by Anonymous
(Editor) I want my reader to imagine a far away country with a totally dysfunctional legal system. The courts follow no consistent protocols for determining guilt or innocence. The only thing necessary for a guilty verdict is that there has to have been an accusation of some kind. If a child makes an accusation, then the reasons for the acceptance of guilt against an accused are reinforced. The motto that seems to be engraved above the judge/jury’s seat is ‘the child must be believed’. Into this crazy court, which does not bother to employ any actual lawyers, comes a man. He is accused of the indecent touch of a child. The police have examined the case and have found nothing worthy of investigation. Initially the accused is hopeful of finding justice but one by one the planks of his defence are denied him. In the first place the child complainant cannot remember the precise date when the offence took place or even where. It might have been one of three dates (or all three!). This makes it hard to present a defence. The fact is that, for at least one of the dates mentioned, the accused was out of the country. This cannot be brought forward as evidence. Indeed, in this dysfunctional court, there seems absolutely no interest in establishing what might be the truth. Registers of attendance for the child exist but they are blocked from scrutiny. A witness is also prepared to come forward to tell what she knows about possible days when the accused and the complainant might have been in the same space. This testimony is ruled out of order because seemingly, it might interfere with the narrative created by the prosecution. The accused man continues to protest his innocence. The court then tries to do a deal. If you sign this piece of paper admitting the offence, you can go free. Our accused is a man of principle. Freedom obtained through colluding with a lie is not a freedom worth having. This is topsy-turvy justice, but it also represents the justice protocols followed by a diocese in the Church of England in the prosecution of a man called ‘Kenneth’. This is the reality at work in one example of the church’s disciplinary processes and perhaps church justice in general. Kenneth’s anonymous friend and supporter takes up the story.
Another Episode in the Kenneth Saga
This is the third episode in the ongoing saga of my friend of fifty-six years, Kenneth. Not his real name of course, but given that might identify other people, for this blog we shall call him Kenneth. You will need to read the previous two episodes in order to fully understand this one. The first one, published December 13th 2021 was written by Stephen Parsons and the second one January 7th 2022 written by myself. At the end of my previous blog I promised you a report on a meeting to be held on January 12th 2022.
There was indeed a meeting on January 12th and although when Kenneth entered the room, alone, there were three agendas on the table which in the event were never used. Instead Kenneth suggested that those present, the Church Safeguarding Officer and the Assistant Safeguarding Adviser(ASA), should face up to the dysfunctional way in which his case had been dealt with. This occupied most of the afternoon. At the end they looked shocked and said that Kenneth had spoken strongly and they had heard him. There had been no discussion on the Safeguarding Agreement, the following week Kenneth received an email from the ASA with an attachment. The only word to describe this document is ‘bullying‘.
The Attachment:
This was a document listing the purpose of the Safeguarding Agreement and the points with which they wanted Kenneth to agree. It was stressed that this document was highly confidential and Kenneth was instructed not to share it with anyone until eventually he had signed it. What is written in it they are so afraid of anyone else reading? Is it the same reason they do not reveal the information in the choristers’ registers of attendance? In any case Kenneth wants to show the document to his solicitor before he signs anything. Why are they trying to prevent him doing this? Remember at the beginning of all this in 2020 they wanted to prevent him having a solicitor present at any meeting. They made enquiries and must have been told it was beyond their remit, because no more was said and the solicitor was in attendance at meetings.
Kenneth replied to that email saying, ‘Technically this is known as a “gagging order”, which I cannot agree to. My intention would be to discuss these proposals fully, first with my solicitor and second with my friend,both of whom you know.’ There was no written reply to this but it was discussed at the next meeting, February 2nd.
When the allegation was first made in March 2020, all the clergy connected to his church were told not to have any communication with him. Kenneth, who has no family in this country, regarded the church as his ‘family’, so effectively the core group took away his family and now are attempting to cut him off from his friends by telling him not to discuss with them what is worrying him. Their merciless power seems to be ultimate and unaccountable. What does the Core Group imagine the outcome could be on his mental health doing this? There is no reason or justice in this. Do the Bishops applaud and condone what is being done in their name?
The Meeting
Kenneth had a meeting on Wednesday February 2nd with the Church Safeguarding Officer and the Assistant Safeguarding Adviser.
A further form of bullying is that no notes or minutes are written down by anyone at these meetings. Our notes are dependent upon Kenneth’s memory of what was said as soon as possible after the meeting, which he tells me and I then type out. This does seem an amateurish way of recording minutes. Not writing formal minutes or even taking notes at meetings makes it easy later, when challenged, for two people in agreement with each other to claim Kenneth has ‘misunderstood ‘ what has been said. At this meeting they denied any attempt at ‘gagging’ him, but Kenneth pointed out that it had been written to him in an email and therefore there could be no misunderstanding. The author of the email said she was sorry Kenneth had interpreted her instruction to maintain confidentiality as ‘gagging’ him, but she had not been a good communicator in this instance and that the document is a starting point for negotiation. ‘Not been a good communicator in this instance’. What other instances has she failed to be a good communicator? When else in the past twenty-three months has she failed to communicate effectively? What an admittance!
