found spending time in another denomination to be helpful. I don’t think any denomination is perfect (and it would be complacent to assume perfection), but ministers with whom I have spoken in the Church where I now worship seem to have a greater self-awareness about the potential impact of the ministry than I sometimes found in the CofE (though I should acknowledge that I know some Anglican clergy who have an exemplary awareness of these issues).
Since all this, I have mused upon the impact of Article 26 (of the 39 Articles), that the conduct of ministers has no impact upon the efficacy of the sacraments administered by them. Whilst I accept that God can work through unworthy instruments, I have wondered if this article is at the root of what would seem to be an otherwise baffling tolerance of clerical misconduct.
Hello James, what are the 39 articles? I have not heard of article 26 but it really resonates with my fight for justice. Could you, or someone tell me where to find them please and explain their purpose.
They’re at the back of every Book of Common Prayer. They are supposed to be what the Church of England believes. They’re very outdated, so although the earlier ones are brilliant, the later ones are political, from the Elizabethan era, and also about Elizabeth’s legitimacy as Queen. Article 26 is “of the worthiness of the minister”. I have had much cause to consider this over the last twenty years. It means, basically, that even if you have a terrible incumbent, if people worship honestly, and receive communion as if everything is alright, it still allows them to make contact with God and get blessing from it.
Actually, of the UNworthiness of the minister.
Thanks Athena I will look into these. Article 26 sounds very odd to me I need to get my head round that one.
Well, basically, because it’s about your relationship with God, not the vicar. They’re kind of the answers to questions.
+The crux of the matter is this ‘Did a powerful man touch a woman without consent’?
Has that man at any time showed contrition?
If you don’t like the answers to the questions I pity you and fear for the future of your daughters.
Abuse Survivor – I understand your comment about contrition. In general terms, where there is no contrition or apology, it makes it difficult to move on. That is something I am grappling with but I know I have to come to terms with a nasty situation. I can’t force someone to apologise if he refuses to do so. I can’t change his poor behaviour but I can change my response to him. Hard to do but necessary for emotional well being. I don’t want my thoughts to be consumed by someone, who happens to be a Church of England vicar, who thinks I am worthless. Other denominations are available as noted by James in this thread.
Hi Jayne I just wondered if you have advice on changing our response to someone where there is no willingness to change on their part?
Oh, that is so hard! All I can say, for what it’s worth, is that it helps you if you pray for the people who harmed you. Hand them over to God. I have sometimes felt a huge weight lifting. But it stings to have to accept they will never acknowledge what they did.
He seems to be questioning whether he touched her (or remembers touching her; or whether the touch was a gesture that failed to make contact, or whatever). It is not possible to show contrition for something one does not remember doing in the first place. The prejudging of the issue to say that he ‘must’ have touched her – when this is precisely the disputed point – is just as bad as saying that women as a class have more worth to their testimony than men as a class (a hierarchical system) or that people are victims or survivors *simply* by virtue of saying that they are (though many of course are these things). All these things are prejudgments, based not on evidence but on personal preference (!); and there is only one time for judgment – at the end of the process.
Miss X told the Investigating Officer that she would have been content with an apology for the act ( which NB was not sexually motivated ) .
Neither party was permitted the opportunity to have that conversation. Those who wish the Dean ill said – in terms _ that this might be the ” final blow” in the campaign to bully the Dean out of office. An intervening third party did not take the matter to the HR department or to the Diocesan Diocesan Safeguarding Officer but rather to the man who had been involved in past failed attempts to defame the Dean by false allegation.
On the issue of what happened. It is a classic he/said/she said. Sometimes the only people who can resolve this are the parties but the chance of an early conversation s which might have led to a mutually acceptable conclusion was deliberately strangled at birth by the malcontents.
Neither primary parties interests were well served.
One small but important evidential point. The woman said that the Dean touched her hair for ten seconds ( count that ). The police tested the hair which had been cut and preserved very shortly afterwards. There was no evidence of the Dean’s DNA. Whilst not 100% conclusive, in a finely balanced case with no other objective reason to choose between two people of good character and who were both judged ” credible ” by the Judge, it is a proper reason to say that the case cannot be properly regarded as proven against the Dean. The consequences for injustice in his case are utterly catastrophic. The woman was not upset after the incident ( this is recorded). Had the matter not been leaked by a malcontent don ( we know the name) Miss X would have been spared much. It is only because the subject was ” bigged up” as a serious sexual assault by those persecuting the Dean that the injustice came into the public domain. If proper and proportionate process had been followed none of this would be discussed. The only people whose interest was served by this are the malcontent bullies.
The people who let her down were those who abused process and denied her the opportunity to have the apology she said she wanted discussed and explored in a suitable meeting.
You assert” Power imbalance”; there was such imbalance but not in the place you assume. Unfortunately I cannot elucidate further without compromising Miss X identifiability.
“I’m older than you so my opinion is more valid”
Patronising much?
I think we are all older than you are. Maybe that is why we have learned to be more measured. Thinking something through rather than just reacting is not being patronising.
