by Anonymous
This is the fourth episode in the Kenneth Saga. For those meeting with it for the first time there are other blogs on this site: the first one, published December 13th 2021 written by Stephen Parsons and the second one January 7th 2022 and the third February 11th 2022 written by me.
For those following this tale of bullying and victimisation by a safeguarding core group, you may be wondering what has been happening since the last meeting I mentioned on February 2nd 2022. This was to discuss a negotiated safeguarding agreement between Kenneth and the Core Group. In the event, all Kenneth’s attempts to insert appropriate conditions to fit the actual circumstances of the case were deleted. What was left was an model agreement that might be used to monitor a convicted sex offender after release from prison for serious offences. Needless to say Kenneth was not prepared to sign such a document.
UPDATE
1. Serious Time Delays and excuses:
i) A Subject Access Request was made for all information on Kenneth’s case from October 2020- February 2022. Kenneth wanted to see the minutes of meetings, the emails and other information – of all information from the meetings and emails about Kenneth. instead of being delivered March 14th as legally required for these things, it came April 21st with many paragraphs substantially redacted. The excuses for these delays were ‘the level of work’
ii) Safeguarding Agreement with two representatives of the core group, one being the Assistant Safeguarding Adviser. Kenneth wrote on March 30th to the ASA asking the reason he had not heard anything about the safeguarding agreement since the meeting of February 2nd. Her reply was: ‘I am seeking further advice in regard to this matter. I have also been attending training, and as you are aware I work part time. I shall be in touch with you as soon as I am able’. On April 7th Kenneth rang her to ask if she had sent him an email. She had not, (surprised?) but went on to say a Senior Member of the Clergy (SMC) who had been involved with the Core Group but who was not a member, would be in touch.
The Meeting between a Senior Member of the Clergy (SMC) and Kenneth The SMC visited Kenneth at home the following Friday (Good Friday) to discuss his return to the church. Apparently he had been intending to contact Kenneth for some time! At the beginning of the meeting the SMC told Kenneth that he would be informing the Assistant Diocesan Safeguarding Adviser of the meeting. As usual, with meetings with Kenneth, no notes were taken.
His views on the Safeguarding Core Group The SMC began by telling Kenneth the Safeguarding Core Group were stuck and could not move on this issue. He thought the whole process had been dreadful and he was very sorry Kenneth had been through such suffering. He did not see how the Core Group could now come to an agreement. He could not defend the Core Group: that’s the way they are; reacting against past experiences of children not being believed. This represents a significant change in his thinking. This strong reaction had led to carrying safeguarding procedures to unlawful extremes as was clearly pointed out in The Micah 6:8 Initiative (http://chng.it/HLF4dhVd6Q). This had been sent to him and other senior clergy in the diocese but never responded to.
Wrong Procedures The SMC said he had made protests about what was wrong with the procedures not providing justice; to seek clarification on this point he was going to contact the National Safeguarding Team. Even during this meeting, the SMC showed how he did not have the full authority to make or override Core Group decisions. This was in spite of his seniority in the diocese and the fact Bishop of the Diocese knew about Kenneth’s situation.
How Kenneth might return The SMC said he was anxious for Kenneth to return to the church. Kenneth understood, (remember nothing was written down) that the Safeguarding Agreement discussed at the meetings on January 26th and February 2nd 2022 was now unnecessary. Some precedent existed for this (although no details were given to Kenneth). He said the Bishop had asked if it was safe for Kenneth to return and the SMC said it was. Sadly though, we find that Kenneth’s acceptance into the church is not unconditional by any means.
Details of conditions for Kenneth’s return At the meeting with the SMC on Good Friday Kenneth understood:
There is still the a continuing influence of the boy and his mother. They are to be told that Kenneth has gone back. In order to avoid any ‘unwanted encounters’, if the boy and mother are to be in church, then the Director of Music would know that and report to the SMC so Kenneth would be told not to attend. Thus, Kenneth cannot go to any service if the boy and his mother are there. It was not suggested that the boy should not go if Kenneth was there. There is still the attitude that the boy must be be believed without any investigation.
2. Kenneth can only go to services but may sit where he wishes. He has always enjoyed going to concerts in the church and wants to do so again but that is still being denied him.
