One of the things we demand, when reading fiction or watching dramas on television, is that these fictional pieces have satisfying conclusions. The conclusion may not always count as a happy ending, but we do have a need to see loose threads tied up. The reader or watcher wants to believe that the world is basically an ordered and moral place, even if they know that this is not always true in reality. James Bond films illustrate well the victory of good in a fictional setting. However much the arch-villain may seem to have Bond in his control at some point in the plot, we know that something will come along to save our hero and reverse the situation of despotic power and the attempts at world domination.
Conclusions or happy endings are expected in the world of fictional drama. In real life they happen far less often, even though we may crave them. In the real world we frequently encounter situations that are left unresolved, where the forces of goodness do not seem to prevail, and individuals put up with unhappiness and pain. When there is an event involving abuse against a vulnerable person, there can never be a truly happy ending. The most one can look for is for justice to be obtained and that skilful support for those wounded will be found. Even this outcome is not always achieved. The trauma of abuse is likely to leave its mark for the whole of a victim’s life and have unforeseeable consequences. Money and therapy can contribute towards the needed healing, but what they can achieve is never close to a completed task.
One of the things that happens for me as the editor of this blog, is to receive a number of stories which seem to have no possibility of a tidy outcome. Two words, already mentioned, sum up the minimum that might be required for abuse victims to have a chance to begin to rebuild their lives. These words are justice and care. I hear about incidents of abuse of all kinds, some from long ago. More often, what these survivors want to share with me is not the event of abuse itself, but the later processes and institutional obstacles that have been placed in their way as they seek justice and support. We could claim to see these obstacles as a further experience of abuse. What has had to be endured by a survivor seeking justice and care is nearly always a two-stage process. First there is the original abuse with all its accompanying psychological and physical trauma. Then there is the battle to have that pain acknowledged by the institutions which had incubated the abuser in some way. Further, these organisations are neglecting to respond in anything like an adequate way when the evil is finally exposed.
Today (Sunday) there is an important story in the Sunday Times which seems, for the first time, to give a legal acceptance of the fact that sexual abuse can be perpetrated against an individual in two stages. The story in Sunday’s paper is a Catholic one, but the implication of the story is of importance to all churches. The story indicates that any deliberate ‘othering’ of survivors by a church body is of interest and concern to the courts. In the ST story, a female survivor had been abused by an RC priest at the age of 15. Legal compensation was eventually awarded to this victim by the Catholic authorities. Of much greater interest to all those who have witnessed the way that survivors are often mistreated by church institutions, is the second case taken out against the Catholic Church. This second case that was heard, quite separate from the first, related to attempts by the Church to intimidate and belittle the victim as she fought for justice and the recognition of her abuse. In short, the Catholic Church has been called to account and penalised for the institutional bullying of a victim seeking justice. The case against the Church will be a shot across the bows for all those in the churches who instruct their legal teams to undermine and discredit victims/survivors in sexual abuse cases. The case of Julie McFarlane contained a harrowing account of how she had to stand up to aggressive questioning from lawyers employed by the Church in their attempts to undermine her testimony. Hopefully such bullying behaviour in legal cases against survivors will be less tolerated in the future.
The emails I receive from individuals around the country describe some immensely complicated snarl-ups in the system of safeguarding around the country. Officially we have full-time diocesan safeguarding officers (DSOs) all over the country, but still, we do not find consistency in their professional training or abilities. Two problems quickly arise for these officers. One is the fact that no one has really defined the professional skills required for a DSO. I have before outlined the managerial and the pastoral skills that would seem to be basic. Then there is needed an understanding of law and the cluster of skills associated with social work. Last, but not least, the DSO needs to have some grasp of theological language which may be used by survivors and church officials. When the role of DSO finally acquires its own professional training scheme at a post-graduate level, then perhaps this range of skills will be defined in a way that helps to end this pot-luck approach to the appointment and deployment of DSOs around the country.
