by a supporter friend of ‘Kenneth’
Back in December I (SP) outlined the story of ‘Kenneth’ who was facing a CDM process for an alleged offence against a child. The following piece is a follow-up by a friend supporter of Kenneth to that story and it vividly explores the Kafkaesque world that anyone accused of anything in the Safeguarding arena may have to endure. The chief sticking point, as far as I can see, is that there is no mechanism for establishing the veracity or otherwise of an accusation. An accusation of misconduct remains and no one is allowed to question what has been alleged. From the last account we learned at least two facts that called for further investigation. First the account given by the ‘victim’ has changed more than once. Secondly no attempt has been to question the child alone, using a skilled interviewer like a specially trained social worker. He is now 16 years old. There are in fact a number of queries in the story that require skilled expertise not present in the existing core group. Justice needs to be seen to pursued with professionalism and exemplary care, if Kenneth is to receive a proper opportunity to defend his claim that this incident never happened.
This is the continuing true story of my dear friend Kenneth of some fifty-six years mentioned in a previous blog of December 13th 2020 by Stephen Parsons. I am merely continuing the saga, updating on more recent events. We have all been advised to keep his identity confidential, which in Diocesan Safeguarding Core Group terms means ‘secret’. It is ironic that a blog which intends to expose untruths should begin with one. Neither must we write anything which might identify any other person. So, with these restrictions I shall endeavour to expose a continuing cruel and merciless system which is destroying the life of this Kenneth.
You will have read the basics of the case in the previous blog http://survivingchurch.org/2021/12/13/cdm-a-case-study/ and might find it difficult to believe it could get worse. To remind you, Kenneth has been a member of the congregation of his church for sixty years and has had clean DBS checks throughout that time and yet in one short telephone conversation his whole life and raison d’etre were destroyed with no explanation. An allegation was made against him by a chorister of sexual touching, which he denied. There was no evidence and, over a twenty month period, only continuing contradictory stories from the boy.
In this report the years have been highlighted to avoid confusion.
High Risk
On October 4th 2021 on the grounds that the boy had not withdrawn his allegation Kenneth was declared to be ‘High Risk’. No explanation was given as to how this decision was reached between the Detective Constable saying in March 2020, “As the matter was quite low level I submitted it for no further action’, to the Core Group saying in October 2021, he is ‘high risk’, that decision having been reached without any investigation or evidence. Eventually, after a ten week wait the consequences of the October 4th 2021 meeting were not discussed until December 14th 2021.
Subsequent Risk Assessment
The same Risk Assessment made December 16th 2020 was used as the conclusion to the process on December 14th 2021 with no cognisance being taken of events throughout 2021 which were of further and different accusations by the boy, denials and evidence against these by Kenneth nor the findings of the Independent Review.
So, loyal as ever to the boy, at a meeting on October 4th 2021, Kenneth was told that since the boy refused to withdraw the allegation, he was now described as ‘high risk’. There had been no investigation or scrutiny of evidence and no explanation of this decision beyond its being the accusation by the boy.
Stephen Parsons spoke in his blog of the Core Group’s insistence that their role is not to seek the truth but to believe the child. Yes indeed because Kenneth was told on July 2020 by the Diocesan Safeguarding Adviser, ‘Our focus is in responding to allegations not to focus upon finding out the truth” because,‘ We have to follow the House of Bishops ruling on safeguarding’.
On June 15th 2021, almost a year later, we asked all members of the Safeguarding Group: ‘Does the House of Bishops really say the truth must be avoided even if it means supporting lies in order to pretend to believe the complainant? There was no response.
Although we have many times asked for the document, section and paragraph to substantiate the actions and decisions by the Core Group there has never been an answer.
The Core Group have always claimed it was not their role to investigate but despite nine formal requests as to whose role it was, they never answered that question either. Instead they constantly refer to their following the ‘House of Bishops ruling’. It is not clear (although they have been asked), whether they are referring to ‘The House of Bishops Procedures’ (which is for ordained clergy and Kenneth is a lay person, although initially the DSA did not know this), or The Parish Safeguarding Manual’, but in either case we challenge that any rules at all have been followed. In other words they seem to have ‘made it up as they went along’.
