The impact of the interview of Jo Kind by Cathy Newman on Channel 4 last night (Wednesday) will continue to reverberate for some time to come. The details of how Jo was abused in the late 80s and early 90s, when an employee of Tom Walker and St John’s Harborne may, in the end, turn out to be the least important part of the story. Arguably the most compelling detail of the saga was the belief by some senior individuals within the Diocese of Birmingham that Jo should be asked to sign a non-disclosure agreement (NDA) before viewing the independent report about her own case. Her current work with survivors of church related abuse suggested to her that such NDAs were routine across the country in such situations.
This blog post is not going to discuss the details of Jo’s abuse or the process that led up to the report by an independent reviewer about the way her case was dealt with. Clearly the senior staff, including the Bishop, have come out of the affair rather poorly. Channel 4 has seen a copy of the Review and, in a redacted version, it is available from the Diocesan Secretary in Birmingham. All we have at present on the diocesan website are the recommendations by the reviewer and the ‘Lessons Learnt Review Statement’. Here we find no mention of the NDA even though it is the part of the story that has been repeatedly mentioned by the Press, and radio this morning, as a key feature in the whole episode.
The NDA that Jo was asked to sign, was, as we have mentioned, a condition for her being given access to the official independent report on her case. Two Archbishops, Rowan Williams in 2011 and Justin Welby in 2018 have decried their use in any situation where the Church is responding to abuse survivors. I want, in this post, to reflect on the morality of NDAs and suggest they are an affront to openness as well as compromising the pursuit of justice. They can be compared with burdening a child with a family secret which then has to be carried for decades. Not telling this secret is hard and it is frequently corrosive on family relationships. The adults who signed the Official Secrets Act in the war went to their graves without ever being able to share with others what they had done to help their country. ‘Non-disclosure’ and secrets are at the very least costly and unhealthy for those who possess them.
Keeping secrets for others is difficult and hard to do. Supressing the details of what you have experienced in the way of abuse is even more demanding. We all know from our understanding of the process of recovery, from any kind of abuse, that an important task for the victim is to be able to recall and share the memories. This needs to be done in an environment that is safe. I can hardly imagine how hard it must be to have a memory of abuse that will always be unsafe to share. The NDA, once it has been internalised, acts as kind of filter to memory. Even to recall that memory is perceived as dangerous to your well-being. You cannot let it out or communicate it to anyone else. To put it another way, non-disclosure changes a traumatic memory into a kind of mental poison that permanently threatens psychological well-being.
What I am trying to do in reflecting on NDAs is to suggest that anyone who is ever required to sign one in a church context should shrink with total horror even when they are mentioned. Any moral standpoint, Christian or not, can see that to supress in any way memories of abuse, offends justice and ordinary morality. Putting an individual in a place where past hurts can never be shared or healed is to compound the original crime. The humanity and dignity of the victim are under attack for the second time.
On various occasions I have repeated the claim of victims and survivors that the treatment by the Church after their original abuse was far worse than the original incident. Even the suggestion that any survivor should in any way bury the memory of a past trauma through signing an NDA is shocking and needs to be resisted. In the ‘Lesson Learnt Statement’ put out by the Diocese of Birmingham, the NDA is nowhere mentioned. Perhaps we can surmise that whoever asked Jo to sign such a document was working outside the discussions of the diocesan senior staff. Are we right once again to see the footprint of an insurance company? Does an NDA serve the interests of a body who presumably was responsible for settling the civil claim against the Church?
In conclusion we would claim that the use of NDAs by the Church is an offence to decency and morality. It also subtly undermines the pursuit of healing following an abusive event. For the Church to do something that impedes healing is a kind of blasphemy to the shalom that is right at the heart of what Jesus came to share. It is hard to see how the Church should ever use such offensive legal mechanisms again in its dealings with victims/survivors. One wonders how it was ever possible for these agreements to be wheeled out in a church context. In the place of legal pressurising techniques, perhaps the Church should start to show proper shame and remorse that these methods were even thought of.