The second range of skills needed by our DSOs is far tougher. It is the ability to survive in structures which are sometimes dysfunctional to the point of creating unbearable levels of stress. Much of what is confidentially described to me of the inner workings of safeguarding within dioceses, suggests sometimes almost impossible working conditions for everyone involved. Officially, DSOs act independently and outside the official diocesan structures. In practice, they have to battle to preserve this independence. To describe this as difficult to achieve, is an understatement. It is hard to see how a DSO is supposed to behave in a highly politicised arena such as the Southwark diocese. Someone senior in the diocese, probably not the DSO, made the well-publicised decision to suspend and subsequently reinstate Stephen Kuhrt. Previously a senior diocesan figure kept Jonathan Fletcher’s loss of his PTO in 2017 firmly under wraps. This latter decision was kept so confidential that not even his constituency bishop, Rod Thomas, was told. A section of this blog has been removed following a legal request.
The sheer variety of standards and modes of practice among the safeguarding officers currently employed by the Church around the country provides an unpredictable environment for abuse cases to be dealt with well. What do people in the pew or among the clergy demand from a competent safeguarding officer? The thing they want to see above all is a person who is compassionate and listening, preserving a professional independence. No one wishes to have their negative experience of abuse compounded by an unfeeling toxic institutional response, one which is denying, defensive and totally lacking in compassion. It must be possible for a system of reporting abuse to be fair, just and preserving confidentiality. The people who write to me are often not being heard because the system of safeguarding is often politicised in a way to prevent it having integrity. Whenever church lawyers, archdeacons, DSOs and even bishops are thought to be manipulating the system in any way to suit their partisan purposes, the structures cannot function as they should. People of goodwill are squeezed out from the structures by these failures. We need to be able to insert that integrity back into the institutional structures before it is lost for ever.
A perceptive but sad analysis of the Church of England’s woeful inability to provide either justice or care for victims of its own organisation. When I complained about a vicar (not safeguarding, something else) I naively assumed that I would get both justice and care. Instead of bread, I got a snake. The lies told by the vicar, were believed and repeated as fact by an archdeacon in a vindictive letter to me. She didn’t care that I might be alone when I read the letter. She has ignored all communication from me ever since. I emailed her about the distress and uncontrolled crying that her letter had triggered. No response. When a relative died of covid, I informed the parish office and the vicar. No response. Because I have dared complain to the diocese about the vicar, and the diocese took his side, I have become invisible, and needless to say, I no longer attend church. I doubt my experience is unique which is shameful considering how the Church should respond, but fails over and over again to provide either justice or care.
So sorry to hear how poorly treated you have been Petra but as you wisely recognise it is often the case and not about you personally, silence is used to control and manipulate and is frequently ‘built in’ to the process with this aim in mind.
I think there are some very important points in this blog but as a survivor from Southwark diocese I also have another observation to make. There is a liking in this diocese for ex-police, the current newly appointed DSA is one as well as the chair of the DSAP, but ex-police have no external registering body that they can appeal to if complaints are made about them and survivors cannot easily take complaints outside the diocese to their accrediting body. Social workers have to be registered and are therefore answerable to an external body.
The case of Stephen Khurt is a travesty and I wish he had challenged his penalty, though I understand and do not judge why he did not, but ultimately the diocesan secretary has won by controlling the narrative and sending a warning to all potential whistleblowers.
PCR2 offers little hope of tearing the covers of the systemic abuse in some dioceses and as dioceses remain fiercely autonomus the future for improvements in safeguarding for survivors remains bleak.
I have always worried about ex-police in safeguarding roles. Their perspectives are so different from those of social work or health visiting. I imagine that the PR people say that using ex-police seems more robust! As you say Trish, they are not regulated so to quote a text which occurs often in the Book of Judges ‘ each did right in their own eyes’. At least there is longstop of regulation with social workers or health professionals. Wouldn’t it be great to have an independent ecumenical safeguarding body which could investigate across denominations and not be held in thrall to senior diocesan staff!
Yes, appointing somebody’s wife is a good way of controlling them!
With a system as dysfunctional as ours in the CofE, it’s the good and dedicated professionals who find it impossible to stay. That’s because 1) they can’t abide being prevented from working to high professional standards, and 2) they show up what’s wrong with church systems, like the sun shining through dirty windows. and the church won’t tolerate that.
