(Apologies to Alan Bennett)
An offering to Surviving Church from an anonymous contributor who speaks of the Kafkaesque experience of being at the wrong end of a Church of England Core Group
First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
‘First They Came’ is the oft-quoted and adapted poetic form of the post-war confession in 1946, from the German Lutheran Pastor Martin Niemöller. His confession was about the cowardice of intellectuals, Christians and most clergy for saying nothing in the face of injustice, even when it was right in front of them, in plain sight. They all chose to look away. This included, and by his own admission, Niemöller himself. Niemöller’s prose raises two questions for us today. First, who are they? Second, who are we? In what I describe below I seek to address that question. I write anonymously, but I do so autobiographically, with some details changed.
——————————————————————————————————-
They wrote to tell me that they had formed a Core Group. It was all about me, apparently, and my ‘practices’. Not now, of course. But something done or not done in the past. The person writing told me that they couldn’t say anymore at this stage. They had decided I would have to be investigated. They couldn’t tell me what it was about in detail. I would understand that they had to maintain their confidentiality.
They told me to step back from a number of duties, voluntarily. Or I would be punished with some suspension. They told me this was non-negotiable, but they were just asking. Nicely. But that if I didn’t comply, there would be trouble.
They told me they would allocate me some support. They had selected someone for me. I was in too much shock to take notice. This person, they said, would help me. With what, I asked? At this stage, they said, they could not say anything further. But they had allocated me some support. Did they know anything, I asked? No, they said. The support person was picked for me, but remains outside the ‘process’.
Then they sent a letter. There would be a statement on the website and an agreed announcement about the process I ‘had agreed to enter into’. But I protested, I hadn’t ‘agreed’ to anything. I’d been given no choice: forced. They replied I did have a choice. Comply, or lose your job, they said. I asked who wrote the statement? They said the Core Group had ‘agreed it’, and that there was nothing I could do about it.
The letter, they said, would be helpful. It wasn’t. It outlined some specimen ‘accusations’ against me, and told me this meant I would be categorised as a ‘risk’ for the time being. But I was not to worry. Being suspended was a purely ‘neutral act’ – it did not imply any guilt on my part. This was merely a ‘routine’ process, so I should not be concerned about my reputation. They told me I could not talk to anyone about what was happening. That I had to keep this confidential. That I was not allowed to say anything about this to anyone.
I asked if I could have an advocate – some legal advice, perhaps? They said that would not be necessary. They said I was not ‘on trial’ in this process. Although, they did add that if the ‘investigation’ concluded that I was a ‘risk’, then I could lose my role, home and livelihood. I asked if I would have input into that decision? They said that would be a matter for the Core Group. They added that I could take my own legal advice – if I wanted. But at my expense, of course.
I asked, who was on the Core Group? They could not say at this stage: it was confidential. I asked how the Core Group was formed? They could not say, as it was confidential to the Core Group. I asked if it was free from conflicts of interest, bias, or people using it for vindictive purposes, or making vexatious and ruinous allegations? They said the Core Group managed these things, and there was a process. I asked if I could see a transcript or details of what I was accused of? They said that was confidential to the Core Group. I asked if there was a process of appeal, or perhaps a complaint process? They told me they would think about that.
I asked what would happen if they got things wrong? They seemed puzzled by this question. The process was agreed. The Core Group had met. Accusations and allegations had been made. There would have to be an investigation. Surely, they said, I could see they had to continue with their process until it was completed?
I told them that some people committed suicide when faced with the shaming of such allegations and accusations. Many people who did not take their own lives became depressed instead, and signed off sick. Or just resigned. Or both. It could take years to recover from the trauma of being falsely accused. Reputations might never be restored. They said nothing. So I asked again. They still did not answer. I asked again. They reminded me that they had allocated me a support person. If I did not want the one they allocated, I could choose my own. That was it, they said.
I told them that this could be financially ruinous for me. They said, ‘the process must come first. We cannot run this around concerns for you, your wellbeing, welfare reputation or your family. Victims must come first!’. I said that there weren’t any victims. No-one had complained. That this was all made up, and just malicious.
They just said that everybody had to be treated the same, and there could be no special pleading. I had to be investigated in the same way as anyone else who ‘potentially posed a risk’. Could I not see that this was ‘fair’?
I protested. Fair on who, or what, I asked? Do I have to prove my innocence, lest I be presumed guilty? Are we not all ‘potential risks’? I could not see any fairness in their process. I could see no transparency, accountability or truthfulness. I could not see any evidence of concern for me, due process, or for the interests of the victims or survivors of abuse. They said that the church had to ‘look like it was doing the right thing’. It can’t be seen to be letting some people off lightly.
So I gave them a list of people who they had already let off lightly. Or in some cases, had decided to not investigate at all. These people were all known abusers. They had caused untold damage to dozens, even hundreds of people. Over many decades. People had known about their abuse for years. But nothing had been done to them, or to the people who knew about it. So I asked, why was I being singled out?