Easter Sunday Return On Easter Sunday the SMC met Kenneth before the service and walked hand in hand with him into the church to a side chapel. Eight of Kenneth’s friends were waiting for him at the entrance to the church and informally followed behind. Other friends joined us during the short service we held there. We all exchanged the peace and then the SMC went to robe for the service.
The procession of choir and clergy came in. At this Easter Service the Bishop was present and came in last. He left the procession to come to Kenneth (whom he knew and recognised and was sitting on the end of a row, central aisle), clasped his hand and said, ‘It’s good to see you, Kenneth; welcome back”. I was sitting next to Kenneth who then shook uncontrollably, but a friend and I held him until he was calmer. After the service the bishop came to the area where we were and spoke to Kenneth in a general conversational way.
The response by the congregation was overwhelming; many of them were not expecting him to be there. Many, many were the hugs of love he was given and over and over again I heard, ‘Welcome home’, ‘We have missed you”, “It has been too long”, “We are glad to see you”. They came to where he was sitting and sought him out there, ignoring refreshments being served at the back of the church. After more than two years of having these people torn away from him so abruptly, he felt his Church family was with him again. His joy was palpable.
Editor’s comment
The story reads as though it ends with a happy conclusion. It is clear that the Bishop of the Diocese and the Senior Member of the Clergy were fully briefed on all the details of Kenneth’s situation and both appeared to believe, by their words and gestures, that, at the very least, the whole case should end. But not even a bishop in his diocese has the power to reverse the activities of a Safeguarding Core Group. The obvious way forward in a secular context would be to send the case back for some sort of re-examination. But the problem is that the evidence to suggest offending behaviour had never been properly examined in the first place. The whole case had rested on the principle that ‘the child must be believed’ even though, in this case, there were serious discrepancies and contradictions in his evidence. The fear of ‘retraumatising’ the child had prevented any attempt to interrogate the evidence by consulting other witnesses. The date and place for the alleged offence have never been securely established. Kenneth’s re-acceptance by the congregation and the senior clerics of the diocese seems not to be able to override his official guilt. The conclusion of an outsider looking in must conclude that the whole creaky structure set to manage a situation like Kenneth’s is abusive and not fit for purpose. Whatever system is being used in this case is contrary to normal principles of truth and justice and it abuses the accused who has no chance to defend himself.
Very moved to read of Kenneth’s return. The public acceptance of Kenneth vindicated him in the parish. So far so good and that was very well done. Kenneth can now be prevented from worship services by the simple expedient of the complainant attending. Despite the public acceptance of innocence he is now effectively barred from his church and cannot attend any concerts. Simply not good enough. Without evidence, and I include in that a believable case made by the complainant, Kenneth is not permitted to attend church. I hope you can fight on to a better resolution. However I do not understand how Kenneth can be treated like this. In my case there were witnesses to two separate incidents by one abuser. Other incidents were not witnessed. Being blind I cannot see them coming, nor run away from their abuse. This abuser was first told to keep clear of me on the instructions of the DSA, then given a written agreement to do so. He was allowed to keep his volunteer role, and I was not permitted to receive communion with the rest of the congregation, so that he could do so without breaching restrictions. He breached them many tines, sometimes with witnesses present. When I reported breaches the DSA did not engage with me. During cdm proceedings in regard to my former vicar, he disclosed that other parishioners had made complaints about my second abuser. My vicar’s description of their complaints was very similar to my allegation. This abuser too was told to keep clear of me and also permitted a voluntary role. They breached their restrictions on several occasions with witnesses present. On two occasions they did so whilst acting in their voluntary capacity. They also occasionally worked with children and young people. Once again, I reported breaches which the DSA ignored whilst I ended up made a suspect and was treated like a drugs baron at the local police station for making legitimate complaints and following the 2018 parish safeguarding handbook. So, Kenneth, despite a public acceptance of innocence cannot actually resume his former life at church. By contrast my abusers, despite credible evidence are permitted to breach restrictions and an Archbishop, Bishop, and Diocesan Registrar have not removed Diocesan threats to criminalise me once more if I need to report further incidents. My new Rector writes he will not discuss safeguarding with me, and when I reported a breach, he did not speak to a witness, let alone myself, before declaring it not to be a breach. My Rector also has not followed the advice given to the Lead Bishop for safeguarding saying that now the venue of the service has changed, he needs to have the agreement rewritten and then show it to me. Effectively, as the innocent victim of abuse, I cannot safely attend service s safely. So we end up with the innocent Kenneth and myself as the abused person not being able to attend services whilst public pronouncements about the new improved safeguarding procedures are made. God help us.