The end result is that survivors and victims find themselves dealing with incompetent and corrupt personnel. Or, if we do happen upon a good safeguarding officer, they don’t last and we find ourselves starting all over again with someone new. Even worse, our case may be dropped or forgotten in the handover. All of these have happened to me and to countless others.
This definitely chimes with my experience, that while I have met good and caring people in safeguarding roles, my experience with my case has been retraumatising.
I was going to raise the same issue as Trish, that there needs to be a professional code of ethics and accountability, currently only applies to registered social workers.
Also that we need to see the impact that the move to independent oversight with the Independent Safeguarding Board will bring. Maggie Atkinson is a strong appointment.
We shall see…
I agree John, what makes police officers good at what they do is their analytical mind and need for evidence but that does not translate well into the nuanced world of safeguarding.
Sadly Jane having sat with the diocese 2 weeks ago and been told how wonderful they are now, though Stephen Khurt’s story, and mine say different, I have a strong sense that accessing the ISB from a diocesan level may be extremely difficult. In the same way that PCR2 can only refer back to the abusing diocese the overwhelming autonomy of dioceses could stand in the path of ISB referrals in poor performing ones.
I remember when Graham Tilby was hailed as the next great wonder and look how that turned out!
The office of DSO is not unlike that of a data protection officer: notionally independent but subject to ‘suasion’ from the applicable paymasters (in this instance, dioceses).
This, surely, is an additional argument for:
(i) abolishing the administrative and financial functions of dioceses, which are largely useless, and an utter waste of resource and money in a Church which can ill afford it;
(ii) having a single national safeguarding team, which should iron out some of the more glaring inconsistencies in outcomes;
(iii) having that team forming part of a national safeguarding agency, which is not only part funded by the Church but also by a range of non-governmental and State bodies, such that no one funder can exercise undue suasion, and the risk of ‘regulatory capture’ is reduced, if not eliminated; and
(iv) granting such an agency wide powers of investigation and a quasi-judicial capacity (including the power to suspend office holders pending an investigation), and to have the CPS initiate proceedings on its behalf.
Although I have always been strongly Erastian, the more I think about it, the more I *want* the Church to be under the heel of the State, by means of a safeguarding agency that is an emanation of the State, and not of the Church. And if that means that the Church gets a good and hard stamping when it falls out of line, so be it.
As has been noted before the Church cannot be trusted. Despite its pretensions to ‘independence’ within the framework of a notional establishment, the Church has received considerable amounts of money from the taxpayer and owes accountability to the public (I should add that I am strongly in favour of the Church being subject to FOIA).
The churches often tend to ‘lick up, and kick down’, since they have a keen nose for power. A salutary recent instance of this has been the humiliation of the archbishop of Rheims and president of the RC bishops’ conference (Mgr. Éric de Moulins-Beaufort) in the wake of the staggering revelations of industrial abuse by clergy and layworkers in France (especially clergy, however). The archbishop suggested that the Church was somehow above the law with respect to reporting confessions of abuse and issued rather anodyne expressions of ‘regret’; this led not only to a stinging rebuke from Emmanuel Macron, but also a summons to the very powerful Interior Ministry and resulted in some craven back-tracking. Similarly, when Synod cavilled over the consecration of women bishops in 2012, the Church was ordered by David Cameron to “get with the programme”, and very meekly and promptly overcame its tendentious scruples.
I think that the time has now come (and has perhaps past) for the Church to receive a good hard kicking from the State, such that it sharpens up its act, or is else required to surrender its autonomy in the field of safeguarding (as well, as I hope, much of its property) to the State.
Your last para: do you think the state cares enough about this increasingly strange creature it its (the state’s) attic to bother giving it a kicking? A genuine question. Is there not something to be said for letting Mrs Rochester hang herself, or jump off the ramparts, so that the state has a perfect excuse to free itself of the crazy sect?
No, I suspect it does not. There are few votes in it. It probably cares far more for the National Trust (though there is a significant overlap in the constituencies). However, to continue the Jane Eyre analogy, there was the contretemps between Martha Abbot and Bessie Leaven, which might sum up the current attitude of the State towards the Church:
“Let her go,” was the only answer. “Loose Bessie’s hand, child: you cannot succeed in getting out by these means, be assured. I abhor artifice, particularly in children; it is my duty to show you that tricks will not answer: you will now stay here an hour longer, and it is only on condition of perfect submission and stillness that I shall liberate you then.”