They did not answer. They said that each Core Group came to its own conclusions. That they could not comment on individual cases. That if no investigation of a known abuser had taken place, there must have been good reasons in the process for this to have been decided at the time. The fact that these people were eventually found to be abusers, and had now been named was, of course, ‘regrettable’.
I asked if there was ever any apology for the victims in these cases? They said that if they had decided not to investigate such people then, they could not possibly be held responsible for the actions of abusers now, or for what they had done to their victims. They said that was ‘obvious’.
I asked them why they put out a media statement about me, but not about others who were being ‘investigated’? That was a Core Group decision, they told me. So I asked who made decisions about who was to be named and shamed, and who was to be shielded from any exposure to the media? There was no answer.
I asked again. They told me these decisions were made on a case-by-case basis. They ‘reassured’ me that there was no hidden ‘agenda’ against me. Everything that was done, is being done, and will be done to you, is done for the sake of the victims and survivors, who ‘must come first’, they said.
I said, ‘it looks like you are just protecting your own reputation here…I mean, you throw a few people to the wolves to make it look like you have got robust structures, but you just operate secretly and with no sense of accountability or justice…’. Again, they did not answer me.
So I went to the bible, and I read them these words from Nicodemus in the Gospel of John (7: 51): “Does our law seriously judge people without first giving them a hearing to find out the facts, and discover what they are doing?” I said that word “seriously” like John McEnroe did – a kind of shouted, sarcastic, sulky squeal.
They didn’t like this. I knew that, because by now I had figured out that anything they didn’t like, or any question they didn’t want to answer, meant that they just kept silent. They did not need to speak to me, or answer me. They are not answerable to anyone. They are unaccountable.
They could do what they liked with me and to me. The process allowed them to suspend me; to recommend my removal; to name and shame me; to draw on evidence against me, but refuse to hear evidence or testimony for me. They could go after anyone they liked. No-one was above them.
I asked, ‘seriously…how is any justice served by this?’. They just told me that they operated with their own processes. They were not like healthcare, government, social care or other bodies. So, they did not need to follow the good practices of other organisations and institutions, because they were not like them. They did not need to operate justly or fairly, because they self-audited, judged themselves, and worked with their own standards and protocols. This all worked well for them, they said.
I asked them about all the illness and trauma they were causing me. I mentioned the sleepless nights, the stress to my family, the medication, the financial costs and the reputational damage they were inflicting. They said ‘we can see that this must be a difficult time for you’. But they said nothing more. And they did nothing more. They carried on with their process.
I no longer know what they are doing. I know nothing about the new Core Group they set up to investigate me. I don’t know who they are. I don’t know if they are doing this to me deliberately to cause me harm, or because they are incompetent, and too proud to admit their failings. But I do know that I no longer trust them. I do know that I no longer believe them. I do know that none of their statements can be taken at face value anymore. I do know that they are bungling – but also dangerous. I do know that when your church hierarchy can’t be trusted any longer, something deeply corrupt has taken root in that body.
As I reflect, I wonder how we ever arrived at this sorry state of affairs. When you can’t believe and trust your bishops and other high-ranking officials in the church, because they cannot demonstrate truthfulness, transparency and fairness, what is left for us? Just questions, I think. And a group of people – I have only referred to them as ‘they’ – who don’t answer to anyone, or think they need to answer anything.
That question comes round again: “Does our law seriously judge people without first giving them a hearing to find out the facts, and discover what they are doing?” Poor Nicodemus. He never got an answer from the Pharisees and Sadducees. Nor would Nicodemus get one from our church today. Authorities know how to keep silences – that is their main mode of violence.
They had pursued others before me; but I said nothing. I assumed the authorities knew what they were doing then; that they must be right. In getting rid of these others, it showed they must have done something wrong to deserve such treatment. But then they came for me.
They may come for you too. Who are they? Who are we? I am not longer very sure. But please remember this: I have warned you.
‘Core Group.’
This bland term is rapidly developing its own malevolent Orwellian undertones. It is remarkable how something so ineptly titled, yet attempting to address such delicate matters, could become self-discrediting so quickly.
Scrap core groups. Start again.
Obviously this is not going to happen, so let’s encourage anonymous whistleblowers to speak up and let out the poison. How about here on this blog?
This is an appalling story. In fact, this “imagined” perpetrator is being treated as many victims are. “They” talk about you, not to you. They talk over the phone or across a coffee table, where the data protection act does not operate. And no one tells you what you are being punished for. No formal accusation, no trial, no evidence presented or needed. You see the change in people’s eyes, someone has told them ….. what? That’s what “they” did to me. I did complain , but not formally. I was terrified. If they could do this to me when I hadn’t done anything wrong, what would they do if I really annoyed them? And people knew. An endless parade of good people who did nothing. They probably thought it might indeed be them next.