There were other denials and contradictions of what had been said and done in past meetings and an attempt to justify their actions. This can be shown as contrary to evidence we have provided throughout the past twenty-three months.
The worst thing said at this meeting was there would be no scrutiny of any evidence and no investigation, meaning that Kenneth cannot contest their decision of being ‘high risk’ and therefore if he wants to go back to church again he must accept whatever safeguarding procedures are appropriate for a high risk person. We have appealed to different organisations of the Church, but Kenneth is a lay person and they only counsel the ordained. We even wrote to the Archbishop of Canterbury, who not surprisingly passed it to a Provincial Safeguarding Advisor (PSA) who said (place names have been omitted) ‘The matters you refer to are essentially a complaint about how the diocese has managed a safeguarding complaint through the core group process. Neither the Archbishop, nor the National Safeguarding Team, have the jurisdiction to investigate such complaints. Complaints must be directed towards the Diocese’
We did this but the answer was effectively to say ‘this has already been dealt with under our Safeguarding procedure…….the matter is now closed’. Although I had sent a detailed, well evidenced document about our complaints which the PSA said he had ‘skimmed through’, it was not realised by Lambeth Palace that we were complaining about these same safeguarding procedures.
The Core Group constantly say that they are following the House of Bishops Guidance and their mantra is, ‘on the balance of probabilities we have to believe that you might have done it’. In view of the boy and his mother’s contradictory stories surely it could be claimed that on the balance of probabilities the boy, could be telling a whole tissue of lies. Not to consider this is discriminatory against Kenneth.
Whilst claiming it is not their role to investigate, judge, seek the truth, scrutinise any evidence or doubt the boy, although asked many times, the Core Group has failed to give the section or page reference in the House of Bishops Guidance where this is said. I, on the other hand can identify 15 procedures relating to respondents and 5 general instructions which they have not followed.
I make no apology for having mentioned this in my previous blog because it is the crux of the whole way in which this case has been handled; a constant reiteration that the Core Group are following the House of Bishops Guidance, which they plainly are not.
The core group is unaccountable and answerable to no-one. They apparently can do as they like and, without any evidence otherwise, seem to be making it up as they go along.
The meeting ended with a promise to send Kenneth a new draft of the Safeguarding Agreement sometime the following week and which is still based on a risk assessment of 2020 and not the one in 2021. No arrangements were made for any future meeting. Between two previous meetings in 2021 ten weeks had elapsed with no communication. Little wonder the case has dragged on for twenty-three months and still counting. Such a dilatory, lackadaisical attitude is totally unacceptable. Even the independent investigator, engaged to investigate the procedures only and not the allegation itself, said in his review of August 2021 that, ‘without strong and decisive leadership it [the case] seems to have drifted and meandered’.
In one month it will be exactly two years since Kenneth was told of the allegation and so it goes on and on and on with no end in sight.
Kenneth has serious health issues and is almost 77 years old. How long do they think he can continue with this level of persecution? He has been part of that church for sixty years with clean DBS checks throughout. Nothing has ever been proved against him. Surely he can be left to live out his old age in peace and without being bullied by authorities in the Church of England.
Postscript: This account links back indirectly to the story of NST failing to act quickly in the Percy case. It is also pertinent to the powerful speech given by Gavin Drake at General Synod on February 9th calling for something beyond ‘moral authority’ in the oversight of the NST. Martyn’s and Kenneth’s stories clearly need an ombudsman to appeal to but such a figure does not at present exist. The incompetence continues.
Anonymous wishes to add as an addendum
‘I should like to add here a comment to note how similar is Kenneth’s case to that of J in the opening chapter of ‘The Trial’ by Kafka and now, after almost two years, in chapter seven of that book the events in the life of J are almost the same as those of K.
‘Somebody must have laid false information against Josef K.; for one morning, without having done anything wrong, he was arrested’.
He is shortly summoned before the inspector, who does not know what the charges are either but tells K. that he is free to continue living his life as usual. K. goes to the bank where he works and is later told that a series of hearings will be taking place on Sundays………..
One of Kafka’s best-known works. Although written in 1914-15 and published 1925 after his death, it has become synonymous with the anxieties and sense of alienation of the modern age and with an ordinary person’s struggle against an unreasoning and unreasonable authority.’
When the Church is your whole life, you’re in big trouble when something like this happens to you.
Not just clergy, but many others give every available hour to the Lord and by extension to their local church. Many of us grew up with exhalations to such a level of giving.
In worldly terms, such as with an investment portfolio, allocation to only one place is highly risky. Having interests elsewhere spreads risk and absorbs shocks when a “Kenneth” type experience occurs. Taking on outside activities, not ostensibly Christian, such as exercise groups, reading, other sorts of choirs, cinema, u3a stuff. Even leaving church altogether. The poor man may have to anyway.
Many of us recognise common features of the make-it-up-as-you-go-along culture of incompetence, particularly the secrecy obsessions. This is just in case anyone outside discovers just how bad they are.
The manifestation of power games by easing out an old man like this, are unfortunately not uncommon in other walks of life too, although you’d expect better of church, not worse as often seems to be the case.
I reiterate: don’t put all your eggs in one basket. When the attack comes, and it’s sure too particularly if you have the ability to show up others, keep a refuge or two elsewhere.
