by Gilo
One of the manifestations of power in the Church is what Surviving Church has referred to as ‘social power’. For some time, Gilo been making a study of this complex world of social elites in British society and the way that they relate to institutions in Britain like the Church of England. The account that Gilo presents to us here is a detailed glimpse of some of the workings of the Establishment. It may help us to understand a little better the dynamics of the influences at work which were able to protect Establishment members, like Peter Ball, for so long. Ed.
(Gilo has provided me with the detailed references to back up every statement in this piece.)
The latest addition to the board of Ecclesiastical Insurance as Independent Non-Executive Director is Sir Stephen Lamport. He joins The Very Revd Christine Wilson who (somewhat questionably) remained a director during the year in which she stood down as Dean of Lincoln owing to a safeguarding complaint brought by Melissa Caslake, the Church’s safeguarding director. Ecclesiastical is the Church of England’s insurer and has come under increasing spotlight for its unethical strategies in relation to the treatment of survivors.
It would seem possible that Lamport has been brought in to redeem the sticky reputation Ecclesiastical has acquired. A reputation courageously and fearlessly referenced by a senior church figure at February’s Synod when she said, “Surely we have the capacity to question our insurers about their practices and indeed our lawyers. It occurred to me that actually we can change insurers if we don’t think their methods are ethical. I change my electricity supplier. I am hoping that when I go back to my diocese some of my colleagues, and I’m sure they will, will be asking me some very difficult questions in diocesan synod.”
Lamport might be the right man for corporate reputational salvage. As former Receiver General of Westminster Abbey and one of the founders of the Westminster Abbey Institute, and a member of the Advisory Board of the Centre for Ethics in Public Policy and Corporate Governance he has a highly developed understanding of issues of ethical behaviour. The Westminster Abbey Institute was founded in 2013 to work “with the public service institutions around Parliament Square to revitalise moral and spiritual values in public life.” Its prestigious Council includes such establishment luminaries as Baroness Butler-Sloss ….. who told an abuse survivor that she did not want to include Bishop Peter Ball in a report in Chichester diocese because she “cared for the Church” and “the press would love a bishop”. The Council also includes Mr William Nye (current Secretary General of Synod), Lord Saatchi and many other eminent figures. Lamport spoke at the Institute in March 2018 on the theme of Truth Sustained “The importance of truth cannot be underestimated. It is at the heart of those things which sustain a civilised society: trustworthiness, dependability, wise decision making and solid relationships.”
Lamport also brings serious credentials as a senior advisor in Sanctuary Counsel, which describes itself as a “boutique advisory firm, providing strategic communications and reputation advice..” I associate ‘boutique’ as an ascription with small expensive hotels. This is a reputation firm which breathes ‘establishment’ and if you’ve never heard of it then you probably couldn’t afford its services nor walk in the circles that needs them. It is so impossibly discreet and ‘boutique’ that its website has a mere two pages which both feel leather-lined.
Sanctuary’s offices by the entrance to Dean’s Yard and Church House are convenient for when Lamport needs to renew his membership of Nobody’s Friends. The Treasurer of Nobody’s is based a few doors down in The Faculty Office of the Archbishop of Canterbury. Nobody’s Friends is a shadowy and elite dining club that meets in Lambeth Palace. A “crust” club filled with bishops, senior lawyers, Tory grandees, and public school headmasters. I’ve previously written about it on this blog, and about the links of three of its past members to Westminster cover-ups of Kincora abuse in Belfast. Lamport is to be commended for being one of very few members who openly lists Nobody’s Friends in his Who’s Who listing. Most prefer to keep it hidden.
Lamport brings to Ecclesiastical Insurance further establishment ties – impressive enough to add serious cachet to any board of directors. Previously a Private Secretary to the Prince of Wales, Lamport reportedly still oversees the group of grandees called Operation Golden Orb. This group is responsible for planning Charles’ coronation, and has worked with Lambeth Palace over a long time on such deliberations as the one-throne-or-two conundrum (Queen Camilla, or Camilla the Princess Consort with no throne of her own).