Great article Stephen. And so accurate. I tried for nearly a year to stand up to unfair processes, but the diocese just refused to engage fairly. I tried for the sake of others and for the sake of the future, but as so many others attest, I became the villain, was asked to act with honour when noone else would and was eventually crushed. I had to leave the cofe altogether. Keep up the good work, but I think the system is stacked against what is right. To quote your ‘core group’ they have to be ‘seen to do the right thing’, but often that bears very little relation to the right thing and is just about being ‘seen’.
They haven’t learnt much have they? https://www.thinkinganglicans.org.uk/7745-2/
This was at end of 2017 and the issues of contamination and corruption persist unresolved. Needless to say Bishops Hancock and Mullally did nothing to examine the issues, but imagined that everything in the hands of the NST was safe, above board and fully functional. Both bishops abdicated responsibility to a group and culture inside Church House which was anything but above board. The hallmarks of dishonesty and dysfunctionality were those of its senior management and overseers.
Finally this past week, we saw a bishop (Pete Broadbent), who I’m told is a considerable power in the land, tweet in recognition of core group dysfunctionality:
“There are major issues about the way the National Safeguarding Team Core Groups operate. Even if you don’t agree with all the points made here, there must be a agreement on a proper review and overhaul of process. Too much of this is Kafka-esque.” https://twitter.com/petespurs/status/1279730076943355904?s=20
They might be getting it finally. But it’s probably too late to rescue a misappropriated NST from the train wreck of the Martyn Percy core group. It should be better called the Christ Church/Winckworth Sherwood/Luther Pendragon core goup. They seem to be running this scurrilous circus.
It’s terrifying. It could happen to any of us. Perhaps the only recourse would be to leave the Church of England – but that wouldn’t restore a reputation, let alone preserve a ministry, a home and a salary. for those still employed by the Church.
Kangaroo courts are not new to the Church of England. It has the precedent of the Court of High Commission (until 1580 the ‘Commissioners for Ecclesiastical Causes’), established by a statute of 1 Eliz. c. 1., then abolished in 1641 and revived, albeit briefly by James II and VII in a quite different guise and with lesser powers (1686-88).
High Commission was one of the so-called ‘prerogative courts’ (along with Star Chamber). Its jurisdiction was unlimited, but was intended by John Whitgift to discipline recidivists and and oppress sectaries. One of the ways it was especially oppressive was that it compelled suspects to swear the so-called oath ‘ex officio’, which would force them to incriminate themselves (unlike the well-established rule in the common law). As far as James I and VI it was intended to function as an organ which would enable the state to break the common law, and it was this interpretation of its functions which turned Edward Coke and other common lawyers against it.
There are reasons why religious dissent has been as strong as it has been in the history of Anglicanism. The reputation of the Church of England as a denomination for ‘nice people’ is a relatively recent one.
So these so-called ‘core groups’ may be construed a recrudescence of an old tendency in the history of the Church, in which people are presumed guilty, and where they are subject to arbitrary and oppressive forces. What seems particularly disturbing about this moving piece is the apparent reversal of the burden of proof.
At least in France the juge d’instruction is a public official who has some accountability, even if his/her activities are often problematic. At least in England and Wales the CPS will operate by means of well defined protocols which are subject to legal challenge.
These core groups appear to be extra-legal (are they illegal?) and would appear to operate in a capricious, secretive and possibly biased manner. As emanations of the Church they are not subject to FOIA. As such they strike me as being not merely insidious, but malignant.
Is this not yet another reason for vesting all safeguarding in an organ of the state, and for investigations to be conducted by the CPS – that is, entirely outside the control of the Church?
The besetting sin of the Church’s approach to safeguarding is the [unwitting?] conflation of its perception of ‘justice’ with the preservation of its reputation. To that end, individuals like the author of this excellent piece (and his/her family), must be chewed up in the process. Are the interests of victims best served by a ‘process’ of this kind?
It is reported today on ‘Thinking Anglicans’ that two members of the ‘Percy Core Group’ have been ‘removed’ from the Group on the grounds that their membership involved a conflict of interests. On the known facts, that conflict ought to have been evident to them and the other members of the Core Group from the outset.
Yeah. It’s in the Church Times too.
I wonder if ‘Froghole’ could help me with part of the letter I recently received from the NST, only last month? It says:
“The aim of [this] internal Church investigation is to establish whether or not [you are] suitable to fulfil a Church role which carries the potential for engagement with children, young people and/or vulnerable adults … The aim is not to establish the guilt of the Church officer [meaning me]”.
The NST go on to say that “I am not on trial”, so I will not be needing legal representation. Nor do I need to be represented in any way at the Core Group. Apparently, if I was deceased (like Bp. George Bell) a representative could be present to have due regard for the interests of any living relatives. Not that this helped George Bell much, as “extensive searching” by the Church of England revealed he had no living relatives. Although Lord Carlile reports it took him only a few hours in a web-search to find several living relatives. (Otherwise, we can feel entirely confident about the NST’s investigations and their premises).