The State may not care overmuch for the Church, but the next demise of the crown will raise many painful and acute questions which will put the untenability of the current arrangements (and the Church’s selfishness in cleaving to the indefensible) into start relief, and so may force the pace. I note that HMTQ has been advised by her physicians to ‘rest’ and not to visit Northern Ireland. The continuing establishment of the Church now depends upon the continuing survival of that one person. The hour of ‘liberation’ is not far off (though I hope that it may be delayed for as long as God wills it). The Church’s incompetence and malign behaviour towards survivors may go some way to determine whether the liberation is, or is not, on terms favourable to the future of the Church.
Marvellous, Froghole! The obvious course of action is masterly inactivity, then.
The other side of this though, is that not all DSOs are whiter than the driven snow, and unfailingly committed to justice. You mention inconsistency of training and ability – there is also considerable inconsistency of outlook.
For example, I am aware of one diocese where the DSO sees him/herself (I do not want to be specific) as the sole vanguard of truth within a sea of treachery and incompetence (ie the bishop’s staff) to the point that he/she dismisses out of hand any other perspective, refuses to explain his/her reasoning or decisions, threatens senior clergy with CDMs if they question these decisions, contemptuously dismisses any cleric’s opinion (because clergy are not to be trusted and they’re all as bad as each other), and worst of all, refuses to countenance his/her department being enlarged by appointments of other SG professionals, except very junior admin assistants.
S/he insists on retaining complete control of every aspect of SG in the diocese, is therefore completely overworked and impossible to get hold of, and very difficult to work with because of the constant stress s/he is under. Cases easily run to 9 months plus, and no-one seems to be able to say a thing about it, otherwise they are accused of undermining or sabotaging SG’s work.
There is another diocese where the DSO brought multiple CDMs against a retired cleric based on no investigation of the people involved, only 20-yr old hearsay, and illegally accessed police records via his/her partner who is an administrator in the police. This DSO supported the alleged victim very closely, in constant contact and refusing to allow her any other pastoral care, while encouraging her to use every method of complaint possible as each avenue closed off, because there was simply no case to answer. Again, no one seemed to be able to stop or query the DSO’s activities, because of his/her power to threaten clergy.
There doesn’t seem to be any consistent oversight of DSO’s work or behaviour, and there certainly is no appeals process for those falsely accused. My heart grieves for all victims of clergy abuse, but quite definitely harm is being caused in more than one quarter.
I hope I did not give the impression of seeing DSOs as innocents in a sea of malign diocesan structures. The situation is that there is a system of safeguarding across the country of uneven standards and competence which often denies justice and care to many accused and survivors. Sometimes DSOs are among the forces of good, sometimes not. The situation of a DSO having too much power would be, I suggest, a less common scenario overall. Clearly whatever is the case nationally, the standards seem so varied that justice is often not being served. Froghole’s idea of a national system is right but that would take many years to achieve. All of us only have access to anecdotal evidence and that can be misleading as we all know. Anyone who does have an overall picture of how things are on the ground is not likely to sharing that information.