NDA’s are common in the church as in most institutions wishing to apply damage control but I remain rather perplexed by this. The church undoubtedly ‘tries it on’ but it is fairly easy to knock them down to a ‘discretionary NDA.’ They do know they have to tow the line with vulnerable adults and any GP/ social worker (including accredited DSA’s/LADO would totally agree with you Stephen that it is deeply harmful to be asked to keep secrets and will usually step in and question the rationale. A dicretionary NDA allows for the survivor to share the information with those that can help and support them. I have challenged the church myself with my psychotherapist when an NDA was applied and have supported other survivors in doing the same and actually it wasn’t particularly difficult or traumatic, so I am deeply sorry that Jo seemed unable to access this type of support.
As to whether NDA’s should exist in cases like this I cannot decide, undoubtedly the innocent family members of the abuser need protecting, doing restorative justice in a prison I am all too aware that these people are often the silent victims and can suffer horrendous abuse. We cannot live by an ‘eye for an eye’ because it just leaves everyone blind. There is also the protection of the survivor to consider, going to the press may be done in haste and repented at leisure. Not everyone is supportive of survivors and the backlash can be devastating.
I am of course certain that the church thinks none of those things but just acts dishonourably in its own self interests.
I wish Jo well.
Trish, I take your point regarding the need to protect the abuser’s family.
I agree, too ‘that the Church thinks none of those things but just acts dishonourably in its own self interests.’ Everything about Birmingham Diocese’s behaviour in this case – and not least the way they have changed their approach several times in the course of today – suggests their motive is about protecting the bishop’s and their own reputation.
They certainly don’t seem to have learned the lessons of the ‘lessons learned’ review. They are still trying to keep all the knowledge and all the power in their own hands. They still don’t understand that asking survivors to keep secrets is harmful. They still don’t realise that the review, and not just the events under review, are Jo’s story and she should be free to share it. They are still being secretive, so they are still doing harm.
Surely it should have been possible to redact the report tin such a way that third parties were protected? They don’t seem to have sought enough expert advice.
I take your point Janet about producing an appropriately redacted report in order to protect people but that does not stop the survivor naming their abuser, that requires an NDA.
I would like to reiterate that NDAs are fairly easily reduced to discretionary NDAs and any survivor reading this PLEASE do that for your own safety so that you are not left holding secrets.
I have every intention of writing to the church to remind them of their responsibility in this matter and having now ‘worked’ with the NST sufficiently their complaints procedure can be found on the home page of their website so if they are involved in NDA decisions do look!
Good work, Trish.
However, I don’t see why survivors should be prevented from naming their abusers. That’s uneasily reminiscent of the ‘this is our little secret’ line used by so many abusers – as in Jo’s case. Not being able to name the culprit leads to all sorts of prevarications and evasions – and potentially casts suspicion on entirely innocent parties as people inevitably try to guess who the perpetrator was.
I’m sure you’re right Trish. But I bet anyone who has been asked or induced to sign an NDA probably *thinks* it’s binding, whether it is or no. And they are likely to fear their abuser, the church. “What will these people do to me if I do tell?” So it may be straightforward to sort out, but the victim won’t know that.
An NDA is binding Athena you can be sued for breaking it, not of course that the church will in this case but I know other survivors that have been threatened with legal action. I understand from reports that Jo was advised to take legal advice before she signed it so if you are unsuure presumably you would do this.
Janet, I do not think I was very clear a survivor can name their abuser at any time, the church does not slap an NDA on the minute you say you have been abused the NDA happens when there is a report or meeting that is likely to embarrass the church. This is using NDA’s dishonourably but equally the DPA which very much protects the concept of ‘this is our little secret’ has to be abided by. An inquiry like this which is investigating a case that has not gone to trial and where the abuser is dead will contain a massive amount of third party information so the report either goes to the survivor heavily redacted, which survivors also object to because it feels like something is being hidden, or with an NDA (which should be discretionary) in order to protect third party information.