Two observations.
There is no appeal from a Core Group decision no matter how erroneous, irrational or prejudiced. I secured confirmation of this when asking Safeguarding questions of the Lead Bishop, who, to be fair, was as astonished as I was when we figured this absurdity out between us.
“ Promoting a Safer Church 2017 “ suggests we as an institution abide by Human Rights Act principles. We do no such thing.
Correcting this remains a major long -outstanding piece of of work by General Synod.
This “ the victim must be believed “ notion is a persistent Safeguarding “ heresy”; it was identified as dangerous and wrong in the Cleveland Report of 1987. This was later reaffirmed by the 2016 Henriques report into the harm done by the fantasist Carl Beech who had manipulated naive police officers who were hanging on to this discredited doctrine.
Any DSA giving the notion any credibility should be suspended on the spot as out of date incompetent and dangerous.
As Baroness Butler Sloss made clear in the Cleveland report, the correct approach is “always listen to the complainant and take what they say seriously .” It is not hard to do this work in a logical impartial way – if you know what you are doing.
Believe me Martin, the victim is not automatically believed by core groups in my experience.
I’m pleased to read that Kenneth is able to return to worship but dismayed at the terms imposed on him. I don’t understand the bishop’s role in this saga. He recognised Kenneth, broke free from the procession to welcome him. The opposite of shunning. Why is the bishop a hapless bystander in this process?
In more general terms, when an incumbent’s misconduct is reported to an archdeacon, who dismisses the concerns, and the complainants take their concerns to the bishop, and he doesn’t respond. Is that correct procedure. It’s very muddling and vexing.
It’s a muddled and vexing situation, but the bishop’s inability to interfere in safeguarding decisions is one that many of us here have campaigned for, after so many disastrous interferences or cover ups. This is also in the IICSA recommendations, which are being implemented.
The good thing about that is that the bishop is then free to respond pastorally, as they should.
A Core Group decision can, according to Martin Sewell (see above), be ‘erroneous, irrational or prejudiced’ but the system does not apparently allow anyone or anything to change that decision. The Kenneth story illustrates the powerlessness of the system to change its mind or allow an appeal process to exist. We have allowed this story to take up space on the blog as a way of showing the absurdities the Church has trapped itself into. To quote you, Petra ‘It’s very muddling and vexing!’
There seems to be no adequate formal process for reviewing the membership and ‘group dynamics’ of a Core Group.
Further, there is no escalation or appeal procedure for decisions reserved solely to the DSA, either. Questioning the “professional judgement” of the DSA is said to be outside the scope of the standard Diocesan Complaints procedure.
This is a gaping hole in Diocesan and national safeguarding processes. There is no complaints process at national level either. And the ISB has no powers to investigate complete in the usual sense, just to review them.
We urgently need a proper complaints process, with powers to decide outcomes
Hello Stephen Parsons,
Yes, thank you for your ‘voice ‘for Kenneth, and what you are doing for and in the church to make systems better and less oppressive.
I’m from the view that at this time I feel there is much spiritual warfare across the world and specifically inherent in societies, relationships, institutions, and so on. I believe the battle is God’s but we have a part to play against what the devil is attacking. So I want to thank you for your clear vision for how a ‘healthy’ church should function, also thank you for being tenacious and persistent and not giving up – love your high ideals, and values.
I believe you will bring about some good change for Kenneth – for others, and sound ways forward, for Safeguarding Groups in particular.
God Bless, and stay strong,
Sally Bullock. (fellow dancer)
I am glad there is some movement in this difficult situation, but it is not really satisfactorily resolved for anyone. I’m left with many concerns.
The problem is, as Peter Collier has pointed out too, core groups don’t make a finding of fact. They don’t have it in their brief to decide whether or not something happened. I know, hard to understand, isn’t it?
Really, none of us reading this know what happened. And our conscious and unconscious biases mean we tend to believe one side or the other, regardless of what facts we have. If the boy is telling the truth, then how dreadful for him that the person he reports for abuse is publicly welcomed back into his church. If he is mistaken, or making it up (not sure why he would?) then how dreadful for both of them that this has played out so publicly.