I missed this because I was on holiday. I can understood good safeguarding officers leaving because of the sheer impossibility of working with colleagues and structures in which attempts to cover up abuse are rife and complainants reabused. I could not myself bear to work in those circumstances. But naturally this means that safeguarding officers who either dare not stand up to Bishops, or who simply collude with corrupt practices may end up being in the majority. I have had two former police officers now working for the Church involved in covering up my case and committing other misconduct. Neither really seemed to have the same point of view we would expect from a social worker. Much worse was that both were corrupt. I believe there was also collusion between my Diocese and the police. I do not regard the way the police dealt with my complaint of hate crime including sexual assault and damage to my chosen mobility aid and the way the police dealt with my Diocese’s complaint that I reported breaches of a written agreement and that I complained to national safeguarding were at all coincidental. I made a subject access request about my complaint of abuse. The investigating police officer not only and ignored two witnesses and did not question them but filled in a form stating there were no witnesses. Apparently he also mistakenly thought I had regained my sight and stated I was not vulnerable. Unlike me my abuser was not questioned under caution at the police station and charged and summoned to a criminal trial. As I have written before my copies of police tapes show the investigating officer repeatedly questioning me quite forcibly as to why I reported breaches to the DSA as they happened. I was told at interview my Bishop had stated he had followed all procedures. The police officer did not even glance at the Bishop’s letter telling me I must not complain and other documentary evidence instead filling in a form for the courts stating there was no evidence to disprove the Diocesan charges. In fact the first police officer to whom I complained and who was on the Diocesan liaison committee told me quite wrongly that my complaint did not meet the police threshold for complaints. A few weeks later she was in post as DSA. I am now filing cdm against the clergyman who is only in post because my Bishop moved out his predecessor just before he admitted guilt. I am also filing cdm against my Bishop for once again ignoring my complaint against my present Rector, for allowing me to be charged and summoned simply for making legitimate complaints, for allowing the CEO to criminalise me and then ignoring my complaint of gross misconduct against the CEO, for allowing Diocesan solicitors to repeatedly threaten me with legal action, that on his watch the DSA allowed someone involved in my case to “independently” review it for past cases review 2 , and that on his watch the DSA initially refused to deal with my complaint of sexual assault, etc. etc…
Oh Mary, you’re having such a terrible time. Can you go a local paper and tell them, “This person thinks I’ve regained my sight”, or something obvious like that?
Thank you English Athena. I have thought about it. My husband worries we will have the local police down on us looking for any trivial complaint or worse still making up one about us. He too has suffered, but unlike me faced trial and was judged to be not guilty. Our curate swore on the Bible in court making up false accusations of criminal behaviour which according to her involved six to eight pcc members. Not one backed up her malicious story although the pcc Secretary gave a version which was quite different and when questioned could claim no behaviour by my husband which could be described as violent or threatening. However my husband would have been left with a criminal record if he had been found guilty. Our curate went to court wearing her dog collar and was churchwarden at the time of our interregnum. My husband too has been put through the mill for alerting pcc members during an interegnum that the DSA had written that we had a Team Leader who needed to be monitored. When asked by our solicitor when she she had made her complaint to the police, the curate replied that she had not and it was the Diocese who made the complaint. We were both interviewed at the police station on the same date for separate offences. During my husband ‘s trial the pcc Secretary testified under oath that she would omit matters from the official pcc minutes at the request of the Diocese and added also she would insert matters at their request. Diocesan solicitors have since made more legal threats against me and we feel sure that the Diocese will miss no chance of further police charges even if they have to use their imagination once again. As the police have been so heavily involved we really fear further legal action. I have asked my Bishop and the Registrar to reassure me and guarantee that if the cdm process once more upholds my complaint as it did before, I will not once again end up at the police station being cautioned because the CEO has told the police my complaint was unfounded and the police ignore the investigating Bishop’s written decision. Malicious retaliation is the order of the day in this Diocese and others. It is quite likely we are not the only ones fearing retaliation from Bishops and daily fear hearing from their solicitors. No neither my Bishop or Diocesan Registrar has so far given me any reassurance that I will not be criminalized for having another complaint upheld. I have asked for safety reasons that an Archdeacon pursues my complaint on my behalf but have received no reply.
Tiny detail perhaps. Is a cleric allowed to be a church warden?
Sorry to confuse. The curate was both reader and churchwarden du ring the interregnum. She was then allowed to go forward for ordination whilst having an unresolved safeguarding complaint against her. A national figure intervened and a review took place. The reviewer did not speak to me so I was unable to submit evidence which was accepted and not dismissed at the cdm of the incumbent about the incident in which our curate was involved. The reviewer did speak to the curate and was content to accept her account. She then was ordained. At court she testified that that neither she nor the other churchwarden knew about the Team Leader needing monitoring. We only had an interegnum because the incumbent was guilty of safeguarding offences.