However, I digress. Can any reader explain how the letter and process outlined does not put me on trial, given that the end result could be the termination of my ministry? I’d be most grateful for any comments. ANON (for obvious reasons).
We can’t explain how you aren’t being put on trial, because clearly you are. The process is obviously unjust. At least, it’s obvious to practically everybody but senior Church of England officials.
I’m sorry this is happening to you – as is it is to so many others.
Anonymous: I must emphasise very strongly that I am neither an ecclesiastical lawyer nor an employment lawyer.
Much, I guess, will depend on how you hold your position in the Church: whether you have a contract of employment or whether you have some other position, probably under common tenure (assuming you are not an old-style freeholder). The current status of the law was clarified in 2015: https://www.lawandreligionuk.com/2013/12/07/clergy-employment-and-sharpe-v-worcester-dbf/ and http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/2013/0243_12_2811.html.
The fact that Mr Sharpe lost was deemed to be good for clergy who want the ‘flexibility’ of being an office holder, but supposedly bad for clergy who want the rights of employees.
I note this in Rule 1 of the Clergy Discipline Rules:
“The overriding objective of these rules is to enable formal disciplinary proceedings brought under the Measure to be dealt with justly, in a way that is both fair to all relevant interested persons and proportionate to the nature and seriousness of the issues raised. The rules are, so far as is reasonably practicable, to be applied in accordance with the following principles —
(a)The complainant and the respondent shall be treated on an equal footing procedurally.
(b)The complainant and the respondent shall be kept informed of the procedural progress of the complaint….”
Query whether you are being treated on an ‘equal footing’, assuming this investigation is a preliminary to a CDM (see https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2005/2022/contents/made). From your description it does not seem like it. However, they will probably seek cover under the reference to proportionality and the words ‘reasonably practicable’ (though ‘reasonableness’ imputes an objective test).
As to representation, it appears there is no right to legal representation in internal hearings for employees under the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act 1992 (but also note also Art. 6 of the ECHR) but they can be accompanied by a fellow worker or union official of their choice (and there is an ACAS procedure associated with this). However, if you are not an employee (as per the Sharpe case) it is difficult to know how you could be represented satisfactorily, given that the Church appears to stand outside these legal structures.
My gut reaction/hunch (to be treated with considerable caution) is that you should join Unite or some other union. Unite assisted Sharpe with his case. You could argue that the authorities are breaching the overriding objective in the 2005 Rules; on that basis you could get Unite to work with you as representative (rather than have an inappropriate stranger foisted upon you). Unite, in turn, have a very close association with Thompsons, one of the leading employment law firms: https://www.thompsonstradeunion.law/trade-unions/unite. They, and Unite, may have reflected on the Sharpe case and have thought of different approaches.
Very best of luck!
In terms of unite, if the problem has already begun before you join they will only offer telephone help. But I can say from experience that informing the bishop that I would be bringing my unite rep. when I had (non CDM) problems, put the wind up them and completely altered their approach. The base line is that they are cowards. However, saying that, I ended up resigning because I was fed up with their stubborn refusal to follow any of their protocols.
Anon. If you’re in Norwich diocese, be very careful.
In advance of any response by Froghole, may I set out my thoughts.
I can’t believe that Lord Carlile’s recommendation, quoted below, was only intended to apply in the case of a deceased respondent, but it was worded in the context of a report dealing with one, Bishop Bell, and it seems that the Church is possibly interpreting it in that way.
“[B] SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS, LESSONS TO BE LEARNED AND RECOMMENDATIONS
“21. The Core Group should have, in addition to someone advocating for the complainant, someone assigned to it to represent the interests of the accused person and his or her descendants.”
But “descendant” has a wider meaning than a descendant of a deceased person. For example, a grandson of a living person is a descendant of that person. I’m sure that Lord Carlile intended the living accused person to be represented.
The following further extract from Lord Carlile’s report isn’t a complete answer, as Lord Carlile was referring to the Bishops’ Safeguarding Rules in their unamended 2017 draft version, when saying this In his concluding observations:
“292. Subject to the replacement throughout the text of ‘victim/survivor’ with ‘complainant’ consistent with the recommendation described above of Sir Richard Henriques, the document is sound for cases against living persons.”
Martin Sewell has written to ‘The Church Times’ (letters 15th July) pointing out that (except for one non-relevant matter), the Guidelines have not been updated to accord with Lord Carlile’s recommendations.
I’m sorry that this doesn’t answer your question. I have written elsewhere that this scenario is impossible – quite illegal – in a ‘civilian’ or lay situation and could be challenged by judicial review. But I freely admit that I don’t know to what extent Church disciplinary procedures are subject to the jurisdiction of the High Court. The same comment must apply to Human Rights legislation.
These are matters for a specialist lawyer, and I’m sorry that I cannot suggest anything specifically more helpful.
Many thanks indeed for that! You make an excellent and very helpful point. I had completely forgotten about the Carlile report.