*Exhortations*
I heartily agree. But many churches, particularly the unhealthy ones, actively encourage their members to commit all their time to local church activities. Then it’s all the more devastating when things go wrong.
Exactly
Thank you, Steve, but Kenneth has been told that as he is designated as being ‘high risk’ by the Core Group, he is not allowed in any Christian Church in the UK This may seem to infringe his human rights but in November 2021 we were shocked to learn from the Independent Commissioner’s Office that church law is not subject to Human Rights Law. When Kenneth wanted to attend the funeral of a dear friend in a different church he had to ask permission and the priest of that church was informed of Kenneth’s supposedly ‘high risk’ safeguarding issues. This seems to be another attempt by the Core Group to act as though he is guilty without proof or investigation and to prevent Kenneth worshipping freely as a Christian.
That is shocking. It needs wider publicity – Private Eye?
Yet when my Diocese brought in an “independent” consultant, the consultant insisted that it went against the human rights of volunteers to be denied a church role after being given safeguarding restrictions which was his excuse for not following the 2 018 parish safeguarding handbook. I checked with the commission and was told this did not violate their human rights but the consultant refused to abide by the commission. His reward for disregarding national guidelines? He was given an important role in national safeguarding. I fear that Kenneth will indeed find he is unable to attend church without accepting some kind of agreement. This is a safety measure of course after proper investigation and a guilty verdict. To use it without going through fair and just processes is very wrong, but that won’t stop the Church. We must battle on for justice, and to ensure just processes. The real problem is one of personnel. If the personnel involved are either unable or unwilling to ensure just processes, they should not be involved in them. As currently there are many cases where justice is deliberately denied to complainants, and the hierarchy are flouting the church’s own guidelines content in the knowledge they can get away with it, I fear justice for Kenneth will be difficult to come by. I noticed that during the synod debate the Lead Bishop for safeguarding could not give a clear and short answer to the question asking to whom the complainant can go when things go wrong and there is maladministration? With whom does the buck stop? Er, um, er, you go through the Church processes which are convoluted, and no one apparently has the power even to step in and ensure current processes are adhered to. After all, what is the best way to permit abusers to get away with abuse and innocent targets to be found guilty? I cannot personally believe that there exists a genuine desire at the top to deal appropriately with safeguarding when the structural deficiencies are well known and allowed to continue to exist.
My experience of people and the Law is that people invent or “modify” the Law to suit their arguments. Whereas an actual legal expert might may be able to define the actual position. I know enough about this to know that I don’t know enough. Personally I’d check with a lawyer.
But going to law can be extremely stressful and expensive. Rarely are there winners.
Kenneth appears to be on the receiving end of cowardly behaviour designed to bully him away from his home. We have to ask ourselves what kind of places these are to allow such squalid processes to occur and recur?
Individually few of us are strong enough to do “a Percy” and stand up to the bullies, but collectively we can stand together, keeping such injustice in the limelight. I agree with Janet about keeping the media informed. There are a good number of reputable journalists out there.
This doesn’t immediately help Kenneth attend his friend’s funeral. Even convicted felons have compassionate leave to attend. I’d be surprised if anyone realistically could keep him away. But it’s tough, I know.
Presumably the Core Group is a legally constituted part of a diocese. Can it have any authority in another diocese, or in a non Anglican church?
Does it really have the power to prevent someone entering a church, but not, for example, a library? What is the situation if the ‘high risk’ person is accompanied by a trustworthy escort?
The Kafkaesque nature of this is extremely worrying.
The CofE is not a ‘public authority’ under the HRA, but a ‘private association’ like a tennis club, but the limited right to attend public Anglican worship in the parish where you are resident is legally protected. Non-jurisdiction under the HRA is hardly an ethically valid shield when breaching someone’s Section 8 rights, though.
Churches *are* subject to data protection legislation and most Dioceses have various data sharing agreements under the GDPR ‘for the prevention and detection of crime’. Kenneth should have access to his Risk Assessment, utilising a Subject Access Request if necessary. The ‘high risk’ finding may be susceptible to challenge as ‘processing of personal data’, by submitting a formal complaint to the ICO.
Yup that is the implicit teaching of newfrontiers churches. One of Terry Virgo’s books taught that parachurch organisations were wrong apart from specialist ministries like Bible translators. And they often have not just parachurch ministries but wider ones like sport clubs, choirs, food banks etc. as part of the church rather than elsewhere. So it’s very easy to end up just as part of one church for all activities.
Since we had to leave, it has been the wider friendships that have kept us going. We are very wary of churches that tend toward dominion theology.
I have no experience of NF churches, but I would say that that “model” of church like is not specifically linked to any particular theology. It was very much part of the Victorian “chapel” culture – indeed there are still one or two older Nonconformist churches which have tennis clubs, walking groups and the like.
However there is a difference. The older chapels saw these activities either as a way of providing social activities for people who otherwise had none and/or covert ways of evangelising. (One church I served still had some crockery with transfers saying that they belonged to ‘XYZ Chapel P.S.A.” the latter being “Pleasant Sunday Afternoons” which attempted to lure men out of the pubs and into a more ‘Christian’ environment).