Oh Mary, everything you have told us about what you have been through is so horrendous and so irregular and so unaccountable in terms of process, I have never managed to think of anything useful and productive to say, other than it’s horrendous and no way to treat a vulnerable person reporting an assault.
I wish I could think of something more helpful to do and say. I completely understand why you are cautious abut saying anything more publicly. Your family’s safety is ost important.
I may have asked you before, in which case sorry, but have you approached Safe Spaces for help with your situation?
Thank you Jane. It was safe spaces who not only listened but advised me to make subject access requests because they too felt helpless in the face of repeated blatant misconduct and retaliation. No complainant should receive threats of legal action as I did if they complain about abusers. The CEO then carried out the threat and I have been threatened with further legal action after contacting Diocesan Trustees. But after sar I ended up with even more evidence and that is how I found misconduct in past cases review 2 and more evidence against the DSA and present incumbent. You and others here are a great help as is Stephen for providing support and a safe space and I thank you all. I keep on because I have amassed a lot of evidence which cannot be dismissed. I have no hope that my cdm will make things better personally and that I will finally be protected not only from my original abusers but from my Diocese and their solicitors. But I feel I must make a stand and show what happens when you can prove your case. I fear no vulnerable parishioner can be deemed safe in my Diocese.
It’s a horrifying story. I think I may have asked you before, Mary, whether you have considered approaching the media? Often the Church is more afraid of bad publicity than of anything else. It restores the balance of power in your favour, too because briefing a good investigative reporter doesn’t require financial resources on your part and is much less stressful than legal processes. The material from your SARs is useful evidence.
I too found when I submitted SARs that senior clergy had lied to present me in a bad light and them in a good one. Covering their own backs, but at my expense. That cost me a job I applied for.
Oh Janet how awful. I’m sorry to hear about the job but not surprised as we have found repercussions in other areas of our life. My personal preference would be to have matters investigated and quietly dealt with. But as we know that is not how it works with the Church of England. So although I have shunned publicity this is something I am considering despite being the sort of person who would normally avoid it. I have learnt, as you and others have that the church and individuals in the hierarchy have matters sewn up so well they are supremely confident about getting away with malicious and even possible criminal behaviour. I have had two national figures take action, the lead Bishop and national safeguarding involved, my MP, as well as others. We have found that my Bishop and Diocese can simply ignore these attempts because they can and are allowed to get away with it. I too have sadly come to the conclusion that the only thing the church fears is bad publicity. But as I have decided to file cdm I will await the outcome first. If appropriate action is not taken I fear I will have to go down that route. I say fear because not only is my natural inclination to shrink from publicity but I fear the response of the church. As you say, lies are rife in regard to complainants and my Diocese has stopped at nothing to silence us, even attempting to give us a criminal record. But I remain deeply concerned for other complainants and that is why I will probably be forced to go public if my situation continues. I have so far not even told my immediate family circle because we have serious and long term health concerns about a young family member and the strain of that alone is deeply affecting us. But I feel I cannot stand by and say nothing. I am the child of parents one of which was in a Siberian gulag for defending his country Poland, from Russian domination and my mother suffered as slave Labour in a Nazi concentration camp, simply because of her nationality. Up to now I have always been proud to have been born in Britain, a country without state police. We now know and my husband and I have personally experienced corruption allowing police and legal machinery to be deliberately used against innocent victims. No I will not stand by and I will take action if the church again fails to do so.
You have a proud, though tragic, heritage.
I can understand your fear of going to the media, but you can retain your anonymity. Stephen and I can put you in touch with a couple of reliable journalists if and when you feel ready to take that step.
I am so sorry re your health concerns about a young member of the family. Truly, you have heavy burdens to bear. I hope yo also have people around you to help lighten the load. That’s one of the things the Church is supposed to do, of course, but like the Pharisees of Jesus’ time, it too often just adds to the load.
Thank you Janet for your kind offer which I will take up if church processes disappoint. It is good to know that I will be able to retain anonymity so that no further pressures are put on already severely strained family members.
Hello Mary, I hope you had a good holiday and a much needed rest. As I think I have said before a lot of your story resonates with me and I think that is because we have one thing in common, we both have a shed load of evidence. The sensible perception of this would be that matters can then be dealt with speedily, avoiding publicity and in consideration of all parties and there families.