Whilst working for the prince, Lamport was involved in the management of a case of a valet who made a claim of rape by a more senior household servant. According to the Peat report, Lamport wrote to Ms Shackleton (the prince’s divorce lawyer who was also involved in handling the matter) asking if an agreement could be reached with the man in order to “avoid an investigation”. The agreement included payment of £38,000. Ms Shackleton was so disquieted by her experience that she later told Lady Sarah McCorquodale, Princess Diana’s sister: “I was asked to make it go away. It was one of the lowest points in my professional career.” The valet had gone to the police over his rape allegations, but decided not to continue with the complaint after the settlement with the Royal Household. When he died tragically young, his constituency MP Paul Flynn said publicly, “He was very badly treated and they got some of their best public relations people to bad mouth him at the time. They really turned the heat on him. I thought it was pretty disgraceful and he disappeared from the scene because of it. It’s a sad life and a tragic case.” A reading of the Sir Michael Peat report, online in full, into the handling of the matter shows that Lamport was keen to close the thing down with no investigation on the premise that he did not believe the allegation. Protection of the Royal Household and the prince was perhaps more important than proper investigation into a possible crime.
So it is disconcerting that Lamport now advises the board of Ecclesiastical Insurance which deals with survivors cases. It’s also troubling that he’s also a trustee on the board of AllChurches Trust, the charity which owns the insurer. We’ve seen this dual membership before with Sir Philip Mawer, a former Chair of AllChurches who was also a senior independent director of Ecclesiastical while he was a former Secretary General of Synod. It was soon after Mawer’s tenure of power in the Church, and while he was a director of Ecclesiastical, that the insurer started having a ringside seat at the Church’s central safeguarding committee! That sentence merits its exclamation mark. This fact emerged in his first statement at IICSA by Michael Angell, an executive from Ecclesiastical. It seems extraordinary that the insurer was able to observe the church’s safeguarding discussions from mid 1990s through to 2015. Especially when one considers the culture of secrecy, denial and safeguarding failure during this period. The strategic and operational advantage afforded the insurer through observation at close quarters of the Church’s response cannot be underestimated. We can only guess the subtle influences the insurer was able to exert during those decades. And the influences travelling in the other direction. Incidentally, Sir Philip is believed to be still the President of Nobody’s Friends – a position he held in 2015. It’s not who you know – but who you dine with that matters!
One might hope that the Church of England will recognise and address this set of incestuous links. Links already to some extent highlighted in Letters to a Broken Church which has been bought for their dioceses by a number of bishops. 50 copies were also bought by Archbishop’s Council for Synod members. The final IICSA report on the Anglican hearings comes out in August and is likely to be critical of Ecclesiastical’s performance at the Inquiry where it was publicly lambasted. Some of us are aware of further things emerging about Ecclesiastical tactics and its relationship to the Church which are likely to bring further acute embarrassment to their client, the Church. The insurer does not yet seem to have learnt that the only real thing of value they have is their reputation. With all that has so far been brought into daylight – they seem to imagine it can still be business as usual.
Presumably both church and insurer hope Lamport will ride to the rescue. Perhaps he’s being lined up to replace William Nye as next Secretary General of Synod and Secretary of Archbishop’s Council? They tend to like maintaining close links with the insurer. He seems a fit. Or perhaps it’s time they ended these nested ties? And recognise that it’s no longer acceptable to operate a nexus that looks so incestuous in its intertwining as to be in the words of one cleric “a form of quiet English corruption”.
This is very interesting Stephen. These influences by the “crust” club will be shown up soon and the genuineness of our Christian faith will be released.
I’ve finally got around to ordering your book, Janet! I need more books like a hole in the head!
Well done Athena, hope you find it helpful. I also hope you don’t develop any holes in the head!
I am always amazed that I am still surprised by these incesteous and questionable appointments within the CofE and it’s allied organisations, Ecclesiastical, All Churches Trust etc. If this were found to be going on in any other publicly funded body, BBC, Police etc questions would be asked, investigations would be put in place.