What sounds different in your description of NF seems to be a much stronger theological ‘backing’, linked either to the (common in the US) idea of Christians not ‘contaminating’ themselves by participating in ‘worldly’ societies, or to the the idea of ‘letting the leaders lead’ and demanding complete submission to them as ‘the Lord’s anointed’ (which, to me, is a form of spiritual bullying).
Makes me very glad that I am not an Anglican, despite having worked quite a lot within the CofE.
Isn’t that kind of comment best kept in one’s own thoughts? Nor, of course, are the problems highlighted here universal. There are many flourishing and caring churches within the C of E.
Kenneth’s issue is not with an uncaring local church, but with the Church of England whose procedures allow such injustices and persecution to proliferate. A number of us have been saying for quite a while that the C of E is abusive and unsafe. And some fine people no longer regard themselves as Anglican as a consequence.
I took that fully onboard. I’m afraid it doesn’t justify a blanket rejection of the Anglican church. Those who wish to leave are free to do so without insulting those who remain.
There are two responses to that.
First, many people of faith and integrity have concluded that the Church of England as institution is now so corrupt that they cannot in integrity remain. ‘Kenneth’s’ story is only one of many which provide evidence to support their conclusion. I know of a number of others, including my own.
Second, Michael’s expression of relief that he is not an Anglican does not insult those who are Anglican. Within a corrupt institution there may be (and are) any number of good, faithful people of integrity, some of whom choose to remain in the hope of working to reform it. Either leaving, or staying and working for reform, are both choices that can be made with integrity. One individual’s choice does not constitute an insult to those who have chosen differently.
Thank you. I don’t think I need to say any more on this subject, but see my further comment below in reply to ‘Anonymous’.
I am very sorry, but not surprised, that justice is still being denied to Kenneth. I hope the blog here does inspire some involved to understand the importance of having just and fair procedures which are transparent. It does nobody any good to see justice violated so openly and breeds mistrust. Neither survivors of abuse, those wrongly accused, or the Church is served when breaches of justice take place. I would not want my abusers to be treated unjustly because that would immoral. For those wrongly accused it sounds like hell.
Sadly, lay church members who are the subject of allegations, or indeed those who have accepted a Safeguarding Agreement, have no right of review or appeal against unreasonable restrictions imposed by the DSA. AIUI, their *legal* right is limited to the choice to walk away from an abusive organisation. The moral position that we might expect from the Body of Christ instantiated in a particular Diocese is something quite different.
I note from the recent General Synod report (GS2244 c5.4) that the NST plans to consult on a new draft Practice Guidance in 2022. Now is the time to ensure that the experience of lay members is heard as clearly as that of CDM casualties.
I feel unbelievably sorry for Kenneth and wonder what lessons we, the folk in the pews, can learn from this.
Firstly, if you are ever caught up in something like this always take a friend to meetings, and make your own record, in ink, of what is said.
If you are quick enough, within a year of the first encounter lodge a civil claim of defamation.
Assuming you have good friends in the church, what happens if you just turn up with them as normal? Apart from a few cathedrals the church doesn’t have a police force to turn you away.
Good points!
Thank you to Janet Fife for her comments on my reply to Steve Lewis and to the rest for comments on the blog. Do keep sending them in because it is not only supportive to Kenneth but to others in a similar situation. It is much needed suppoprt and we appreciate it.
I have just ‘found’ Steve Lewis comments echoing Janet Fife about informing the media. If we went ahead on this, Kenneth’s identity is likely to be uncovered by a probing investigative journalist and the way would be open to vigilante groups taking rough justice on the grounds he is a ‘paedophile’. Kenneth’s solicitor warned us about this possibility two years ago and we have since learned of two cases (and the solicitor knows more) where this has happened to innocent people. Perhaps a more positive way forward for Kenneth and those in a similar situation is to challenge the CofE and the power given to safeguarding core groups to act illegally with impunity under the umbrella cover of ‘balance of probabilities’, for there to be no checks on their procedures and, as Stephen Parsons pointed out above, no ombudsman for the wrongly accused. Thank you again for your comments.
I did not want to appear unsympathetic in my earlier comments: this blog is called Surviving Church – not abandoning it.
But I fully share your reservations about some investigative journalists. I believe that immeasurable harm was done to the late Bishop Bell by inaccurate reporting (to be clear, that is not denying that ‘Carol’ had been abused by someone), then compounded by the disastrous C of E ‘handling of it. The same has happened, more recently, throughout the Martyn Percy and Christ Church, Oxford saga. Indeed, that still seems to be continuing with the ‘settlement’ being reported in a totally distorted way.
Recourse to the courts can be prohibitively expensive, and risky, without any certainty that the judge will make an anonymity order. I’m afraid (to me) there doesn’t seem an easy answer. The CDM is being revised, but general feeling seems to be that it remains unfit for purpose – potentially to both sides.
Hi Rowland,
‘… the ‘settlement’ being reported in a totally distorted way.’
Are you able to clarify what you mean by this, for this blog?