Sadly that is not the case in the slightest, in fighting for justice for over 27 years I have realised that the more evidence you have the more the diocese attempts to discredit you often by bringing in statutory agencies to help. Due to the considerable outreach the church has and a primate fear a lot of secular people still have of challenging the church/God those situations are often easily manipulated in diocesan favour.
I can offer no hope, Mary so I don’t because it is hope that kills but what I would say is take time to stand back from the situation. If the diocese has not paid for counselling ask them to and in those 8 weeks, or whatever they pay for, concentrate on you. Develop the mantra, “I am a woman of integrity, a strong woman who has suffered injustice and who now seeks to address that.”
The problem is Mary that in the end we begin to internalise their drip feeding of poison and we move further into a place where our frantic need for resolution can become interpreted by them as malign instability and then they have a reason to dismiss you. You must not give them a reason to do that.
Breathe, be calm, you are in the right, you have the evidence, they are wrong. Hold on to the person you know you are Mary not the person they want to make you.
Thank you Trish. I cannot say how sorry I am to hear your situation has gone on for 27 years. I commend you for your stand but know you have suffered greatly for standing up to corrupt and unjust practices. My local nhs services diagnosed me as being traumatised by the incidents at church and gave me excellent trauma therapy which was just as well as I have an email from the DSA saying that they didn’t think counselling would be of help to me at that time (!). My therapist also said it is traumatizing for me to be in church unable to see if my abusers were approaching me and being unable to run away from them, so of course the DSA ignoring breaches is serious, more so as I told her the therapist’s opinion. I personally believe that it is precisely because I have documentary evidence that my Diocese have gone to such great lengths to silence me and my husband. I feel sorry for those who have suffered abuse but do not have sufficient evidence to prove it and feel it is important to bring to public notice the machinations which go on when you do have evidence to back you up. As you say the need to take care of ourselves is vital and yes I did enjoy my first holiday for four years which is when this began. Rather paltry in view of your 27! Of course the malicious actions of the Diocese in taking me to court for making “baseless” complaints was to publicly label me as someone who complains outrageously and to silence my complaint. I now feel it to be a badge of honour when the Church lies about me, it means I am right and they are corrupt. I have had the honour of defending my religious beliefs as you have too. I do believe that what we do will make a difference in the larger picture even if our individual positions remain invidious and justice is denied us. I hold on to the belief our stand has helped others as we have added our voices to the swelling chorus to rid the Church of this shameful corruption. I do hope you feel you have done good and acted honourably despite the many years you have suffered. As I do believe I will be answerable for my actions before God I pray that the little I have done in his name will be remembered despite my many real failings. At least I will not have to answer why I let vile things be done to children and adults and stood by. Evil has already been vanquished even if it’s outworkings remain in the world. That is why I steadfastly believe corrupt Bishops and their colluding colleagues are already on the losing side even if they do not know it yet. This does not mean of course that your suffering or mine or many others is over. But it is a good thing to hold on to.
Several survivors I know have found, on making a SAR, that they have been labelled ‘persistent and vexatious’. This slur is now regarded as a badge of honour, literally – Gilo has had some badges made!
How do I apply for one so I can wear it with pride?
You’ve certainly earned one!
Well, I think you deserve a badge for strength and persistence! I’ve had similar experiences, too, I’m afraid. Twenty years, lied to and lied about. But nothing like what you and Trish have had. I have no answers.
Sorry Mary I only mentioned the 27 years to show that even if you play the very long game things don’t really improve, the PR machine just gets more effective.
I don’t know if you have seen this document, it is very ‘sit on the fence’ stuff but do make sure your case is being dealt with according to these guidelines.
https://www.churchofengland.org/sites/default/files/2017-11/responding-to-assessing-and-managing-concerns-or-allegations-against-church-officers.pdf
Having a letter saying counselling was not considered appropriate could well be useful in the future, so well done for getting that, small victories!In order to survivie I have had to alter my thinking so that when I receive legal threats or other crap I think, “one day you will be hoisted up by your own petard.”