I don’t know what happened any more than you, but this is not a happy ending for anyone. The reforms to a process that allows this to happen are long overdue.
I agree Jane, this is not a ‘happy ending.’ I can’t but help think of that poor little boy who has to witness the man he accused parade himself back into his church, be welcomed overtly and gushingly, and then have a numerous blog posts written as though it is a determined fact that Kenneth is innocent. He isn’t. – he’s not ‘guilty’ either, the fact of the matter is that the NST Core Group does not make a ruling either way.
Instead of rushing to celebrate the return of a clearly influential grown man with enough friends to support him in person and write his version of events publicly online, lets spare a thought for a child who has made a complaint who must be feeling a raft of emotions no matter the specific detail and truth of the situation.
I for one will never stoop to declaring who is ‘right’ in such a public forum, when I do not have full possession of the facts. Unless Kenneth’s friend who supplies this blog with clearly confidential information was present and witnessed ALL instances of alleged behaviour, they also have no right to interfere in this manner. Does the child have anyone divulging confidential details publicly on their behalf?
This has happened increasingly often on this blog and it saddens me to see. Basically what we are seeing is that whichever party in the situation has more powerful friends and commands a more active online presence, will be believed. That is not the way justice works, nor does it make speaking up against abuse in the Church any easier. It only makes it possible for alleged perpetrators to gain supporters. It is interesting to think about the Percy case in this light.
It is precisely because I do not have “influential friends” that I put my case on this blog. I don’t think I am the only one . I keep pressing for an independent review but like many others have not received one. I would just like to point out that if adults had an independent public review as child victims of abuse did, we would have no need to blog. However even they still await justice and redress. We are also not putting our personal cases forward just for ourselves. We want everyone to receive justice and for fair procedures to be used by persons who do not act either corruptly or ineptly. The truth is that evidence is too often suppressed in church processes and we have no other way to get it out there in order for change to happen. I do agree this is not the best way to go about matters, but it is often the only avenue left us. If you can think of a way to ensure my cdm complaint is filed, or my DSA investigated for ignoring breaches, or my Diocesan Secretary face proper disciplinary proceedings for fabricating evidence and making malicious police charges, I would be very glad to hear from you. We blog because our cases remain unresolved and our complaints have not been treated justly and fairly. We blog to try to make our churches safer for everyone. What else can we do? Believe me, if I had an “influential friend” who could ensure my Bishop would be made to adhere to national guidelines, put right his misconduct, ensure I and my guide dog could go to church safely, you would never had heard from me. I can see it might appear that it is the influential who blog. They actually do not need to because they are exerting influence behind the scenes. Apologies of course to those who do not blog either because it is too painful or because they have no wish to divulge personal details. It even if, like me they face threats and are frightened.
I’m really sorry you’re in such a difficult situation Mary. I’ve been there as well. It’s not a great comfort, and completely inaccessible to many people, but I think the only solution is to go outside the Church. Try to get legal advice (there are some great helplines like Rights of Women), look into legal aid, or if you can afford it – engage a solicitor. It’s vastly unfair that people have to do this, but from my own personal experience, the secular world is not under the influence of powerful church figures, and you’re more likely to get a fair hearing/representation there.
I’ve thought a lot about what you wrote – and thank you for sharing. I think the main difference I see is that you have put your case on this blog yourself. You’ve used your own agency and bravely spoken up. I’m cautious when I see accounts from people who are not writing for themselves, but instead relying on their friends with influence and connections to advocate for them – especially when advocating for the accused. There is something just not quite adding up in this, and it bothers me. What if this blog (and others) end up advocating for someone who is in fact, guilty? The authors writing about Kenneth were not present, they can’t know first hand what actually happened.
I say this in the full acknowledgement that I’ve never spoken up myself. I hope one day I might have your courage Mary, and I hope when I do, there will be a safe place for me to do so and I will not find external parties with no knowledge of the facts, willing to write blogs on behalf of my abuser.