Steve
This really belongs on the earlier thread “Unfinished business at Christ Church” where you made some very relevant comments! To clarify any possible ambiguity, I was referring to the settlement with Martyn Percy, not the payment made to Miss X. In the subsequent media reporting the facts have been inaccurate about both. This is discussed in more detail on ‘Thinking Anglicans’ with some examples of prejudicial reporting. In essence, it has been stated that the Dean has settled the claim of Miss X – incorrect and even defamatory as he maintains his innocence – and the impression is clearly given that the incident in the Cathedral vestry is the sole reason for his leaving, ignoring the the facts of the past four/ five years which aren’t even mentioned. I don’t think I need to say more than this.
Positions remain polarised and whether there will ever be a final and objective account of all of the events we can only wait and see.
As Stephen said on the earlier thread, there is still much unfinished business: an internal governance review by Christ Church with a Chair to be approved by the Charity Commission to which the C of E and the Diocese of Oxford will also contribute according to the Bishop; a C of E ‘lessons learned’ review is also proposed; and the Charity Commission’s own investigations are presumably continuing.
Thanks Rowland. I had wondered if you were challenging, for example, the materiality of the reported sums, or their purported allocation, or the assistance given by “the Times” and other reporters to the present outcome. The comments you already made on this blog were helpful to understand that matter. Thanks again
Sadly, whilst we remain the established church I fear the Church will continue to act with impunity. Neither the government nor the Queen have acted to ensure simply that action is taken to ensure the church’s own guidelines are adhered to, let alone ensured that the Church acts legally, justly and morally. Complainants have to challenge the whole church and it’s structures with only the help of a few concerned persons. Corrupt dioceses like mine with ex police personnel who bully complainants and Registrars who allow their firms of solicitors to further bully complainants with threats go unchallenged. Attempts are then made to block cdm of clergy and Bishops. Even if you show, as I believe Gavin Drake did, that your Diocese has systemic safeguarding failures, the hierarchy will find that your Bishop is not at fault. There is no one like the mayor of London, who can remove the person at the top who reigns over systemic and widespread failures. Through persistence, I have challenged inertia and misinformation to file cdm against my Bishop both about systemic failures and his own contempt and disregard of safeguarding guidelines. I know it will not matter what I can actually prove and that my Bishop will be allowed to continue to flout guidelines. But I believe that together with anonymous and the regular stalwart supporters of this blog and others we are slowly making a difference. History shows that the powerful corrupt do not give up their power easily. We must make them do so. It will take time, and more of us will suffer in the meantime. Christians have fought corrupt practices and corrupt clerics in the past. Now it is our turn to step up. Sadly, anonymous, that is all the help we can offer Kenneth. I hope you both feel you are not entirely alone.
Thank you Mary, you’re right. But I’m afraid the Queen, with all due respect to her, is a red herring! She takes no actual part in the running of the Church.
No, she does not. But as head she lends it credibility and one would hope she would use her influence behind the scenes. I would have thought she would feel discomfort at being the head of any institution at the centre of the iicsa scandal alone. Look how, I think it was the grenadiers, expressed the wish that Prince Andrew would not be their head. As we know their wishes were honoured.
Thank you Rowland Wateridge. I think you explain very well the problems of exposing the core groups by using the experiences of named, wrongly accused people, as evidence. It is this reluctance on the part of such respondents to become involved with the media that gives added power to the core groups; they know no-one dare openly challenge them. Their secrecy is secure.
Cost is a major inhibitor in going to a civil court, certainly Kenneth could not afford to do so.
Thus the wrongly accused are shackled and there is little hope at present of ultimate truth or justice for them. We can but hope that those who are able to bring about change have an attack of conscience and do so.
Thank you very much Mary. After your message and those of others, we are beginning to feel very far from being alone. We truly appreciate the support we are receiving.
That’s wonderful. I find reading about this stuff terribly hard. Going through it must be terrible.
Reply to Roger B message February 11th 9.17 pm.
Roger, Kenneth would like to thank you for your message but unfortunately the Safeguarding people who are currently dealing with this, will not allow him to have any friend or support at any meeting and definitely not to write minutes as you suggest. They use, ‘confidentiality’, as their excuse for this. Kenneth feels he is unable to think, talk and write minutes as well.
The solicitor says that as Kenneth is negotiating a safeguarding agreement it is inappropriate for him to be there.
Your advice would seem good and sensible but that is reckoning without the core group’s obsession with secrecy and bullying attitude towards Kenneth.