House of Bishops Procedures (Published by the House of Bishops October 2017)
If the document ‘House of Bishops Procedures for Safeguarding 2017‘has been used then there are altogether fifteen procedures relating to respondents and five general procedures which were not followed in this case. Throughout October and November 2021 this information was given to the Core Group by myself, but again, it was never responded to.
Truth/ Untruth
In the previous blog from Stephen Parsons you will have read that there were discrepancies over dates and details; indeed there were only three dates in the time span given by the boy when he and Kenneth might have been in the vestry at the same time. The choral registers could have shown this and might have exonerated Kenneth. This information was refused by a senior safeguarding office and an official complaint was made about her at the time. Subsequent complaints were made about this to individual members of the Core Group and officials in the parish, naming the officer concerned in connection with her refusal to give information from the registers.
At the meeting on October 4th 2021 almost exactly a year after the official complaint about the secrecy of the registers, the Assistant Diocesan Safeguarding Officer said the decision to withhold substantial evidence of the registers in this way was a Core Group decision and not that of the individual officer. This is not the case because Kenneth and myself have an email from the safeguarding officer on this issue which shows clearly that it was she personally who had refused to give the information from the registers.
Indeed throughout all our complaints about this no mention was ever made about its being a Core Group decision.
January 2022
It is interesting to note that from March 2020 when the allegation was first made until present six people directly involved with the case have left the church concerned, including within the last few months, the boy and his mother.
As I am writing this, January 2022, the Diocesan Safeguarding Core Group is, I believe, drafting a Safeguarding Agreement trying not imply any culpability or guilt as otherwise Kenneth will not sign it because he says he is not guilty. The discussion about this so called agreement is to take place on January 12th 2022 and I shall keep you updated. In the meantime we leave the safeguarding officer wondering who else to blame for her refusal to divulge the information in the registers.
We heartily endorse Stephen Parsons plea that, ‘Assuming the CDM revision is going to apply to cases involving laity, the reforms cannot come soon enough’.
I am deeply sorry about the devastation caused. My experience as a survivor is that as matters progress and more and more mistakes and discrepancies are made, you will not receive any proper response when pointing these out. As you say truth will not be on the agenda in any shape or form. As you say if you have documentary evidence that a named person decided or took a specific action the evidence will be ridden over roughshod. Once a person becomes a target be they a survivor or as in Kenneth’s case, the wrongly accused, no amount of high quality evidence will suffice to prove your case. As far as the Church is concerned white will remain black because they have chosen it to be so. I am afraid that once you become a target your evidence and response count for nothing. When my husband reported during a pcc meeting that we had a team leader who was supposed to be monitored for safeguarding reasons during our interregnum, the churchwardens sat mute, and the chair asked my husband to ascertain whether he was being monitored. The pcc Secretary testified on oath in court that she omitted any items from the pcc minutes which the Diocese requested her to. The resolution was omitted from the minutes and the standing committee and and Diocese issued my husband with a formal reprimand for falsely putting himself forward as having the authority to to inquire. My husband challenged the minutes of the previous meeting saying that as the chairman had asked him he had the required authority. Pcc members would not sign off the minutes as correct after my husband challenged the manipulated minutes. My husband also received an email from a pcc member acknowledging that he was requested to inquire. None of this made any difference. My husband wrote to the Diocese who upheld the false reprimand. The Diocese has decided to make an example of my husband so that was that. The knowledge that a team leader needed monitoring came from the DSA. We have come to believe that the more you can prove your case the less justice you will receive as the machinery to carry out the wishes of the Diocese will grind on and on, often ignoring valid points. Kenneth’s suffering will mean nothing to them as they become more and more determined to carry out a decision previously made. Any mistakes or even deliberate errors in their case will not prevent them. Secrecy is a major weapon. Nothing must come to light so that Kenneth can disprove matters in public. I am sorry to be so bleak but I speak from experience. The experience that there is no hope whatsoever for innocent parties because the Church does not desire there to be any. In contrast to Kenneth, despite having two witnesses to different incidents of abuse I received a letter saying the Diocese does not believe there is any merit in my case. I am glad you are proving a good friend to Kenneth. I think you have two choices, neither of them satisfactory. One is to give up a seemingly hopeless task. Continued …
The other is to continue to challenge and try to publicise the injustice. Only you and Kenneth can decide which route to take. I hope other readers may come up with more helpful suggestions. Pupils have made malicious accusations against teachers in the past. The fact that the majority of allegations are true does not negate that malicious allegations are sometimes made. Good luck and keep us posted.