I do not know what the answer is and everyone is shouting about how bad it is but no one is mentioning the ICO and ethics. The church so badly needs to employ an ethicist not another piece of dead wood in the NST.
Sorry, Trish, but I don’t know what a DPA and the ICO are. Could you please clarify?
Sorry Janet, shows I have spent way too long challenging the church rather than ‘getting a life!’ The DPA is the data protection act and the ICO is the Information Commissioners Office which is the government department that deals with data protection.
Any third party information has to rigidly adhere to guidelines so that the privacy of people is protected. It does take into account safeguarding but not at the expense of exposing innocent third parties sensetive personal data.
The problem is incredibly complex and could quite frankly could do without all the melodrama but a proper discussion with proper professionals and experts in the field but the church won’t risk that!
OK, got that. But we are told the report was already redacted, and we know from IICSA (Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse) that very sensitive documents can be redacted in such a way as to protect confidential information of third parties. As far as we know IICSA hasn’t imposed NDAs on anyone, though it has asked core witnesses to respect confidentiality. So why couldn’t Birmingham Diocese do the same?
I would not use IICSA as any sort of bench mark for data protection, it is shocking.
As the church advised Jo to take legal advice I am assuming they know they can cover their backs so NDA’s are not illegal simply dishonourable.
With that in mind the ICO would not bring any sort of penalty so the church is free to carry on. The ICO must be the most abusive department, far worse than the church, to deal with however anyone that has a concern about an NDA is free to bring a formal complaint to them and I wish they would but the fact is they don’t so nothing really changes and it is always making the best of a bad job.
I do not have the answers Janet but I do know that the church will always find ways to stop people talking and my only concern is keeping very vulnerable people as safe as possible in that. Anything I do is always fully endorsed by mental health professionals with many years experience of clergy abuse but I appreciate it is often at a divergence from other survivors something which I have been made aware of. There are all sorts of non disclosure pressures out there!
So are you agreeing that a survivors expose is ok and allow them to abuse others ie the family members or others who assisted by giving evidence?
It may leave those who could assist as witnesses thinking twice before coming forward. Surely NDA`s would protect these other parties and that is what the Diocese / legal team or insurers were aiming for.
No Sylvia I am not, forgive me, I desperately try to stand up for everyone but I have been so badly ‘trolled’ for it that last night I was completely worn out and exhausted.
I will reiterate before, for my own psychological safety, I am feeling very unwell, leaving this conversation that in my opinion full NDA’s are for businesses to protect patents etc and have no place in safeguarding but I believe, and it is fully endorsed by mental health professionals, that there may well be a role for ‘discretionary NDA’s’ in offering protection to everyone. Apart from the family of the abuser, who are the silent victims and needs every consideration, the survivor often does need protecting from their own very volatile feelings at a highly emotive time and just putting the pause button on charging off to the press can be very beneficial in the long term.
I wish you well Sylvia, people with an interest in the safety of families of abusers are so often not heard from please continue standing up for them and please be assured that when I am well again I will also do so.
Trish, I’m so sorry you’re being trolled. Have a good rest and I hope you soon recover your energy.
Sylvia, these issues are very difficult as we’ve been saying. Stephen’s piece has highlighted the very damaging effect on survivors of a silence which has been enforced by others. I have never revealed the name of my childhood abuser, in order to protect family members. It has been costly but at least it has been my choice. If silence has been enforced by the very organisation in which the abuse occurred, that’s a different matter. That’s when it constitutes re-abuse.
I have not been arguing that witnesses’ identities be revealed, but that they should be anonymised. That’s a much healthier way to protect them than slapping an NDA on the victim. It’s what the police and courts do.
As for the family, like Trish I feel for them. I was a witness in a major abuse case and it really upset me that I had no way to contact them or to find out how they were doing. It still does. I hope the Church was looking after them.
Nevertheless, I don’t think the victim/s should be expected to keep silent in order to protect the family. If the abuse has happened within a church and the victim/s are members, they may already have delayed reporting the abuse out of consideration for the abuser and his family.