I still cannot understand why the Church is not held up for inspection and root and branch change.
The member in the pew is being duped and has been for decades, if they knew the truth I don’t think they’d bother going back when the doors are reopened!
Strictly, it’s not publicly funded. But you’re absolutely right!
It does receive funds that if they didn’t go to the CofE would go directly to the State, probably by way of the Crown. It is, in effect, the Ministry of Religion for England.
It’s worth looking a little more closely at one former Secretary General of Synod to glimpse how ‘nested’ the affiliated corporate links can be.
Sir Philip Mawer.
Notice the overlapping years…
1990 – 2002 Secretary General of Synod
1996 – 2002 on board of Ecclesiastical Insurance (EIG) 1
2008 – 2013 rejoined board of EIG in 2008, latterly becoming Deputy Chairman
2010 – 2020 trustee on board of AllChurches Trust which owns EIG
2013 – Chair of AllChurches Trust (ATL)
2015 – cited in a book as President of Nobody’s Friends 2
EIG had regular attendance at the Church of England Safeguarding Committee from the mid 90’s through to 2015. From 2000 for a few years the Committee was joint with the Methodist Church, and then reverted to separate committees. EIG have not attended these meetings since 2015. 3
I would add that the task of bringing daylight to the unethical antics of EIG and their lawyers which has received considerable media coverage – has been up to survivors. And remains so. But the ground is shifting. Following the courageous speech at Synod by an archdeacon – I suspect some other dioceses may follow suit and seek to ask searching questions (informed by survivors) of how settlements have been conducted, and what particular tactics and strategies have been deployed. We have already started the process of sharing insights with more than one diocese. Synod has awoken out of its rendered docility.
Change will not happen from the top. The topmost senior layer is too hardwired to a kind of institutional apathy coupled with defence of structure and hierarchy. Change will happen from beneath with people of integrity recognising that the church must change – both for the cause of justice – and also for the church’s own moral health.
1 https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/officers/ojnxh0R42Bp0-cou-w63WStsA9c/appointments
2 Lay Activism and the High Church Movement of the Late Eighteenth Century: The Life and Thought of William Stevens, 1732-1807. Robert. M., Andrews. p.263
3 https://www.iicsa.org.uk/key-documents/4876/view/eio000141_0.pdf page 4
Gilo,
Thank you so much for your excellent research.
Since the Church has been gutted by the crisis, and since insurers everywhere are now grinding their policyholders (not least because their own balance sheets are becoming increasingly precarious), I suspect there will be a lot of pressure to retain a captive insurer like EI which can offer relatively cheap premiums to the diocese and parishes (now facing major cash-flow crises). This imperative will, I fear, muffle the advocates of further reform.
Since you mention William Stevens, it’s worth noting that having imbibed very high church principles as a child (he was closely associated with the Horne family in his youth), he was a zealous lifelong advocate of ‘passive obedience’ even to palpably unjust laws; that he was hot against both the American and French revolutions; that he was a conspiracy theorist and a pretty candid anti-semite. The club basically became the chief locus of the Hackney Phalanx in the early nineteenth century, which functioned as a high church ramp in favour of throne-and-altar prescriptions for public policy. On the credit side, he did much for the Bethlem and Magdalen hospitals, for the SPG (though it did own slaves in Barbados at the time) and for the relief of poor clergy via his work as treasurer of the Bounty.
Peter Nockles has this to say in the ODNB entry: “Stevens’s innate humility was reflected in his signing his defence of Horne with the nom de plume Ain (Hebrew for ‘nobody’), which in turn suggested the title of a collection of his pamphlets published in 1805 as Nobody’s Works. He was ever afterwards known by this appellation, and in 1800 a dining club was instituted by fifteen of his friends in his honour, denominated Nobody’s Club. Three meetings of the club, which included well-known clergymen, peers, lawyers, and doctors, were held every year at the Crown and Anchor inn in London. The club, under the name of Nobody’s Friends, became a forum for meetings of eminent high-churchmen throughout the nineteenth century and may be regarded, ‘in a certain sense, as his posterity’ (Park, Preface to Memoirs, new edn, 1859, iv).”