This bullying approach says it all. If there was compelling evidence to force Kenneth into a safeguarding agreement in order to attend church you can be sure it would have been produced long since. The safeguarding personnel involved are obviously scared to have any of their meetings properly minuted, which of course should be done. They clearly believe their discussions would not stand up to scrutiny if they were minuted. I thought safeguarding were supposed to make a record of what is said and done. Most people would agree that Kenneth should be allowed a supporter. If Kenneth was ordained and undergoing cdm I believe he would be allowed a solicitor. Taxpayers pay for all accused persons to have solicitors of police are police charges are made. Kenneth is paying out of his own funds. Kenneth’s solicitor would a owe a duty of confidentiality towards him. If the complainant has not already been named they can be given a designation to protect their anonymity. Kenneth is obviously keeping his solicitor fully informed. Should Kenneth go public about this (and of course we understand why he won’t), anyone interested could read about it. Should the Church take him to court over going public, everyone would be able to find out the details except for the alleged victim’s name. so much for the concern about confidentiality. So safeguarding are really concerned that a solicitor will be present at a meeting which they fear will not stand up to scrutiny and who would be able to point out when safeguarding are acting unfairly, unjustly, and not following due process. This sort of behaviour would be unnecessary if there was any evidence of guilt. It is clearly resorted to box Kenneth in and give him no choice. Essentially Kenneth would be branded a paedophile in order to attend church. That’s fine if it could be proved, but it obviously is not and cannot be shown. Given the police involvement which found absolutely nothing this is particularly invidious. From personal experience, and from what I can gather, once the church makes a decision, even if it quite clearly goes against the facts or ignores evidence, that is that. Kenneth is living in the domain of the Church of England. A domain which feels publicly able to ignore the Gospel message of love, truth, and justice that it espouses. White dog collars, black and purple shirts, cassocks, and and robes and even mitres will never disguise this corruption however much it’s wearers hope it will. For some time now our leaders are brazen in their disregard of gospel values and the usual forms of justice accepted in our country. Now of course if Kenneth was a Bishop who sexually abused or beat the young …. well we all know what help, financial and otherwise would be given to him. His word would then be accepted as true whatever the evidence against him, until finally, if ever, he found himself behind bars.
Thank you Mary, wise and to the point as usual. You are quite right in saying that meetings should be minuted, but not only that, Kenneth should sign them as being accurate.That is one of the fifteen procedures relating to respondents in the House of Bishops Procedures not followed by this safeguarding core group. I found your comments about their fear of having a solicitor present significant because when Kenneth’s solicitor was at a meeting and asked questions they refused to answer. The question was met by a wall of silence for as much as as few minutes and then one of the core group would say something completely unrelated with no recognition of the question. It was the same when we asked questions in emails; they were never even acknowledged and I would then resend the questions but there still would be no answer. It was this that caused the independent investigator, (investigating only procedures not the allegation) to be told that I ‘swamped’ them with emails refusing to accept their answers (not true; I had none relating to the questions asked, just prevarications) and that (at that time) I was the cause the case having dragged on for more than a year!
I have asked where Christ’s teaching is in all this and quoted St John chapter 16 verse 13:
‘However, when He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth’. Another question not answered!
To repeat my earlier suggestion, I would encourage Kenneth to explore the Subject Access Request route under GDPR, with the help of his solicitor. That provides a clear procedure which is enforceable by the ICO, independent of the CofE’s internal procedures. Understandably some documents may be partially redacted, but normally the Diocese has to respond within one month of the SAR being submitted.
Does the ‘Practice Guidance: Responding to, assessing and managing safeguarding concerns or allegations against church officers’ apply in Kenneth’s case? Is Kenneth a ‘parishioner’? (I assume this means resident in the parish, and being on the electoral roll wouldn’t count) If yes then, as I understand it, unless there is a Court Order Kenneth is free to attend public worship (last para. p. 71).
I realise he may not want to do this, but if there is a sufficient number of people who do trust him I feel that this could be his best route to getting things out in the open and resolved.
It does appear that the instructions in this document relating to record keeping, communication etc. are being ignored.
I heard a radio discussion this morning about the review being carried out into the injustice that postmasters endured. The person interviewed made the point that the wrong doing of those at the top was worse because they were public servants. I hope some measure of justice and proper compensation will result. Why has there not been a national independent inquiry into adult complainants in the church? After all those at the top like to say they serve God and the public? iicsa should have been followed up with an inquiry for adults. The church would have been held to account, our stories heard and investigated, and it would put a stop to all the complainants currently suffering unjust processes and defamation by the church.
The Post Office scandal is a valuable parallel to draw out. A category of person, the postmasters, was picked on and used to dump blame on for the inaccurate accounting system being used.
Someone must pay.
As a group many of its members are beginning to receive justice. A key part of the successful fight back has been achieved by acting together. This is much more difficult obviously when you are a loan scapegoat in a distant parish wrongly accused.
In a sense this blog does achieve the beginnings of a collective action. Victims become survivors when assisted by others.
There is also a growing archive and reference source for victims to find that they are not alone and the characteristics of their tribulations are repeated over and over again with others. In itself this is scant consolation but it does help with tactics should sufferers choose to stay and not abandon their church lives.
Kenneth and I should like to thank you all for your ongoing support. Some of your comments require answers so I am writing these in this one message.
RogerB Feb 11th 2022 9.17pm.
I have discussed with Kenneth your suggestion that he should turn up to church with his friends (and he has many who would support him in this), to challenge the authorities. Alas, to bring the problem out in the open in this way is not possible. I am acting for Kenneth because he has health issues and such a confrontation would be too stressful and damaging to his physical and mental health. Thank you though for the idea.
Roger, to answer your further comment on February13th 10.20. Kenneth is not a parishioner but on the electoral roll as are many of his friends. When the allegation was first made, the Diocesan Safeguarding Adviser thought Kenneth was an ordained chaplain (she could not even get that right!) and he was treated accordingly, being referred to the LADO. Some weeks later when it was realised he was not ordained LADO withdrew but not before he had made some investigations and pronounced he did not regard Kenneth to be a risk to young people. He said he would be happy to confirm that as his judgement.