In the final analysis I think truth is the most important factor. No one is really benefitted by living a lie. And the abuser’s family may themselves be victims; are almost bound to victims in one way or another. Abuse is primarily about power, and the abuser’s family are in his power. It may be the truth that sets them free, painful as it is at the time.
I also wish you well Trish and for your own peace and well being. The bottom line is always that we have to choose to take care of ourselves.
My experience of abuse and also as a witness to another`s abuse is how sometimes our needs and desire to be identified as a victim creates a sense of entitlement and a motive to devalue anyone who does not offer recognition and validation of victim status or compensation for it. I understand this is a recognised psychological move. This focus often disregards others. One, as in this current case, may speak out for their own purposes, whilst another wishes to remain silent as they have moved on in their healing and do not wish for such disclosure, or other valid reason, like one to one therapy has been enough. Reading the Diocesan reasons for the NDA I gain the impression they were attempting to do this for others as yet un-named. The media presentation of this current case, though ostensively challenging NDA`s are perhaps trying to sensationalise the story for their own purposes (sales) and I notice how more information and names are divulged as things progress.
In my situation, I engaged with therapy & pastoral prayer finding it most helpful, and supported through the investigation process. A 3rd party, wishing for openness and truth to be expressed for themselves spoke to the media, their choice, but in so doing exposed me. So basically I was re-abused by the “victim / survivor” ! The breaking of the NDA and compensation gave the power wanted, and the new trauma that I and others suffered created the pain. A discretionary NDA will not help if there is no sanction, and where individuals choose to disclose in spite of redacted reports.
Finally, as this was a Learning Lesson Review, isn`t this about learning the lessons of failure in the process rather than telling the `story`. A redaction removes this personalised information and expresses how “A” or “B” could have done things differently. The `story` was Jo`s to tell from 1989 or 2008 when she first had courage to do so,
Oh my goodness you put that so well Sylvia, thank you!
That was a difficult experience, and I can understand why you are cautious about survivors speaking out about their abuse.
However, the best and most appropriate way to protect the anonymity of third parties is by suitable redaction – people cannot disclose others’ confidential information if they don’t have it in the first place. The police and courts manage to do this with notable success.
In my experience survivors and victims who speak out usually do so not for selfish reasons, but because they think doing so will serve the common good. Other victims of the same (or a different) abuser, who may have felt very alone with their trauma, may be reassured that they are not the only one to have suffered. The abuser may be prevented from abusing again; certainly people will be warned of their propensities and be on their guard. And then there is the desire for justice and truth to be served – a desire not only natural but ‘godly’, to use the unnamed bishop’s term.
Similarly, the lessons to be learned ought to be widely available, not just to a few people directly involved. This can prevent others in a similar situation making the same mistakes.
Light and air are health-promoting; keeping things under the carpet only results in a build-up of unhealthy material.
Sadly, I have to disagree with you Janet. The courts and Police do their best, but in a smaller community it takes little effort to identify all the parties concerned. I note that in the case that commenced the thread, what Jo chose to expose, has been extended by certain elements of the media who could only have obtained a redacted report, but have been able to put the pieces together using dates, to name others providing evidence.
In “serving the common good” I would need to question “whose good” As previously stated we are all unique, wonderfully so (Ps 139) and we all see things from different perspectives. I don`t mind that, it`s part of being here on earth, but I am concerned when one person`s voice appears to be the only one because they are the loudest or have friends in right places. It seems to me power games which we know is a significant part in abuse.
In the media case the alleged abuser is deceased. Jo herself said something to the effect she was not after healing but wanted justice. That takes it away from her initial abuse to the unsatisfactory process (which I agree with her appears poor). The Learning Lesson Review`s recommendations have been published, together with the actions taken and being taken. Is not this the learning that all can act upon?