You make a good point, astonished. But many people are too broken to blog for themselves, are genuine, and in a tough situation so I can understand others blogging on their behalf. I have blogged here myself on my husband ‘s behalf as he does not use computers. The cases of both Kenneth and myself received attention from independent auditors at Lambeth Palace and it was Kenneth ‘s blogger who alerted me to the audit. Yes, I could hire a solicitor to take my Diocese to court but it is very expensive. That would be the only redress outside of church circles and why the church gets away with it. Most of us cannot afford to challenge the church. Like Petra I too would have had to pay even to try to get some documents at one point. In my case I realised that not all outside agencies are independent. I assume there was collusion in my case as the police officer charging me failed to look at evidence which clearly showed the charges against me to be malicious and was very aggressive towards me, and wrote there was no evidence to disprove my case. . By way of contrast my abuser was never charged, or made a suspect, and never interviewed under caution, and did not face trial. In fact the police officer signed off my complaint of sexual assault and harassment, and harassment of my guide dog by wrongly saying there were no witnesses to my abuse and that I was not vulnerable. The first police officer I complained to was on the Diocesan liaison committee and wrongly said that my case did not meet the threshold of police action. A few weeks later she was working alongside the DSA as her colleague. A subject access request is free and that is how I got hold of police documents and police tapes. When I made a further police complaint that my complaint of abuse had not been properly investigated and witnesses had not been spoken to, a police officer turned up with an expert on autism to lecture me for an hour about The problems experienced by people who are autistic. There was a clear implication I should feel sorry for my abuser and cease complaining. Embarrassment reigned when I asked whether my abuser had been diagnosed as being autistic. They did not know. There was further embarrassment when I explained my own neurological condition and said it did not give me the right to abuse others. They left in a hurry but did not ensure the witnesses to my abuse were questioned. Goodness knows what others have experienced, but I can well understand they don’t feel able to blog themselves yet want to draw attention to their plight. We hope that the weight of cases will help to bring about change. There are very few channels open to us and change will not come about unless we use them. Keeping my complaint in the public eye may help others in the future, so I ask for patience from readers as I keep repeating myself. I do have a lot of documentary evidence which cannot be airbrushed, so I keep pushing for change.
Reading this and the previous articles, the issue seems to be consistently about whether any fair process for establishing guilt or innocence has been allowed. The refusal, by the Core Group, to hear evidence or witnesses would seem to prevent any possibility of establishing what really happened.
Can we not just concentrate on this case as being about the failure of process in the Church’s justice system?
Justice is never served by ignoring evidence.
That was what I was trying to say, but you said it much better!
I suppose the main problem is that core groups are not a justice system, but part of a safeguarding system, thus do not see it as their job to decide what has happened.
There does need to be a better process that coniseders all the evidence, when there isnt an external finding of fact through a criminal or civil lefal or safeguarding process. Reforsm to the CDM process are also relevant here.
True. But will the same people who currently act either ineptly or corrupt still administer it?
sorry about all the typos!
As someone who was abused, I’d like to make a point that really bothers me. I had no witnesses in regard to one abuser, and although it is really horrible not to be able to prove abuse, I accept there must be some evidence. This is because when I prove abuse by the other abuser because of two witnesses, the process must be fair and just and trusted. It is important that the decision be seen as just and true. First of all,, for reasons of justice to all. But it is also important to me that other parishioners know I was able to prove their guilt, and that their penalty is just. Another matter of importance is that if someone is a danger to me, I don’t want to get into any kind of relationship with them and put myself in danger. In fact another victim of one abuser gave me a warning about them, but it came too late. The solicitor in my cdm case looked at the evidence about this and advised the Bishop accordingly. If all cases were processed with due justice, we would be able to trust the verdict. The solicitor acted with great care, not only to examine the evidence, but to examine whether I, being blind, had accused the right persons. I supplied enough evidence to prove I had not mistaken their identity. I was worried my evidence would not be accepted, but the quality of my evidence spoke for itself. Had the solicitor not taken great care, there would always be a question mark as to whether I had accused the right person. But because the solicitor was fair and only acted on proof, everyone can trust the process. Although it would have been devastating for me if I could not prove my case, it would have been harmful, even to me, if my evidence had not been scrutinised. No one could be reasonably sure if they could trust my allegation. Another point is that if covid had not been rife at the time, parishioners could have attended court and heard the evidence for and against my husband for themselves. They would have heard the story made up by our curate and heard from the pcc secretary that none of it was true. My husband ‘s name was cleared in a fair and just process. Parishioner s would have seen our curate take the oath whilst wearing her dog collar, heard her story, heard it contradicted by a witness. As she claimed my husband caused a mini riot, they could judge for themselves her veracity or otherwise. I fully respect the right of survivors to keep silent. Indeed that was my choice at first until the abuse became so pervasive. But having spoken out, a secret, corrupt or totally inept process would have done me no good. We all need to be able to trust the process and the verdict. We need all the evidence to be accessible without having to pay for it, as in Petra’s case. There was a good reason the Diocese dropped its case against me on the eve of trial. My evidence would have been examined in court and it would have been obvious the charges were fabricated and malicious, and that the police failed to examine evidence. …
…As the church keeps saying its process is a legal one, it should comply with the way justice is dispensed in our country by the courts, and adhere to those standards. Most of us accept this as the standard. The church does not and dangerously claims it processes are just and proper when there is ample evidence they are not. So do those countries where dictators are able to imprison those they wish to silence so they can reign without opposition.