I have no idea what the truth is in this situation, and I’d like to remind readers that they have no idea either. Just because Kenneth has friends writing blog posts for him, does not mean his account is true.
What alarms me, is that on a survivors blog, the word victim has been written as ‘victim’. This is grotesque and abusive. The writer is questioning the integrity and truthfulness of a young boy who has made a complaint. It is very, very difficult for a child to speak up about abuse. It does not surprise me in the slightest that the victim’s account may have changed – abuse is very confusing for children, and many children have very little recollection of dates, specific times etc. Anyone who has had children or worked with them (as I have) knows this.
And saying it is ‘interesting’ that people have left the Church after this allegation…I don’t see anything unusual about that! The fact that the boy and his mother have left is completely natural – especially if Kenneth is a man of standing in the community. That would just make it harder for the boy to speak up.
I personally will be keeping an open mind about this case, but I will certainly not be suggesting the boy is untruthful or has made a malicious complaint and I urge others to do the same.
Nobody is asking you to believe or disbelieve anything. It is the complete failure and respect for proper process that is what is at stake here. If the core group had set up a means for searching out the truth then we could respect what group is doing. The failure to do things properly (even read the guidelines!) has made things far more difficult for the survivor community in the future. They are the true losers in this tale. On this blog there are 800+ posts on power, most of them dedicated to the welfare and needs of survivors. I don’t think I am guilty of ignoring their needs. Roll on independent scrutiny instead of amateurish process.
Although my circumstances differ from Kenneth, my experience as a lay person entangled in the CofE processes has been similarly traumatic. If I were to treat people in the same way in my day job, I would soon find myself on the wrong side of an Employment Tribunal.
Others report that, post-IICSA, they see an over-reaction to the failures of the past, with diocesan staff now defensively circumspect in the application and interpretation of the HoB’s “Guidance”. Some with extensive experience in safeguarding outside the CofE have expressed surprise when they see the Guidance that they must work under.
We read that at the HoB’s meeting last month “The House approved revisions of the guidance [sic] Safeguarding Children, Young People and Vulnerable Adults, discussed at the last meeting of the House, which will come into effect at the beginning of July 2022.” The revisions are not yet in the public domain, but I won’t be holding my breath.
For the vast majority of the time on this blog, survivors’ viewpoints are the primary angle. But an alleged perpetrator of abuse, should he be innocent, becomes a recipient of abuse by the sloppy processes used by members of the Church. Thus he too potentially qualifies as a survivor.
Innocence is almost impossible to prove. Allegations can be false. Even though if disproved somehow, allegations leave a terrible stain that is again almost indelible. “No smoke without fire” people think, even if they don’t say it.
Allegations should, nevertheless, always be taken seriously.
Sloppy processes and misunderstanding of the need to respect rights of both parties, has lead to significant instances of abuse. Moreover it appears that certain parties deliberately weaponise the process to take down people they oppose for quite different reasons. Unless we the audience begin to recognise this, we contribute to the injustice being wrought.
Two wrongs don’t make a right.
Having re-read the 13th December piece, I agree with the observation
‘ The allegation is of sexual touching on three occasions…The other glaring inconsistency is the fact that no precise date has been given for any of the offences. It has not been possible to establish clearly a time when the chorister and Kenneth were together in such a way that an offence could have taken place. There are other forms of evidence available-church registers and potential witnesses, but no one has felt able to pursue these with energy.’