I really hope you didn’t have to buy that book, because anything published by Brill of Leiden usually requires a second mortgage (though they do produce lots of excellent stuff).
Many thanks again!
Also on TA:
Gilo’s latest piece and the comments are like blows upon a bruise. Just when one thinks things can’t sink any lower, they do. As I’ve said before, every revelation contributes to the shame I feel at being a public representative of the Church of England.
Some posts on TA have chided critics of the institutional church on the ground that we are not ‘playing nicely’, which we should do in order not to frighten the horses. This is not so, of course. It is possible for a priest to work for the Kingdom while at the same time drawing attention to the stench of the organisation s/he represents. That so many do not must be a reflection of fear of reprisal, of being in disfavour with the “boss”, or, for those whose spouses are not well paid professionals, of destitution.
Unfortunately, the dissonance between keeping up the spirits of the faithful, and of drawing attention to the stinking abscess, affects the individual priest profoundly. Well, I shouldn’t speak for others, so I’ll say that it affects me profoundly. It does not diminish my devotion to the Gospel. It does not diminish my admiration for Wesley’s covenant prayer, despite my inadequacy in practising it. But it sure paralyses me with despair. I don’t know what to do to help effect change for the better.
My time in parish ministry taught me that there was little congregational interest in this—they weren’t even interested in the deanery. They cared only about the bubble that contained them and their friends: coffee mornings, sales, church events, local events. My experience of deaneries was little better: the persecuted church, the plight of LGBTI people, mission initiatives in neighbouring towns—all important in themselves—featured on agenda (to no effect I might add), but institutional malpractice was never even mentioned. PCCs invited to change insurers from EIG to some other body cared only about the premium. Members didn’t know anyone who had suffered from the brutality of EIG’s defence lawyers.
Now I’m retired, I’m free of responsibility for a flock and could work for the exposure of chronic institutional disease. The trouble is that I don’t know what to do to support Stephen and Gilo and all who work to that end. And I don’t know how to stop it getting to me.
If we are to grow up we must let go of the vain things that charm us most. We need publicly to acknowledge them in order to let others see that we are not lecturing them in an abstract way, but are speaking from our own authentic experience. It is the visible wounds that overcome the gravitational pull back to earth so that we might rise toward the Divine. This applies as much to the institutional church as it does to any individual. The church has to let go of the vain things that charm it most—privilege, power, cronyism, secrecy, omertà—that it has wielded “yea even unto the middle ages” if it is to become anything other than a diabolical parody of the Gospel.
How can I, can we, help?
I must say, Stanley, there were times when I came away from Deanery and Diocesan meetings feeling as if I’d been swimming in a cess pit. The feeling of being contaminated by corruption was quite tangible. I met vanishingly few paid clergy who were interested. But, gosh, once they’ve retired, it all comes out. All credit to the likes of you, Stephen and Janet who were always prepared to speak out. Coming in here helps people. Keep going!
Thanks Froghole for your understanding of the origins of Nobody’s Friends. It’s a fascinating slice of eighteenth and nineteenth century Anglican history. One gets the sense that the Club morphed into something very different with the passage of time – to became a Church of England preferment-parlour where potential bishops could be paraded in front of Prime Ministers’ Appointments Secretaries.
No, I didn’t have to buy J. A. Park, Memoirs of the Late William Stevens for background.
I have a rare copy of The Club of Nobody’s Friends 1800-2000, by Geoffrey Rowell – given me by someone who knows of my interest in bringing daylight to the shadowy power structures in the CofE. From this I was able to source the earlier article.
http://survivingchurch.org/2019/08/20/gilo-writes-safeguarding-the-secrets-part-1-nobodys-friends/
I wrote to the Bishops and the Treasurer of Nobody’s to ask why the Club had not considered the Kincora links worthy of notice to IICSA. It was odd given that a President of the Club (1991-99) had been directly cited in MI5 documents with regards to abuse that took place there, and that two other senior parliamentary members had been aware and involved in ‘managing’ meaningful investigation away.