Thank you Sylvia. I have it on good authority that the review contained no information which could identify any witnesses or other parties, and I have not seen any press reports which have named anyone other than Jo, the perpetrator, and a few diocesan officials. I’m not sure what you have seen, or who else has been named. However, as the review protects these identities, it does seem the NDA was issued to protect the reputation of the bishop and other officials
As to the summary which has been published, , that may not be sufficient to improve handling of similar complaints in the future. What is often instructive is the more detailed analysis of events and processes, and that Is what we are prevented from seeing. The Church has such a poor track record in handling abuse complaints that it and we really need to seize every opportunity tolerant and change.
I wish you well, and hope you are able fully to recover from your very unpleasant experience.
Janet, you appear to have other contacts and therefore probably know much more than me. I don`t know you or the others contributor`s, nor your own circumstances that brought you to this site, but am grateful for the opportunity afforded me to express my opinion, which obviously does come from my experience.
The press reports I`ve read have named people that you may know their position / role and I`m also aware of information that could make identifying individuals easy. That`s what raised my concern initially as it closely resembles my own case.
I was interested in what you said about analysing the events and process, and can see that this might help those of you who are challenging the structures.
I am interested in the people involved – survivor, witnesses, leaders and safeguarding people, particularly where the process increases the pain and hurts others.
I`ve only read the Diocesan recommendations, and their response / action. The National recommendations will be more anonymous, but the local church ones will no doubt identify Priest, PCC, safeguarding person whose names will easily be found. By naming the church, their reputational damage is done, but what of the individuals who had very little involvement once the lawyers got involved, especially as the case occurred many years ago probably before any of them had a role. Lessons do need to be learnt, but if hurt is going to be caused, who wants to volunteer to be involved.
The redaction and NDA`s I understood are to prevent such hurt by new exposures. I have my doubts that redaction alone prevents identification as per the local church individuals that can be identified. If that can happen with Church officers, so it can with other witnesses, as was in my experience.
Whilst I regard the potential damage to healing as the most important, and shameful, aspect of NDAs, a secondary issue in keeping these secrets is the lack of financial accountability if they are used in the context of any sort of pay-out. (From what I understand it was about reviewing the report for Jo, but in other cases NDAs are often attached to pay-outs.) Surely those in the pews and others who give financially to the church should be able to find out where their donations go?
A few years ago I was unfairly dismissed during an organisational restructure by atrocious management. During the second day of the Employment Tribunal I was offered a settlement just before I was about to give evidence, but the interesting thing was that neither my barrister nor my former employer’s barrister had experience of this sort of settlement without there also being a NDA. I refused to agree to the NDA on the basis that my settlement would be coming from public money since my former employer was a charity and made it clear that I was quite willing to return into court and give my evidence in public!
As members of the public – and for those who donate to church funds – we need to demand much greater transparency and accountability from such organisations and protest vociferously when we hear about NDAs being used.
Post script: I heard that, within two years, all the charity’s trustees resigned en masse when the auditor failed to sign off the accounts. I guess they tried to conceal the pay-out!
Sylvia, I wonder if your comments are coming from pain. If so, I encourage you to find independent support. Victim Support may be able to help. 0808 168 9191
I understand that victims, witnesses and family members of the abuser may get some limited protection from an NDA. But two other factors need to be weighed in the balance. The first is that Dom witnessed, victims and family members may want to have their stories told in the public domain, and may be prevented by a NDA. The second is that the offender may have associates or co-abusers who are able to hide behind the existence of an NDA.
Apologies for typos.
I understand that victims, witnesses and family members of the abuser may get some limited protection from an NDA. But two other factors need to be weighed in the balance. The first is that some witnesses, victims and family members may want to have their stories told in the public domain, and may be prevented by a NDA. The second is that the offender may have associates or co-abusers who are able to hide behind the existence of an NDA.
The Church Times has good coverage of this case in today’s edition. https://www.churchtimes.co.uk/articles/2018/14-december/news/uk/survivor-on-national-safeguarding-panel-slams-birmingham-diocese-over-redacted-report