Like many girls in the 1970s, I was the victim three times of attempted rape, three different perpetrators, never reported it, but I have never forgotten the details, such as location.
Kenneth’s case is about recent alleged abuse so it’s surprising that basic questions are seemingly not being nailed down.
Of course unwanted sexual touching is traumatic. The dealing with allegations has vastly improved since the 1970s but the Church of England remains in the slow lane with its procedures.
This is dreadful to hear Petra. Certainly your experiences were unforgettable. I don’t remember the exact dates of our priestly history teacher touching us up, because it happened every lesson. I was too naïve to understand what he was up to, but the fear was terrifically strong and still affects me.
I gave testimony to IICSA, not because I thought his specific attacks on me would change anything if told, but to add to the pool of evidence they were gathering. It was the corroboration of many witnesses that brought Ball down, as far as I understand it, and perpetrators tend to have multiple victims, but I appreciate not in every case.
Many years ago, in a different context, a bishop refused to right an obvious wrong. He did so not because he was unconvinced that the Church had wronged this person, but because to take action would be ‘to discredit the system’ (his exact words).
We have seen many, many instances since where the hierarchy’s main aim has been to avoid discrediting the system – although it’s obvious to us all that the system is already discredited.
Throughout both Old and New Testaments there’s a common thread: God requires that we do justly, love mercy, and walk humbly before our God. God requires ‘truth in the inward being’, and justice in all our dealings. Bishops who elevate their own system above God’s requirements are basically guilty of idolatry – and we are seeing the results.
That situation of denial continues. I’ve given up a near two year struggle. All I require is the withdrawing of all the lies told about me by a vicar and an apology from him and the archdeacon. I’ve been asking for nearly two years, in vain.
At the core of the problem is the archdeacon’s refusal to look at the evidence of the vicar’s lies. He told her that x y and z never happened (it did, repeatedly) or that x y and z happened (it didn’t) and that is good enough for her. I’m not believed. Case closed. She is unbothered by the distress which I have suffered, and continue to suffer. She even tried to silence me by telling me not to write to newspapers or to post anything online!
It’s awful, but I’m afraid it’s standard operation mode. Always go with the person with the most power (in this situation, the vicar not you). But it’s the opposite of the way God wants things done. No wonder the C of E is dying. It’s lost the respect of the people.
I’m so sorry Petra. It seems that ordination means you will will never lie, abuse others, etc. etc. despite the number of times this has been publicly disproved. All you have done is ask for an apology. It seems the one thing the archdeacon does not want is to hear the truth. Better just pretend that you have no rights. What happened to the professional code of conduct for clergy? I don’t remember it saying that clergy should behave worse then the average person even if they are an archdeacon. Talk about controlling behaviour. After failing to give you a just response and listen to you, you must now keep quiet. Who does the archdeacon thinks she is to tell you you do not not have the same rights as other citizens. She appears to think she can act as if she has more power than she has. Good for you for telling your story. The behaviour of many clergy is at an abysmally low point. Just sorry you will not get the very little you asked for. Glad you didn’t listen and felt you could post here.
Hear, hear!
Janet, let’s face it, the common remark (or brush off) “I can’t change the past”, is just French for, “I’m not proposing to do anything”.
You do wonder about some of these “leaders of people”. To recipients of the awful treatment, the behaviour appears and maybe evil. But largely it strikes me as miserably incompetent. For example telling someone who is hurting and angry, not to do something, is almost guaranteed to obtain the opposite response.
“I know, let’s use force”. Honestly you couldn’t make it up. It would be farcical if it weren’t so painful.