Jane, you are entirely missing the point of the Kenneth Saga. Nobody is asked to believe anything. It is not one side against another. It is the biased procedures of a Core Group which insist their role is not to seek the truth but to blindly believe the boy throughout all his contradictions.This is despite repeated requests by Kenneth for a proper investigation and scrutiny of evidence.
All of this is outlined very clearly in the previous Kenneth blogs and the dates of these are at the beginning of this blog. The whole purpose of putting this information out in the public domain is to draw attention to the injustices and untruths of his Core Group and other ones too. This is not just for Kenneth but others as well. Remember the Dean Percy case, the sad death of Father Alan Griffin and also to the case of Canon Paul Overend, Chancellor of Lincoln Cathedral, and his wife who had to be treated for suicidal feelings. In all these cases their situations were caused by the mishandling of sexual allegations by their relevant Diocesan Safeguarding Core Groups. Kenneth is in full agreement to the information in these blogs to be published and has given me permission to write them.
I can agree with you though, ‘the reforms to a process that allows this to happen are long overdue’.
I’m sorry you think I missed your point.
I think we probably agree, though. With all these cases you mention, none of us know the truth. The failure is if the process to fairly consider all the evidence and make a finding. That hasn’t happened in any of those cases, or in my own.
Hi Jane, I don’t want to start an argument, just state a fact. I have noticed that you have more than once implied that children don’t make things up.
Alas, they can and they do. I and my husband have both been on the receiving end of this and it hurts.
I’m sorry you have had such a hurtful experience.
I didn’t mean to imply that children never make things up. Of course people of all ages can be untruthful.
Just that the evidence is that false accusations are rare, and that true reports are often not believed or impossible to prove.
And that there has to be a reason to make things up. Reporting abuse isn’t easy or enjoyable. It’s not something you would do for fun.
I think this is the most valuable comment on this post: “The evidence is that false accusations are rare, and that true reports are often not believed or impossible to prove.”
This child deserves dignity and confidentiality. Kenneth has ensured they have neither by publicising confidential details, and if Stephen Parson’s comment is to be taken as true, Kenneth has supplied enough confidential detail to a stranger to allow that person to state “it is not a he said, she said scenario” and comment on the type of evidence available.
This behaviour will not encourage survivors to come forward. No matter whether you personally believe Kenneth or not, publicly declaring that the process has been arduous for him and delighting in his return to the child’s church (after no investigation into the facts of the allegation) will create an unsafe environment.
What confidential details have been published?
I think there has been a concerning level of detail that can easily lead to jigsaw identification.
I don’t see any way of jigsaw identification except for those who live locally and they already know. Why would anyone want to ‘out’ Kenneth. It isn’t his fault that he can’t definitively clear his name. Just imagine some vigilantes reacting if they ‘knew’.
Actually I’d be more concerned that the level of detail could lead to jigsaw identification of the child!!
That is actually what I meant
sorry Jane, I realised that – I should have been more clear that my comment was a response to Petra.
No it’s fine, I was agreeing with you!
This is such a difficult area to navigate. The church is open to all, and people who abuse are often victims of abuse themselves, and need help and support. How to support everyone safely? That of course is the purpose of risk management agreements.