As I’ve said several times any response needs to be proportionate but more than that it has to be preceeded by contrition.
Am I wrong in that claim?
How and why?
Why? Because you were not in the vestry and yet you are making an assumption of guilt.
No you are not wrong, and I like others here support you in that. I have also felt at times that in rightly defending a victim of institutional bullying, at times there has been a tendency to minimise another victim’s experience.
I don’t believe any of us here have sufficient knowledge of all of the facts to pass judgement on what happened in the vestry, nor should we. Context is important too, was this a one off or a pattern of grooming behaviour, what is the power relationship here, how friendly were they previously.
We cannot know any of this, so the important thing is that a young woman has made a report of an incident that she found inappropriate and serious enough to be properly investigated. And do it should be.
I think that all of us here are agreed on that.
The other observation I would make is that in Survivors Voices, we have learnt not to impose any hierarchy of abuse. It’s like bullying or harassment. How it impacts the person varies so much, based on so many factors. We always say, if it matters to you, it matters to us.
Interestingly the law on racial harassment takes a similar view. It’s the victim’s experience that counts, whatever the intention.
Perhaps my theology is wrong. I don’t think it’s particularly unorthodox…
Because whilst it does occur, the probability of someone making up abuse is highly improbable.
But keep on being an apologist for abuse Troubadour.
I think you may have misunderstood this group, AS. The vast majority of those of us who write here are victims of abuse and we come here to support each other, not to harangue each other.
Please read the posts more carefully. No one is being aggressive with you, just factual, yet you are being aggressive in return. If you were to seek help from the members of this blog I think you would find it. Good luck in your search for healing.
Abuse Survivor – This site is usually free of ironic personal remarks. It would be good to keep it that way.
I write as a victim of abuse. I n my experience the vast majority of men are decent and as a disabled person I would go further and say most are helpful and considerate. I, like others experienced disbelief by the church despite being able to produce proof of offences. I know how painful this is. I also know of a proven case of a woman making a malicious allegation against a man. Sadly this does happen occasionally. There are also cases of women being sexual predators. We cannot blame a whole group of people for the action of some. I asked a man to keep an eye on me in church to make sure I am alright simply as reassurance for my strained nerves so that I feel safer. We are against abuse of any kind and wish to have justice. It is not just to treat people differently because they are the same sex as our abuser. Any male who has been abused, and there are many, should be able to read our comments and join in comfortably. They have already been abused. They should not have to read derogatory comments because they happen to be male. Women are not the only victims.
“The police tested the hair” The police spent public money, our taxes, my taxes which I could do with at the end of each month to put food on the table to test the hair. The police spent public money on testing the hair when they won’t do anything about stalkers, some who go on to kill, and who terrify thousands of people each year.
This is privilege and entitlement gone mad. The solution is clear resite Christ Church to the council estate near me then they would be told to put up or shut up.
The seriousness of the allegation rested to a degree on this. It’s not as if it takes weeks of police time. I don’t find it to be disproportionate. The whole investigation cost money, but the money was spent for Ms.X’s sake. Quite right.
Martin says Ms X just wanted an apology, if asked if she wanted her hair DNA tested using public money I am quite sure she would have said no.
Ms. X wanted an apology the seriousness of the allegation has been completely weaponised.
We will have to disagree on this Athena the police have a moral obligation to spend public money ethically and had the CDM come to anything it may have been at that point that DNA testing was done. If someone on a council estate makes a complaint to the police that someone touched their hair uninvited do you really think they run around DNA testing, working in social care I can tell you they don’t.
Well, we certainly agree it’s been weaponised. All the best, sis.
I don’t think I would even notice if someone touched my hair, but if they did so for 10 seconds I probably would. The touching is the very part he is denying, but if that is because it was a gesture not a touch, or somewhere on the borderline, then the inflation of this case just gets more egregious. Plus if he is in the mental state they have driven him to, he probably scarcely knows what he is doing.
I agree totally with Trish. Given the kinds of suffering others are subject to, this is incredibly privileged, sheltered, middle class.
Healthy families are very touchy feely anyway, so maybe the sexual revolution is at fault for people getting so prickly.
As to ‘money’ being spent for her sake, there are many degrees and amounts of money. There must surely be an appropriate upper limit to said money in a case like this?
Now, that last I agree with. As to the DNA test, the absence of DNA doesn’t prove it isn’t there, it only shows they didn’t find it. Whereas a small amount of DNA would have shown he did touch her. So the test would work only against the Dean, without there being any danger of disproving Ms. X’s version. And I repeat, it’s a quick process, so not costly.
I have removed several comments where I have deemed them to be personal and potentially upsetting to individuals. Please discuss the issues and not the motives of writers. It will be impossible to get it right every time but I shall be ruthless with removing comments that offend courtesy.
I’ve just read something here or the related blog by a Fen Punton (I think) who didn’t seem to ‘bad-mouth’ anyone though was not suportive of the wealth of support Dean Percy seems to have had. She said she expected her comment to be removed which it seems to have been. I’m just a little puzzled, Stephen.