However, the core group continue to say that they are following the House of Bishops Guidance but have failed on numerous occasions, when asked, to give the reference for this.
Mark February 14th 9.00 am
At your suggestion Kenneth has made an SAR today. Over the past two years he has made two previous requests which were illuminating in what he found. Last year I contacted the ICO but they take a long time to respond and I did not hear from them until a few weeks ago. Again, encouraged by yourself, I shall be pursuing this in the next few days.
Mary February 14th 9.08 am
I agree that we must make every effort to make the church accountable for all the lives they have damaged and, tragically, in the case of Father Alan Griffin, destroyed
Steve Lewis February 14th 9.51am
Kenneth and I had always hoped that his experiences would help other people and we have a wealth of documented evidence that would stand any scrutiny on the failings of this Diocesan Safeguarding Core Group. If anyone has any ideas as to the best way in which this material might be used for Kenneth and the good of others do let us know.
Again, many thanks to you all.
Just a thought. The Archbishop ‘s book for Lent this year is ” Embracing Justice “. I would urge him to finally embrace justice, and to oversee just, simple processes are adhered to with a named person who has oversight of complaints when there are unjust procedures.
Surely he must see that people realise he’s just deflecting attention from the Church’s serious internal problems? “Oh look at those awful politicians and dastardly business types”.
What a coincidence! I read your comment Mary in the middle of writing about the injustice shown to Kenneth by Lambeth Palace. Last August 2021 I wrote to the Archbishop of Canterbury about Kenneth’s case and included a well evidenced document, which I posted Special Delivery. It was responded to by someone with the title, ‘Provincial Safeguarding Adviser’. He said the matter I referred to was a complaint about the processes of a core group and ‘neither the Archbishop nor the National Safeguarding Team have the jurisdiction to investigate such complaints’. In a phone call he said his role was only to investigate complaints against a Bishop or a Dean and I must go through the Diocesan formal complaints. I said I had done and my complaints had been ignored which was the reason I had written to the Archbishop. The PSA admitted that he had only ‘skimmed through’ my document and did not know the details of my complaint. He gave me a named person in the Diocese, which I knew was someone who was very aware of Kenneth’s case, and suggested I write to him. Anyway in September 2021, I did write to that person who replied that he had made enquiries and said, ‘the case is now closed’. In two weeks it will be exactly two years since the allegation was first made and there has been no investigation or scrutiny of evidence. I would say the case is very far from being closed. This attitude coming out of Lambeth Palace affects other people in a similar position. I can guess what most of you think but what can we do?
No idea. I finally got someone who listened with a new bishop. Otherwise, everything I tried, failed. There is a short item on the discussion on safeguarding in General Synod in the Church Times. I haven’t read it properly, but it seems mostly to be a complaint that bullying doesn’t get dealt with. And then a guillotine was applied.
There is another avenue, but forgive me if you’re already explored it. Every Diocese has a Diocesan Safeguarding Advisory Panel with an independent chair and members. Unsurprisingly, they operate very differently in different Dioceses, but the terms of reference (https://www.churchofengland.org/sites/default/files/2017-11/Roles%20and%20Responsibilities%20-%20Appendix%202.docx) would appear to give Kenneth several points of engagement with the Chair at the very least.
Good idea, I tried that too and the response of the chair in regard to the DSA refusing to deal with my allegation of sexual abuse was that he found it hard to believe that she would do anything wrong! But Kenneth may be more fortunate, and it’s well worth trying if you have not already. Incidentally this was one of the serious complaints I made when the Diocese commissioned an “independent” review. This complaint and two others were not even mentioned in a review which then proceeded to clear the Diocese of misconduct . This is the sort of attitude Kenneth is up against and no doubt partly explains why others feel unable to help. If your Diocese refuses to admit to mistakes despite your having documentary evidence to back it, they then become antagonistic towards any efforts to right their wrongs. People who could possibly help realise not only that their efforts will be useless, but they themselves will have a black mark. Nobody wants to become a target of a regime which will criminalise you despite the police saying nothing happened. I have used the link kindly provided by anonymous and will wait to see the result. I do believe the weight of all our complaints will have an effect at some point which is the only reason I persist, as it is clear my Diocese is quite content for an abuser to breach an agreement on so many occasions it has gone into two figures.
I’m sure it’s about time Lambeth palace had a bit more exposure. I was just thinking of them as Kenneth’s experience there was described.
Graystone, in his book ‘Bleeding for Jesus’ discusses meeting an enforcer character there whose bullying tactics merited a mention in Andrew’s work. Is he behind some of this – the 70’s-style psychological “tricks” and attempting to shut people down?