Truth is of the essence in such matters. But how many of these people have actually studied the philosophy of truth? I was falsely accused, and through the usual opaque and unjust process was found to be “guilty”. It was quite devastating. The police had said there was no case against me. The mis-titled “independent investigator” used the weak coherence theory of truth, and then invalidated it by refusing to interview numerous of my witnesses and see relevant documentary evidence! The correspondence theory of truth which is far stronger was simply ignored. I forgave the false accusers and the corrupt diocesan process. Incidentally, although I quoted scripture in pursuing my case, in the whole process I never encountered one word from my opponents. I am resigned to the wickedness, but I tried to warn my opponents that as I have not acted against them, the vengeance against them will come from the Lord. The Lord Jesus pronounced his judgment against corrupt religious authorities in Matthew 23: 23 and 33, but that may be a long time to wait. They probably ignored me completely!
So sorry to hear this has happened to you. There is a great deal of wickedness at the heart of these processes. Truth and evidence will be ignored in order to suit diocesan purposes. Guidelines will be wrongfully interpreted according to what best suits their argument. That is why in Kenneth’ s case it is decided that no person who has ever made an allegation has been mistaken or lied and why in mine it was decided that two witnesses were not enough and that my allegations had no merit. Others have been labelled mentally ill or gold diggers or whatever ridiculous and slanderous label their diocese chooses. The church that forgot God? Human nature being frail one expects a few bad apples in every barrel. But so many bad apples, everywhere at once? And in positions of power and authority. Hope you are in a somewhat better place now although that is always relative. I imagine from what is is the public domain that very few people are not significantly marked after encountering wicked and unjust responses from their faith leaders, if any.
You are absolutely correct about the way in which falsely accused people are “significantly marked” by their experience of wickedness from diocesan authorities. There was clear sadism in their cruel actions towards me and my lovely wife. Because the Bishop disobeyed Canon E6, I was given no details at all about the accusations, and consequently employed a criminal lawyer at significant expense for the police interview. I am a pensioner, and up till then, I had given generously to our church. But now I decided that they were using some of my gifts for very corrupt purposes, and transferred my tithe to charities I considered trustworthy. I also warned the bishop about my wife’s serious health problems and my need to help her in what she did for our church, and he refused to budge an inch, telling me to obey his instructions to the letter. There was no way I could do this, partly because there was false information in his letter. In addition, when they had exhausted the process, they sent a letter telling me what I could not do in our church, including singing in the choir! Up till then, I had sung regularly in it on numerous occasions. This was because they had treated the false accusations as true! I consider these actions quite sadistic, probably because I had pointed out their corruption. I pointedly refused to sign any safeguarding agreement because it was based on falsehood and injustice.
I’m glad you felt strong enough not to sign their agreement. My husband was fortunate in that the Diocese made a police charge and in court at the end of a just process was found innocent. The lies told in court were farcial, but fortunately for my husband the one and only witness decided not to commit perjury and after stating she had a good view of the alleged incident could not think of any behaviour on the part of my husband which was suspect. I can well understand your financial loss as both my husband and myself too hired a good criminal lawyer. You of course cannot be refunded. Because our Diocese tried to frighten us into silence with criminal trials we were each awarded costs. I too need help in church because I am blind so I really understand and sympathise with your position. Sadistic is a very apt way to describe the actions of your Diocese. It probably does not help much but it may help a little to know others understand and have been in similar positions. I may be wrong and you and others may disagree but we thought it was worth the expense as pensioners to employ a criminal lawyer. Apart from anything else you will appear to be less of a soft target if you are prepared to stand up and pay to have some one with a grip of the law alongside. I understand you may feel it was unnecessary in one way, in another way it may have stopped other actions being taken. I believe that if the Diocese knew that when they made separate false police charges against us that we would stand up to them with a criminal lawyer, they would not have gone ahead. Our hope is that this Diocese will think twice next time before targeting other innocent parishioners. However, be warned, as you probably realise we have had further retaliatory action taken. We remain targets and you may too. So take care and good wishes and prayer.
‘Kenneth’ should speak to a solicitor and draft a Data Subject Access Request for all his personal data held by the church/Core Group etc and make clear that the Information Commissioner will be brought in if the registers are not handed over. He should also ask whether the Pre-Action Protocol of the Defamation Act should be triggered. He absolutely should not sign anything without obtaining legal advice.