Thank you also for referring Anonymous to the correspondence from Mr Sewell. He makes a very apt and interesting point, which goes to the heart of the Church’s standing within our political economy. Although most Church ’employment’ seems to stand outside, or in a soi-disant relationship with, mainline employment law, and it is exempt from FOIA, etc., its rules are not internal: it could be argued that they are a species of public (or at least semi-private) law.
Query whether the Church could be taken to the administrative court (or judicial review court as it is now known) so that its rules are brought into line with the rest of society. The Church cannot have its cake and eat it: it cannot maintain the spurious privileges of ‘establishment’ (whatever that means) and yet exempt itself from due scrutiny. Now I have a strong suspicion that if a case like this went before the judicial review court it could well hold that it has no locus standi (the failure to include the Church on the list of bodies to which FOIA applies was a portent of this), which would be a roundabout way of saying that ecclesiastical law is now a form of de facto private law and that the Church is effectually disestablished. However, even bringing a case like that, or at any rate threatening to do so, might be enough to embarrass the Church into doing the right thing.
When I reflect upon the standing of the Church and its laws I am reminded of the story of the tomb of Henry IV and Joan of Navarre being opened for the first time in 1832: their bodies were found to be in a state of perfect preservation, but as soon as light was cast upon them they dissolved into a pile of dust.
Again, I must stress how dismayed I am by Anonymous’ story, and that I hope things go as well as possible for him/her and his/her family. The Church must realise that it will be doing the alleged victim no favours whatsoever if any finding is tainted by accusations of bias, unfairness or sharp practice. How can any victim ever have real clearance if the outcome has an ‘aromatic’ quality to it?
It may seem a little heartless to talk about Anonymous’ predicament in the third person, but on my reading of the situation he /she is not facing a CDM. The core group ‘procedure’ arises from the provisions of the House of Bishops’ Safeguarding Guidelnes 2017 – in theory a factual investigation in response to allegations which aren’t specified or disclosed, and if it is any consolation to Anonymous, can result in no further action.
I can’t think of a similar situation in the civilian/ lay world where a defendant must always be told what is being alleged against him or her, and must be allowed access to a lawyer if he or she potentially faces charges.
As is obvious, Froghole replied while I was still writing mine. His advice seems appropriate.
Anon, my best wishes and prayers, too. Someone once suggested the court of the Daily Mail to me in similar circumstances, but I wasn’t brave enough. I’m so sorry.
Excellent responses to your question Anon
CECA is a workplace grouping of all Church of England clergy who are members of Unite Faith Workers Branch of Unite. I don’t know much about them. And there may be other unions with clergy focus. There used to be something called the Clergy Section of the MSF Union. Not sure whether that’s still going?
Seeing the corrupted circus that the Dean of Christ Church is being dragged through, it seems sensible to advise all vicars and employed church workers to join one of the unions to protect your rights. The idea that someone (whether survivor or someone against whom an allegation has been made) doesn’t need proper representation at these infamous core groups is an idea that needs to be challenged firmly. If the NST needed to learn any thing from the Carlile Report – this was one of them. Hope this helps.
https://unitetheunion.org/what-we-do/unite-in-your-sector/community-youth-workers-and-not-for-profit/faith-organisations/
I am grateful for Froghole’s advice and other contributors. I am already a member of Unite. The problem one has with the NST is that they class what they are doing as “an internal church investigation”. You can’t get insurance for an internal disciplinary proceeding against you by your ’employer’. Nor will the Union usually help until it becomes at Employment Tribunal. This is a good wheeze for the CofE/NST. If you want to fight them, you have to fund yourself, and then recoup your costs in a Small Claims Court process. I am thinking of doing this, because it is a good way to expose the shoddy and unjust treatment one gets at the hands of an incompetent institution.
So yes, I am on trial. Although the NST deny this. I am not allowed to see the evidence against me. And everything about that ‘They’ article is basically correct. What hollow sentiments were uttered last week at General Synod by the new Lead Bishop for Safeguarding. I heard several times the words”natural justice” used, and “fair to all parties” from his very lips. In the NST, both are MIA – if indeed they were ever there.
We posted at nearly the same time. Glad you’re a member of Unite.
Yes, the NST is a bonkers train-ride for anyone unlucky enough to climb aboard. Survivors are familiar with the practice that these core groups had of comprising various branches of lawyers (both church and insurance legals) – whilst not even letting the survivor or his/her legal representative know. Ian Elliott attended the core group on my case, and apparently when he came out of the first one he turned to the senior caseworker by his side and said “I haven’t a clue what the Church of England thinks it’s doing!” He was only able to tell me this about two years later when he was released from silence.
Disturbing that so little has been learnt inside Church House. One problem is that there is now almost no institutional memory or narrative left in the NST, other than within its overlords and comms who are probably not inclined to share much. Far too many bodies they would rather leave unturned by the ‘new’ NST ?