Several bishops replied that they were members, and that there “was nothing shadowy about the Club”. Some replied to say that they weren’t. Some replied that they hadn’t been invited. One senior bishop said he’d not heard of Nobody’s until I’d drawn his attention to it.
No-one was able to address the question about why the Club had not given IICSA information that might have had partial significance for the Westminster hearings. There didn’t seem any interest in the question. I’ll try asking again.
Gilo,
Thank you very much for this again! There is more on the Park/Stevens relationship here: https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=9HN-XscewYgC&pg=PA307&lpg=PA307&dq=common+pleas+park+stevens&source=bl&ots=V8UmXlZK-2&sig=ACfU3U0yZWcd9tGFwz-S-WuIt-3JWySz4Q&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiBy4PS7rrpAhULTBUIHTlXCsIQ6AEwAXoECAwQAQ#v=onepage&q=common%20pleas%20park%20stevens&f=false. Park was a pusine justice of the Common Pleas.
It’s interesting you describe it as a ‘preferment parlour’. It rather reminds me of the examinations for prize fellows at All Souls’. In addition to the exams the candidates are invited to attend a dinner in college, just to make sure that can hold a knife and fork the right way. It seems to me that Nobody’s Friends might have had a similar function; eligible candidates for high preferment would be looked over just to make sure that their eating habits were not unduly disgusting and would not disgrace the dining tables of the gentry of the diocese in question.
The question is whether Nobody’s Friends is used as a conduit for ecclesiastical intelligence, and the manipulation of the same. It is a question that is probably very difficult to answer. I don’t even know whether the club has any by-laws (this might be worth checking, although I suspect you have already). I do know that a lot of the West End clubs with permanent establishments (such as the Athenaeum, formerly stuffed with prelates) have rules banning their members from discussing ‘business’ (whatever that means). Some treat this rule so seriously that if ‘business’ is discussed the culprit will soon find him/herself expelled. However, I appreciate that even if a ‘business’ problem is not discussed at a club dinner, it may well become a topic of conversation between members outside the confines of the club.
I think you are right to probe the point, but I wonder whether a satisfactory answer might prove frustratingly elusive. Many thanks again for your researches!
Best wishes!
An illustration of how Nobody’s might work as a sphere of influence came during the IICSA hearings into Peter Ball. Lord Lloyd of Berwick, under questioning by Fiona Scolding, wrote to George Carey, then Archbishop of Canterbury, on Ball’s behalf. The letter begins ‘May I presume on a brief acquaintanceship at dinners of Nobody’s Friends?’ That was in 1993, and by 1994 Lloyd was still in touch with the Archbishop’s office, lobbying to get Ball introduced back into active ministry. The transcript can be found here. https://www.iicsa.org.uk/key-documents/6346/view/public-hearing-transcript-27-july-2018.pdf
Unfortunately, Neil Todd and others of Ball’s victims didn’t have the benefit of membership of Nobody’s to give them access to archbishops.
Your book arrived, unbelievably, today, Sunday, at 6:30!
Wow, remarkable. Afraid I can’t say hope you enjoy it, but I do hope you’ll find it helpful.
Janet,
Yes – I remember that – thank you for the reminder! And, yes, it certainly proves Gilo’s point.
It’s worth adding that he is Lloyd of Berwick, as in Berwick near Alfriston in East Sussex; he still lives there. It’s also where Verity House, Ball’s convicted sidekick, was incumbent. It takes about seven or eight minutes to drive from Berwick to Litlington, where Ball lived. The church is small but fine and has a famous mural by Clive Bell, which features George Bell just to the right of the chancel arch (https://www.berwickchurch.org.uk/bishop-bell.html).