Every time my case was closed down , I persisted. I saw my MP, wrote to Meg Munn, kept on to the National Provincial safeguarding Advisor ( generally useless but kept the Diocese informed I was not giving up), wrote to the Lead Bishop, Archbishop Justin, the general secretary, and so forth. Like Kenneth I have documentary evidence. Yet my abuser still gets away with breaches of restrictions. But I keep on thinking who can I contact. In the meantime one person in national safeguarding left before he could face disciplinary proceedings, my former vicar admitted guilt, and a clergyman with safeguarding restrictions no longer has pto. Have you gone through the Diocesan complaints process? I kept trying to open closed doors. . But kenneth’s position, sadly is more difficult. I can only say that if Kenneth wants to fight on, he needs to look at everyone and anyone he could possibly complain to. I fear that none of this will bring him justice. My husband was lucky because our curate was silly enough to take my husband to court with a false allegation made by the Diocese that not even her star witness upheld, so no slur has been attached to my husband. Have you written to your Diocesan registrar detailing the wrong processes. He ensured cdm went forward against my vicar after my Bishop wrote saying I must not complain. Keep fighting on and if you see a door open a crack force it wide open. Sorry this is so long but it is hard to explain how to find a new way forward. You might want to write to the members of your Diocesan Board of Finance as trustees of the Diocese saying safeguarding procedures are not being properly administered. I also reported at the APCM that safeguarding guidelines were not being kept to in the parish. You get the point, the church will take advantage because you are not wealthy enough to launch legal action , and all you can do is ensure as many people as possible know the fact. Our parishioners also grumbled, and came forward as witnesses, but there will be much more sympathy for me as a blind woman who was assaulted and whose guide dog was so badly harassed she couldn’t work.If Kenneth wishes to persist ,he could try to garner support in the parish but only with the idea that the Church knows it did not completely get away with its unjust processes. This may or may not make it more comfortable for Kenneth. Abuse survivors have no hope of justice and we have seen the persecution of Dean Percy. The nearest we can get to justice is to keep fighting on regardless. As the wife of an innocent man who, because he exposed a clergyman with safeguarding restrictions, was badly defamed by the Diocese which made a false complaint to the police, I wish I could come up with something better and offer Kenneth a sure way out. There is none. Our only hope is complete reform, not the hypocritical lip service currently served up as reform. So sorry. Kenneth may wish to stop. But at least he knows the worst.
Thank you Mary for your advice (February 18th 7.24 pm). Sadly we have tried all but one of your suggestions and the excuses for not helping Kenneth are many and varied. I suspect that loyalty to colleagues is possibly a factor?
Now then, Steve Lewis, (February 18th 5.59pm), you say it is about time Lambeth Palace had a bit more exposure. Yes indeed,and my friends I might be able to help with that. I found a relevant item in the Church Times, 11th February 2022 page 11 bottom left, the following:
‘The handling of safeguarding issues by Lambeth Palace will be subject to scrutiny as part of an external audit beginning next month. An independent team from the Social Care Institute for Excellence (SCIE) calling on anyone who has sought a safeguarding response from the Palace to provide details of their experience’.
Contact, email: learningtogether@scie.org.uk or phone 07921 251614 and leave a message
The auditors expect to be in touch during the first week of March’.
No time to be lost, it was what I was writing when I saw Mary and Steve’s responses on Friday and part of which I sent on February 18th 5.41.
Thanks for this. I will be getting in touch.
How timely. Spread the word.
Have had a couple of responses from the auditors into Lambeth safeguarding. As a result of my emails they have widened the scope of questions in one line of enquiry and were also prompted to start a further line of enquiry in their audit. If you come under the scope of this enquiry and feel able to get in touch it is well worth while doing so.
Excellent!
That is really positive Mary. As a result of my contact with them about Kenneth I have been invited to take part in a Teams meeting on Friday. At long last it seems as though things are moving forward. Hurrah.
I’m so glad to hear it anonymous. Will keep you all in prayer that the result will be positive. I too was asked if I wanted to speak but my points were just as easily made by email and I wanted to avoid the stress as I get even more distressed when I speak about it then when I write. My impression is that the auditors are doing their level best to influence safeguarding and right wrongs but as usual their powers are limited. However if you can show misconduct they will definitely take it up and will run with whatever they can. Also the auditors have a very Good idea of some of the issues people are genuinely facing and for once you are not harassed when making a complaint. Good luck and keep us updated
I find that very encouraging. Thank you. I am doing it for all those who need this help and shall certainly keep you updated.
Sounds like wonderful news. I will remember the situation in my prayers.
Thank you. The meeting is at 09.30 and I shall remember you are all praying for me. I am nervous about the technology because I am not used to such meetings but my husband will be on hand to help. I feel very encouraged Mary, by your comments about the auditors. I told them my concerns were not just about Kenneth but for others in a similar situation. I also mentioned the death of Father Alan Griffin and the Coroner’s comments to the Archbishop about that. I shall keep you all updated. Thank you again.
It was exactly as Mary said, the auditors listened and actually wanted to know the problems with safeguarding core groups. They cannot deal with individual cases which is to be expected but I have hope for change in the future. They were surprised and raised their eyebrows at Kenneth being told he could not attend any Christian Church in the UK. I suspect this has been yet another form of bullying. Thank you for your encouragement and prayers.
I’m so glad you were heard. I hope the eventual report is detailed and hard-hitting.
Glad it went well and hope the auditor’s report will highlight all the areas of misconduct as well as bad practice. I don’t know if we will have access to the report. But you were properly heard and not dismissed with moronic and inept
excuses which in itself is a relief after the way your complaints about bodged proceedings and procedures. And this is such an important issue.
Thank you Mary.
Oh, this is such encouraging news. You and Kenneth must feel so much better! I hope you sleep well tonight.