Just a comment back to Froghole on two points:
“(a)The complainant and the respondent shall be treated on an equal footing procedurally.
(b)The complainant and the respondent shall be kept informed of the procedural progress of the complaint….”
The short answer is “no” to both. This is an entirely “complainant-led” crusade by the NST. There are “victims” either. The “complainants” are in fact colleagues, and no person is complaining about any abuse of mine. My colleagues are using the NST to argue that I did not follow procedures in my line of work. I am not even employed by the CofE. Yet the NST have waded in. It was clear from the outset that they don’t know what they are doing. So far, my legal fees are about £4k defending this action of the NST. The NST just say “only doing our job…”. And, please step back from your duties while we investigate, “to keep everyone safe”. No explanation as to what kind of “risk” I might pose. But apparently, “unsafe”. You can’t make it up.
Anonymous: It seems you know who the complainants are, and that certain statements may have been published about you. Given the risk to your career and livelihood of this NST action, I wonder whether you would be able to argue that the complaints (assuming they are baseless) might be defamatory, in that you are likely to suffer ‘serious harm’. In defamation the burden of proof is on the defendant, but the claimant (i.e., you) must be able to show serious harm – an innovation of the Defamation Act 2013: https://www.taylorwessing.com/download/article-interpreting-serious-harm-in-defamation-act-2013.html. See Section 1: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2013/26/contents/enacted.
You might have considered this already. Based on Rusty Shackleford’s remarks above, and assuming you do have positive proof of the identity of the complainants, I wonder whether letters before action to them and perhaps to the NST officials might be worth consideration. It will be best to investigate this further with a solicitor. I am not necessarily suggesting that you go through with anything, but that there might be some value in disconcerting the NST: attack being a useful line of defence.
Indeed, a ‘whiff of grapeshot’ (as per Napoleon Bonaparte on 13 Vendemiaire) might be appropriate here, in view of the treatment you have sustained and its potential consequences for you – not only in terms of your immediate career, but with respect to your future employment, and the consequences that might have for your family.
I also note this statement amongst the responsibilities of the chair of the core group (Section 1.6.1, here: https://www.churchofengland.org/sites/default/files/2017-11/responding-to-assessing-and-managing-concerns-or-allegations-against-church-officers.pdf): “Establishing membership of the group, ensuring all appropriate parties are present – discretion should be exercised as to the necessary and proportionate involvement of parties”. It seems to me that you have been locked out of the core group, and that if that is the case and if the complaints against you are based upon an alleged procedural oversight, your exclusion is not ‘proportionate’.
However, I would defer to other SC contributors who will probably have better, and more sensible, insights as to how best for you to proceed. I myself have found the remarks made by Rowland Wateridge, Gilo and Rusty Shackleford above to be very helpful and interesting.
Thanks again to Froghole for these comments. I have a few comments that may add some colour and background here:
1. The Chair failed in my case comprehensively to ask or address issues of Conflict of Interest. So three of the complainants sat at the Core Group table, two of whom had serious form with prior substantial investment in removing me from office.
2. No Minutes of my Core Group were taken, and there was no Minute-taker!! The NST senior person attending the Core Group ‘cooked up’ the minutes three months later. These minutes only reflect the narrative of the complainants, who had briefed the NST staff who came to the Core Group. So, all fine then…
3. The NST cannot distinguish between an adult-at-risk and a vulnerable adult. This is a legal, statutory distinction. This is a dreadful position for any Chaplain to be in who is employed by another institution. Can a shell-shocked soldier complain to the NST they were a vulnerable adult, who received ministry from a Chaplain that was not up to scratch? Apparently they can…
4. http://survivingchurch.org/2020/05/28/a-letter-from-the-future-safeguarding-in-2025/ – worth a look, as the ‘Letter’ referenced here means that any clergyperson is now in the scope of the NST, as their definition of ‘vulnerable adult’ is so broad as to be useless – and dangerous. The NST have become a kind of Cold-Case Pastoral Police Force: they can look at anything in your past, and present, and determine your future. This is madness, frankly. There is nothing off-limits for these people. Yet they have no accountability. Spanish Inquisition?
I would be interested to know if any readers of Dr. Parson’s website have any confidence – I do mean any here – in the NST?
As. survivor and complainant, I have none at all.
As a bystander in cases like yours, absolutely zilch.
As a priest, I’m ashamed of my church.
Thankfully, I have no experience of core groups.
Your situation really requires an expert lawyer – employment and ecclesiastical. Aren’t Unite able to assist with this? I don’t recommend DIY. It can be very dangerous particularly in such a specialist field.
On just one angle of this, one can point to the example of Martyn Percy’s case, as mentioned above, where members of the Core Group were “removed” from the group in view of conflict of interests – in itself a shameful happening which must also reflect on remaining members of the group who ought to have been aware of the impropriety of the group being so constituted. The other matters you mention in your own case are almost beyond belief.