A former member of the crown appointments commission, Sir Timothy Hoare, lived in the village next to Berwick, Alciston (pretty tiny, like Berwick), where he is buried.
There are a number of other influential people who have lived a few minutes from Litlington: Hartley Shawcross (Jevington), the Gwynne family and David Dimbleby (Folkington), Denis Healey (Alfriston), etc.; there are also the big houses of Firle Place and Glynde, again only a few minutes’ away.
Given what we know of Ball’s character there are reasons why he may have chosen to live in that precise area, although it probably also made some sense in logistical terms.
James
I went to the house at Litlington to be interviewed by Ball as a potential ordinand. He had a lovely golden retriever who presented me with something – a slipper, I think. Ball said he did that with all visitors.
Ball approved my candidacy; according to the DDO, the first woman he’d ever put forward to be a deaconess (as it then was). But Kemp wrote to me saying the diocese would sponsor me on the understanding I wouldn’t go back there. So I started theological college knowing I’d burned my bridges as far as returning to my home county was concerned.
Ouch.
Janet,
That is utterly deplorable. Not only was it intrinsically insulting and malicious treatment on several levels, but he was essentially ordering you out of Sussex and giving you a choice between your vocation and your home (and, presumably, your friends and relations). It wasn’t even as though he was giving you the choice to ‘test’ your vocation, spiteful as that would have been; he just didn’t want any woman in orders, major or minor, anywhere in his diocese.
The more I have read about that man or have listened to people speak about him, the more I have come to the conclusion that he was arguably the chief culprit of the whole Ball affair, absent Ball himself. He was the enabler; he was the person who provided preferment and gave Ball his platform; he was the de facto sponsor of CGA; he was the bishop who copied Ellison’s London area ‘devolution’ scheme and then failed to manage it properly, or at all; he was the person who turned a Nelson’s eye to the strong and palpable evidence (not only in relation to Ball but presumably other criminals, mostly in East Sussex); he was the person who treated those victims who were wanting support and a response with studied contempt (as ‘troublemakers’); and he was the person in charge who ought to have informed the police and yet did nothing or, perhaps, concealed evidence. Moreover, he was the person who made the diocese the leading sink for some of the worst partisanship in the national Church; whose attitude towards discipline was highly selective and reflected his own preferences, and who signally failed to initiate steps to rationalise the organisation of the diocese at a local level in order to best preserve its viability. From the mid-1980s it was almost as if a pall of lethargy had blanketed the diocese, anaesthetising it and stifling much initiative and vitality. Essentially, he was able to justify the excessive length of his pontificate on the basis that the bench needed a canonist (it didn’t) and because he was not a ‘showy’ personality (though his poor communication skills were themselves an issue). I understand that under Kemp Chichester was sometimes referred (in an echo of critiques of the early nineteenth century diocese of Norwich under Henry Bathurst) as the ‘dead see’.
In short, a 27-year-long disaster. And you have been one of the victims. I am very sorry indeed that you had to put up with that nonsense from Kemp, never mind the appalling Rideout business you were also forced to endure.
Best wishes,
James
In different circumstances, I too was told to choose between continuing as a Reader, and staying with a church where I wasn’t being bullied and my family were happy.
That is awful. Do you think they’ve ever read Jesus’ command that we should love one another?
Froghole. Thank you for your assessment of the ‘reign’ of Eric Kemp at Chichester. I only encountered him when he was Chaplain of Exeter College in Oxford. Those who appreciated him there seemed to do so for qualities that were far from my taste – a kind of fusty antiquarianism. I am sure you are right about his role in the Ball story. His behaviour, as evidenced by the Inspector who gave testimony to IICSA and who interviewed him, was outrageous to the point of being evil. There is a point where a refusal to notice criminal activity becomes criminal in itself. The IICSA evidence seemed to show him as having crossed that line. I imagine that the Chichester diocese is still paying the price of his time among them. It takes decades to undo that level of malevolence and negligent behaviour.