You refer to your DSA not DSO, mine is also a DSA but in time that will change when the House of Bishops sanction the change, which they will. That won’t make any immediate difference to you as the DSO will still be line managed by whoever they are now. However as Jane said in a previous comment this will mean that if you make a complaint about the DSO, which obviously won’t get dealt with properly, you could escalate it to the ISB (with all the normal struggles and rubbish obviously) but that may a bit of a turning point or it may not!
Hold on in there Mary.
Thank you I appreciate the link and will take a good look when I can stop laughing. I have letters from the incumbent saying he will not discuss safeguarding with me and ditto from Diocesan solicitors saying there will be discussion about whom it is I can report new safeguarding allegations to. The latter was at a time when the DSA ignored my emails describing breaches and witnesses so for a couple of weeks the Diocese would not allow me to report new allegations to anyone. Not quite the required response. I think this may help to explain why my Diocese tried the police and courts in order to silence my complaints. The most damming documentary evidence is from the Diocese itself. I’m no lawyer but I would have thought the Registrar has a conflict of interest being the senior partner of a firm of solicitors threatening me with legal action if I complain on the one hand, and being the person advising the Bishop about my formal complaint on the other. I also have emails from the previous suffragan Bishop showing I told him the DSA initially refused to take action about my complaint of sexual assault until after I took the suffragan’s advice and a time line produced by the Diocese detailing the Suffragan’s offer to meet with me showing I was not told about this. Oh yes, the documentary evidence is damning especially as I have emails I sent to the Diocesan Bishop detailing failures making it difficult for him to hide behind the useful, nobody told me. It will be interesting to see what happens about my two cdms. I can honestly say complaining to my Diocese has been an education in corrupt practices with guidelines not simply blatantly ignored but directly acted against. Watch this space because if justice is not forthcoming with so much evidence we will know the current state of safeguarding repeats past failures. Thank you and everyone else for your support and advice.
Just a quick note as busy with granddaughters birthday today, to remind us to be careful of discussing live CDMs on this blog because of the contempt of court issue https://thejso.uk/2021/08/05/church-of-englands-high-court-contempt-threat-for-abuse-victims/
All strength to you all, as always.
I’ve consulted an experienced abuse lawyer who’s on General Synod, and he tells me that these guidelines are only a potential problem for clergy and Readers who are subject to the Discipline Measure. They’re not enforceable on others. In fact, it’s not certain they could be enforced on clergy either since they’re a code of practice rather than legislation.
There are moves to revise the code of practice, along with the Clergy Discipline Measure, during the term of the new General Synod. However, that will take while.
Thanks Janet, that’s reassuring to know.
Mary I hope Safe Spaces or someone is giving you advice and support with the CDMs? From just submitting mine, they appear very legalistic processes and I fear we are at a severe disadvantage, not having lawyers to advise us.
I’m going to find a badge maker so we can make some more persistent & vexatious badges! You’ve certainly all deserved one ☺️
Great idea! Can I have one too?
It was good of you and Janet to check the legal side as I don’t know the law. Being blind I am entitled to assistance to file cdm and for my first cdm I was assigned a former crown prosecutor who was excellent on the legal side. But I did not know I could contact safe spaces so that is worth knowing. My personal view, as I can number my failures and then append unimpeachable documentary evidence, is that it will all depend on the people deciding. Will they be willing to look at actual evidence which cannot be denied and weigh up the demands of justice, or are they out to whitewash as much as possible and just give a little telling off. I was quite horrified to read in the media that a vicar removed from his parish for six months, will be able to return forcing his victim to face him if she wishes to go to her church. We know how hard it is to get the church to take action against abusers, having done that and proved their complaint the victim is effectively punished for having her complaint upheld and will be expected to receive communion from her abuser. That is not justice it is punishment. It is just another strand of punishment such as the slander and libel routinely made about complainants. As I keep pointing out in my own complaints I am not complaining for the sake of complaining. I am not complaining for the sake of getting people into trouble. I am complaining so that I can at last go to church safely and independently without fear, and for justice to be done. Good luck with the badges do say if you need a donation. I would wear mine to church with pride. If they took off local wearers would be able to contact each other for help and support.