Many thanks again, Mr Wateridge! I think you are right that recourse to a law firm would be much the wisest course of action, especially given the relative complexity of the issues and the awkward overlap of two specialisms.
I mentioned Thompsons (as the firm associated with Unite, and other unions). Hopefully they can provide a measure of advice, though I note Anonymous’ remarks above about ‘internal investigations’ and whether Unite can get Thompsons involved with them.
The Sharpe case is pretty unusual in having been a cross-over of ecclesiastical and employment law.
When it went to the Employment Appeal Tribunal in 2013, EAD Solicitors of Liverpool acted for Mr Sharpe: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/2013/0243_12_2811.html. Having lost, Sharpe appealed to the Court of Appeal, retaining EAD (https://www.employmentcasesupdate.co.uk/site.aspx?i=ed26613 and http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2015/399.html). EAD have since been taken over by Simpson Millar (https://www.simpsonmillar.co.uk/our-people/?SearchTerm=&SortOrder=&Service=Employment&Office=Liverpool&Take=12). Whether any of the individuals referenced here worked on that appeal is moot. It might be worth contacting them.
With respect to counsel, John Bowers, of Littleton Chambers, is now principal of BNC, so is unlikely to be available, but his junior is here: https://www.9sjs.com/our-people/barristers/david-campion/.
I have been looking further at this: https://www.churchofengland.org/sites/default/files/2017-11/responding-to-assessing-and-managing-concerns-or-allegations-against-church-officers.pdf. Note also pp. 39-40 and 41-42. I note the following statements:
“If anyone carrying out these roles is the subject of the allegation or has any conflict of
interest or loyalty such as: personally, knowing the respondent and/or the victim/survivor; is witness in the investigation; are pastorally supporting the respondent and/or the victim/survivor, They should not be included in the core group”.
Yet it seems, from the information Anonymous has supplied that there are several people who know Anonymous as the respondent sitting on the applicable core group (just as students of Christ Church on the Percy core group knew Dr Percy).
It seems to be the DSA who has to constitute the core group, and who should do the due diligence on its composition. Presumably it would have been Richard Woodley for the Percy core group.
However, there is no reference to the respondent being represented. As to the minutes, “Minutes from all core group meetings should be taken and circulated to attendees as soon as possible after each meeting; absent members should be briefed on decisions taken as soon as possible.”
As to Anonymous’ final remarks, I guess there is probably a consensus amongst those who write into SC about the utility of the NST.
This comment may be academic in view of what Stephen says below about what we can expect here shortly, but my recollection about the Percy case is that the diocese was bypassed in setting up the Core Group – just one of the many facets of that extraordinary saga. Christ Church is a peculiar, but apparently not a Royal one, and I have yet to discoVer whose peculiar it is. It seems that only ‘insiders’ can have the remotest idea about jurisdiction there. But the Core Group has, of course, been a church initiative.
That is very interesting, and I hadn’t thought about that.
All I can find on the topic, is here (at p. 62): https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=iQJMAQAAQBAJ&pg=PA61&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false, but also here (though the main text is behind a paywall, the notes are useful): https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/ecclesiastical-law-journal/article/what-is-a-peculiar/2289956BD2ED495EBC33886253D6DE6D
As you probably know, the vast majority of peculiars were abolished between about 1836 and 1858, usually by order in council, with a massive bonfire in 1846.
So, in my case, having been branded “unsafe” by the NST before they even started their “investigation” (jury is out on that, apparently – you have to prove you are safe and suitable to continue in ministry), the process grinds on. It’s very interesting that the NST has switched the burden of proof from prosecution to defence – so now it is the responsibility of all clergy, no matter what they may be accused of, and no matter how silly or vexatious, to establish their innocence.
There is no natural justice in this at all. As a friend remarked the other day – how do you ‘prove’ you are ‘suitable’ to go into a John Lewis store? Or prove beyond doubt you were ‘safe’ to be allowed out for shopping in the first place? Meanwhile, a ‘vulnerable adult’ is, according to the NST, any person who may ‘feel vulnerable’; self-identify as that; be temporarily tired, emotional, weak or distressed; or be in a situation where it might be somebody has power over them that makes them feel ‘vulnerable’. Although memories of life before lockdown are hazy, I think we used to name this state of mind as “the human condition”, and that our weakness, emotional fragility and occasional physical and mental fraility was, er, normal for most of us?
But fear not, the NST is on hand to stop all human beings (in England, anyway) from having their humanity abused by any clergyperson foolish enough to try and pastor a person who has peitioned for aid. It is truly ironic, isn’t it, that this makes clergy the weakest and most vulnerable of us all – and so we must live on fear and trembling of the NST? Who, as a body, naturally, don’t have to be accountable to anyone or any body for the emotional/psychological/financial/reputational abuses that they might visit on the hapless victims that they now ‘police’.
I must re-read Arthur Miller’s ‘Crucible’; that trial scene reminds me of the NST.