I’m by no means as knowledgeable as the previous contributors, but from my not-very-thorough analysis of the Chichester IICSA saga I wholeheartedly agree about Kemp. But I wonder too about Hind, and Mrs Hind. They are closely involved – maybe not with Ball but certainly with other offenders and the Ball aftermath.
Apologies for the pedantry and slight digression from the topic here, but did Clive Bell paint? His wife Vanessa was a noted painter, and she was certainly involved in the Berwick mural with Duncan Grant and Quentin Bell. There is a splendid colour photograph in the revised Pevsner volume for East Sussex (Yale 2013: p.115 plate 112) of the complete mural above and surrounding the chancel arch at Berwick. Although there were the three painters, the mural appears as an entity. However the portrait of Bishop Bell is attributed in Pevsner to Duncan Grant.
Thank you for the link to the fascinating article. Yet again we are given an insight into Bishop George Bell’s many gifts.
Many thanks! I should have checked – no excuse, especially since I had the Antram volume about two metres away from me when I wrote that (I think he died about a week or two after it was published)! I’m looking forward to the Cork, Durham, Notts and Wilts volumes later this year.
I also came across an article about the murals by Clive Bell himself in Country Life: June 4, 1943, Vol. 93 (2420), pp. 1016-17. It’s possible to subscribe to the archive.
I daresay that the proximity of Charleston to Litlington may have been another pull-factor for Peter Ball.
More distraction from the topic! Cork, City and County, is already out, and excellent. It’s an interesting contrast to the English volumes in that the mostly modern RC churches are, perhaps understandably, treated as the primary ones ahead of the C of I, and the RC Church (if no longer offically), still as the national church.
Having a complete set of the original Pevsners, I have to be selective about buying the revisions, but the two Sussex volumes have been invaluable reading during the lockdown, and the colour plates in both (I think West Sussex just has the edge) are superb.
The value of the original West Sussex volume was the rather emotional contribution of Ian Nairn (I note that his superlative and evocative description of Up Marden has been retained, for example, p. 507, and the editors pay due tribute to him on pp. xvi-xvii). I understand Surrey will be out the year after next, and hope it retains some of Nairn’s withering asides.
Many thanks for the update on Cork, which mist have come in ahead of time since I though it was scheduled for July: I will get it. In terms of the order of buildings, this must have been a recent change of policy. In South Ulster (2013), the CofI comes first on the whole. In Central Leinster (2019) the order seems to be a bit more random: on the whole it is ordered by relative antiquity, unless (it seems) there is an active RC church and a shuttered, but older CofI church in the same settlement.
Many thanks, again!
English Athena: I am appalled that the Church authorities saw fit to impale you – an *unsalaried volunteer* – on the horns of such an egregious dilemma. The Church would implode without the work undertaken gratis by people like yourself. I am very sorry indeed that this should have happened to you, hopefully not in Hereford diocese.
Stephen: The ‘big sleep’ that Kemp inflicted on the diocese also worked to conceal a considerable amount of unpleasantness. I have previously tried to excuse the malfunctioning of the Chichester diocese on the grounds that its head is located at once geographical extreme, meaning that supervision over the easternmost districts is necessarily constrained. However, the Peterborough diocese has a similar configuration and comparable transport issues, but yet has not experienced anything like the same failings (as far as I am aware) as Chichester; indeed, I met a veteran of Peterborough at Fairwarp [near Crowborough] shortly after commencing my pilgrimage who said “You cannot believe what this diocese [Chichester] is like. I am utterly dismayed by some of the things I have heard.”
Like a fish, corporate culture tends to rot from the head down, and it seems to me that Kemp was the man in charge and set the tone. One of the things that disappointed me about the IICSA hearings is that Kemp was mentioned en passant. Yet it was he who was in charge, and supposedly accountable, for the overwhelming majority of the period in which the various abuse cases occurred. Whilst I appreciate (further to some of the comments above, especially by Gilo) that Hind also warrants further probing, I do feel that there are still a number of questions to be asked about the way in which Kemp – and Hind – ran the diocese (Hind being something of a ‘continuation Kemp’, and presumably appointed on that basis in order to mollify the A-C party in Sussex).