This is not a he said, she said scenario. It is an allegation where there are witnesses and documentary material which cry out to be scrutinised on behalf of both the prosecution and defence. For some reason the core group process is able to bypass this common-sense procedure. I too agree that we desperately need reforms and Kenneth’s story is an indication why!.
Sometime this year, the DSAs’ accountability will transfer from Diocesan level to the NST. It is devoutly to be hoped that this will, at the very least, see an improvement in oversight, benchmarking and consistency.
I’m afraid that is not at all reassuring to those of us who have experience of the NST (National Safeguarding Team). They are widely regarded as not fit for purpose.
And, significantly, they don’t see it as their duty to investigate facts – which is part of the problem with the whole system. Another issue is that there is a rapid turnover of personnel: the staffer dealing with your case may leave without passing your file on to someone else (as happened with me); there is little institutional memory within the team; and new personnel often don’t seem to have time to catch up on previous history, reviews, findings, relevant blogs and books, etc.
I’ve given up on the system and no longer make any attempt to engage with it. Gilo perseveres, however, and often asks recently appointed officials whether they’ve read some of the basic texts. The ignorance revealed in the replies is shocking.
Following on from Janet’s comment in her closing paragraph…
I had cause to contact one diocese last year about a complex matter. I rang the DSA and introduced myself as Gilo (which happens to be my name). The DSA was brusque, rude, unpleasant in his tone and at one point early in the conversation said “Anyway, what’s your real name.. what kind of name is Gilo?”. I wondered how he might reply to a Patel, Jasvinder, Jamal or Abebi.
I explained that I was a co-editor of Letters to a Broken Church, and that I hoped his diocese had made this book available to the safeguarding team. His response (verbatim)..
“I’m an ex-police officer and I know all there is to know about safeguarding. I don’t need to read about it in a book!”
His attitude flew in the face of pronouncements by the Church that they are keen to work with survivors on the ‘journey of change’ which is the oft-cited trope of recent years. I hope the mindset I encountered in that diocese is rare.
More recently I was struck by the alarming lack of *narrative wisdom* in a key person involved in the PCR2 report due out in May. They’d never heard of the books by Rosie Harper & Alan Wilson, Fiona Gardner, nor the one edited by Janet and myself. And they spoke of the original PCR in terms that were naively beige: “things were not done as well as they could have been”. I wrote to them and said: if your report uses such phrases it will be laughed out of court! The least critical thing one might say about PCR1 was that it was ‘unfit for purpose’; a more accurate statement would be that it was an ‘industrial scale whitewash’.
I’m not surprised at all they said they had not read the relevant books. The ex police officer who passed off my case for past cases review 2 clearly had not read, or taken on board even the guidelines for that task. He had played a significant part in my case previously yet he and the DSA signed it off as “independently” reviewed. At the time he did so he was a member of NST. However as when involved in my case he allowed persons of risk with restrictions to hold church roles in complete defiance of the parish safeguarding handbook because he decided it was not fair on them to make them cease holding church roles. Ex police may prefer to make up their own rules as they go along so why bother to read the relevant literature? Yes he was formerly in child protection too.
We often have to make judgments in life based on limited information. For example, a manager assessing an employee’s expenses claim will know that some inflate theirs. All parents know, usually from bitter experience, that children tell stories, although I would always start from a position of believing them. This continues into adulthood of course. Lies include not telling the whole truth. At the moment it appears that a certain category of people known as politicians are unusually capable of falsehood. However, I’d like to suggest that some of this is due to the amplification effect of their scrutiny and publicity. Come on, we’re all capable of dishonesty when given the opportunity, aren’t we?
As an aside, and again without knowing the details, it seems plausible that the child in this case is piggy-in-the-middle. I intend no offence to suggest a parent could manipulate a child in this way, but we would be naïve not to consider it.
Thank you to you all for your comments and efforts to look at the problems of safeguarding core groups and the effect they have on people’s lives. I should particularly like to thank:
Frederik posted April 28th 1.59pm
Frederik, your comment was succinct and explains the precise problem, certainly of Kenneth’s Core Group. This case has indeed,’ highlighted the failure of process in the Church’s justice system’. You are quite right in suggesting we should just concentrate on that. Thank you for such a perceptive and truthful view of the reason for the problems suffered by Kenneth daily for twenty-five months.
To anyone who has not read this post might I suggest you find it because it is central to the entire situation.