Just to whet your appetites, I have a piece about Carlile’s 2017 Review coming out tomorrow. The rapidly changing scenery, including the ‘removal’ of two Percy core members meant that I had to do a bit of rewrite. The quality of the contributions here is extremely high and helpful to cause of justice for individuals damaged by power. That is at the heart of what the blog is and always has been about. Thank you commentators for the enormous care you have put into the comments. Anonymous, Rusty and Janet and others will feel your support
Anonymous, as a survivor whose main support person is a chaplain, who has consistently stood up to the church in order to give me a voice I am very disappointed but not surprised by your distressing case. When my chaplain started to stand up for me the diocesan office rung him to make enquiries about his licensing so it seems you can’t win either way. SCIE who did the audits did not help by raing concerns about the seeming lack of control over chaplains which is rubbish as whatever other institution you are employed by its safeguarding will be a million times better than the church.
It may seem as though the NST are over promoting the ‘vulnerable adult’ but as a vulnerable adult in the proper legal definition sense of the word I know they don’t give a sod about them either. I really would strongly recommend making a GDPR request, which the NST now outsource to an external group to see exactly what has been said. Advice for doing this and a template is on the gov.uk website.
So sorry to hear your troubles and know that for you whatever the outcome you will be left feeling invisible and unseen, do find support and take care.
Anonymous, further to Trish’s excellent suggestion, it is a ‘data subject access request’: https://ico.org.uk/your-data-matters/your-right-to-get-copies-of-your-data/
You will need to review the relevant pages. Essentially, they have to respond within a month, and they can charge a fee for the work, but also withhold data if they can give good reason (for instance, that the data includes personal data about the ‘vulnerable adult’ to whom you have referred). It’s likely that you will wind up with at least some of the data redacted.
Also, if you are unhappy with their response, or if they don’t respond, then you can bring the Information Commissioner into the picture, and the ICO’s powers (including powers to fine) have increased greatly as a function of GDPR (i.e., the Data Protection Act 2018).
Data Subject Access Request will be submitted. Good idea, and thanks. Note to Trish re SCIE – CofE pays them to audit NST and DSA, so there is no critical ombudsman you can take a complaint to if you have been mistreated. Meg Munn only works on policy and has no remit for individual cases. So, if you have a bad NST-Experience, and your Core Group makes a complete Horlicks out of your case, and destroys you reputationally, financially, ministerially, personally…well, don’t forget the NST will have assigned you a link-person to look after your pastoral needs. So you’ll be OK, I guess. Or, you could take the NST to court for their cruel, inept and unjust processes. One day, someone will.
A word of caution: best to have support available when you receive and read through your file. But at least you’ll be able to challenge them on errors and untruths.
Anon, you asked if anyone had confidence in the NST. Until it is removed from the control of Archbishop’s Council, given independent management and retraining … confidence is not possible.
A part-time assistant DSA would know that minutes are crucial to any meeting of a safeguarding nature. That a senior NST member did not appoint a minute taker for a core group, and then ‘cooked them up’ three months later shows worrying incompetence. And for sure the process will lead to confusion, unreliable communication, and injustice.
I have no proof for what I’m about to say. I hope that regular attenders of Parson’s parish view me as a diligent researcher and reliable truth-teller. As an editor of Letters to a Broken Church, people from many parts of this structure talk to me…
Three different people connected to the NST, former insiders – have told me across the last 2 years that in their view the NST is not fit for purpose. They each used “not fit for purpose”. They were speaking about the previous regime, which many survivors knew to be marked by dishonesty and dysfunctional malevolence. It will be difficult for them to speak out – they are protecting pension rights and adhering to confidentiality clauses. We are quietly encouraging a few former staff towards safely blowing the whistle. I hope it will not be long before we see several former personnel speak out about the disturbing cultures they have witnessed. I cannot share here specific things – but they show that the NST was operating on the border of anything most of us would consider ethical. When former staff say “not fit for purpose” about an organisation – something is definitely not right.
The NST is effectively accountable to itself. The overseers in Archbishop’s Council have their own dishonesty to protect so the relationship has been one of duplicity, dysfunctionality, and cognitive dissonance. There are too many bodies that Archbishops Council would prefer left to gather dust. But hopefully soon we will see one significant body emerge with rock solid evidence. Evidence found through an SAR … a process which Trish and others have referenced.
A Subject Access Request is the best way of lifting the veil on structure. If several agencies are involved – multiple SARs may be required. It can be stressful – not the actual process which is the easiest thing – but to plough through the material. And for survivors, an SAR can be very re-triggering, so you have to steel yourself and have support too.
Practical advice: State the dates or years between which you are requesting data. This prevents you from being potentially swamped. Alternatively you may decide you want all the data they hold on you. You can request paper or file. It is possible for organisation to request an extension past the usual month of required fulfilment – to three months.
https://ico.org.uk/your-data-matters/your-right-to-get-copies-of-your-data/
Good luck. Let us know how you get on.