You mention Kemp’s fustiness. His biography was entitled “Shy, but not retiring”: a witty allusion to his over-long term of office, but also – I suspect – a nod to the ultra-fustian Claude Jenkins (who was regius professor of ecclesiastical history at Oxford from 1934 until his death in 1959; a famous character, but better known as a character than as a scholar, though his range of erudition was remarkable), who declared himself to be “not of a retiring disposition” (Christ Church having tried repeatedly to put him out to pasture). I’m not certain that Kemp would have been right as a chaplain fellow, because it’s not evident, to me, that he would have had an instinctive rapport with most students; he should have risen no higher than, say, priest-librarian at Pusey House. I’m not certain that even prior to the Age of Reform a fusty and bloodless bishop would have been a good fit anywhere; there were, to be sure, some eccentric appointments (Lord William Gascoyne-Cecil was palpably incompetent, but this was offset by his ‘loveableness’), but Kemp is surely ‘special’.
Thanks. Basically, I wasn’t wanted. And if I wanted to be used, I would have to try elsewhere. But as a Reader has to stay in a church for six months before asking….. A wearisome business at best, toting your wares around. I should have been helped and supported to make a move.
In some diocese Readers are helped to move, and are not required to be in a parish for 6 months before the decision is made. I have a friend who moved into Carlisle diocese, had an interview with the bishop, and became Reader in Charge of two parishes in a group benefice. A happy outcome for all concerned.
Well, good. But that is not always the case! Can I ask Stephen to pass on either my email address to you, or yours to me? I don’t want mine published.
I’m sorry to see that Gilo’s comment about Butler-Sloss has disappeared.
I’m checking something out for accuracy and the comment will hopefully reappear tomorrow.
Someone invited me yesterday to say a little more about Baroness Butler-Sloss’s involvement. One could write a long essay. But I’ll keep it short.
Lady Butler-Sloss completed her report in May 2011, but then made several amendments in January 2012 after a BBC investigation (below) in July 2011 revealed significant inaccuracies.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o3fug1GuC0U
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ANR4ZU2sZU
And in a meeting with Phil Johnson, Butler-Sloss had said she wanted “to leave the bishop (Peter Ball) out”.
Contrast these two short recordings:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s_aY2HbzsS8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e4sZu-DdCfM
You must form your own judgement. Was Phil Johnson hectored into ‘agreement’ to leave Ball out of the report? Or did he, as Butler-Sloss say, “change his story”. I know my response.
Readers may not be aware of the backdrop. Bishop Peter Ball had previously been briefly mentioned in an official report in the diocese. Butler-Sloss was aware of this, as she had been brought in by Bishop John Hind to review the earlier Meekings report. (It later turned out that Meekings had not been shown documents that would have shed light on a number of abusive priests including the former bishop of Gloucester.)
Meekings questioned whether Butler-Sloss was truly ‘independent’, and he suspected that her appointment represented “an attempt to dismiss what I had written and to salvage Bishop Wallace’s reputation and the reputation of the Diocese”. An email to Chris Smith (Chief of Staff to the Archbishop at the time) from Andrew Nunn (Archbishop’s Correspondence Secretary at Lambeth Palace) indicated that Bishop Hind knew Lady Butler‑Sloss personally. In Nunn’s opinion, the bishop had appointed her because “he and (Bishop Wallace) Benn will be safe in her hands”.
Lady Butler-Sloss only spoke with one victim as part of her enquiries. But on the positive, she did advise that the Meekings report should be published, to enable a proper understanding of her review. At that time, it had not been published because Bishop Benn had threatened legal action.
The Archepiscopal Visitation in Chichester was instigated by the current DSA and by Rowan Williams in December 2011 as result of the diocese failing to address the problem of Bishop Wallace Benn and his approach to safeguarding amongst other things.
And as we know it took a further four years to bring Bishop Peter Ball to trial