In recent days, my attention has been drawn once again to a 2020 letter http://survivingchurch.org/2020/08/12/letter-to-charity-commissioners-over-concerns-about-church-of-england-safeguarding/ sent to the Charity Commission (CC) by a list of signatories about failures in the Church of England’s safeguarding systems. It clearly set out a number of ways that the Church’s legal and administrative protocols for dealing with such things as clergy discipline and safeguarding practice are failing, sometimes lamentably. It became known as the Micah letter because it is a plea to follow the principles set out in Micah 6.8 to follow a path of justice and mercy and walk humbly with God. The letter is dated the 11 August 2020. As far as I can determine, the letter has disappeared into a black hole of the in-tray of the CC. I do not make this comment as implying that the Commission is necessarily at fault. If they did fail to respond to our 70 signatories, I can believe that there may have been some valid practical reasons. The letter was raising a complex series of issues about poor safeguarding practice in the Church of England. It is difficult to know how Baroness Stowell, then chair of the CC, could have responded. A full response might have required the temporary shutting down of the entire safeguarding machinery of the Church while the complaints were investigated.
The prompt to me to look once again at this powerful written critique of CofE protocols and practice with regard to safeguarding came from the anonymous author who is standing up for ‘Kenneth’. Were it not for her, I too would have completely forgotten the existence of this valuable document. She observed that the document has proved to be an inspiration and support to anyone wanting to make sense of the sometimes tortuous legal processes that the CofE has put in place for safeguarding. For most of us the existence of several apparently overlapping structures connected with safeguarding is very confusing. How many really understand how the National Safeguarding Team relates to other structures like the National Safeguarding Steering Group and the National Safeguarding Panel? No doubt each group can legitimately justify their existence on the grounds that they have distinct tasks. But clarity for some does not translate into readily comprehensible structures for those outside the system. What we have, according to the letter to the CC, are organisations bewildering and confusing and which, according to their critics, routinely fail to deliver good practice and safety in the arena of safeguarding.
The Micah letter identifies eight areas of structural dysfunction in the safeguarding institutions of the CofE with a request for the CC to help. I do not propose to go through each one, but I want to comment on three issues which continue to be important. It is hard to claim that, overall, things in the safeguarding world are much improved or changed in the two years since the letter was written. Each of the three issues that I pick out from the letter for this blog have a direct bearing on the Kenneth case. No doubt they can be applied to many other cases that are floating around in the Church’s legal system. There are certainly many such cases. I note in passing that a lot of energy is being expended by ordinary Christians in being members of safeguarding core groups. These have the power to make life-changing decisions which can damage or seriously affect the lives of others in the Church.
The first issue mentioned by the Micah letter is that the Church operates its own closed system of legal enforcement where there are often no practicable means of appeal. The enforcement system often refers appeals back to the original core group or committee responsible for making a judgement. In Kenneth’s case, there is no means to appeal to an independent ombudsman. Anonymous took his case to the top of the system, the NST, when she saw that natural justice was being denied him. All the NST could offer in return was to suggest that she took her concerns back to the Diocese which had made serious blunders in the first place. To quote the Micah letter: ‘No matter how egregious the failures to abide by the Church’s own rules or basic principles of good practice may be, there is no remedy’.
The second area of concern that I wish to highlight from the letter is that there is a distinct failure in the way that the Church applies justice fairly and consistently. When an accusation is made over a safeguarding complaint, the individual so accused is sometimes required to step aside from their duties immediately. On other occasions the accused person is allowed to ignore the pending CDM as though it did not exist. In one notorious case a senior bishop was permitted to move from one diocese to another even though a serious safeguarding case against him was still unresolved. By contrast the public humiliation of Lord Carey, in full glare of press coverage, was concerned with a minor issue. The instant removal of his PTO was done virtually without notice and it was, apparently, an evening phone call from a newspaper that alerted him to his ban. The case was eventually resolved after it was decided that there was no case to answer. I understand from Private Eye that a CDM has been lodged against a member of the Christ Church chapter without a suspension being required. I assume we shall hear about the judgement in due course. As someone has pointed out, the application of this church system of justice seems to depend on whether you are important or easily expendable. We would hope that the rules of ‘stepping back’ in the face of safeguarding situations could be made far more transparent than they are at present. Meanwhile, Kenneth is prohibited from attending any church building in the country for worship unless he signs an agreement for a crime that he claims he did not commit and for which there is no means of appeal.
The third area of gross injustice that seems to riddle the Church’s attempts at running a functioning justice system, is when conflicts of interest are not addressed. Kenneth finds himself at the mercy of a core group where at least one of the members is a facebook friend of the boy at the centre of the case and his mother. This core group member is also a member of a Fan Club Page for the boy. No one here, or in the Percy case, seemed to question the appropriateness of having people in a quasi-judicial role whose ability to be objective was compromised by their pre-existing relationship with the accused/complainant. The seriousness of the conflict of interest question is squarely addressed by Lord Carlile when he says: ‘Anyone with a conflict of interest must leave the deliberations and take no further part…Having people on a core group with a conflict of interest is simply not sustainable and is, on the face of it, unlawful.’ The aftermath of the Christ Church affair will no doubt bring into the light a shocking catalogue of collusions between lawyers and publicity merchants. Between them they have been successful in one thing, claiming enormous fees for the privilege of manipulating the Church’s legal system. This has been undertaken for the ethically dubious and unsuccessful attempt by the malcontent dons to harass and persecute the Dean.
The Micah letter to the CC contains one further layer of interest. Appended to the letter are around 70 names including my own. The list contains many individuals who follow and contribute to the comments on this blog. Indeed, it is a bit like a who’s who of those who are concerned for the proper functioning of the structures of the safeguarding world. Among the names are many that I have never met in the flesh but, because of the work they are doing for survivors, are fellow soldiers in the cause to which this blog is dedicated. My impression is that there are many other individuals who support the cause for good protocol and just process in the C/E safeguarding world. They nevertheless hold back because they fear that it may affect their professional lives. Thus, their names do not appear. But it is my belief that there are many silently supporting the work of safeguarding reform. The Micah letter, though now nearly two years old, can act as an interim manifesto. Even though no practical changes were achieved through it – publicly at any rate – it remains an important resource document. Simultaneously it pleads for reform and sets out a fairer, clearer and generally better way of delivering safeguarding for the vulnerable within the structures of the Church of England.
Good to see this initiative revisited. Here is the letter and original signatories plus the 600+ who signed our public campaign. Plus links to media coverage.
Not sure how much impact it had on CofE – the structure is good at making “we are changing” noises but then many of the same problems remain and major questions remain unaddressed two years layer. And so much institutional narrative and wisdom has vanished. I doubt there are many in the NST who’ve bothered to read this document? So the same dysfunctional patterns repeat.
It’s been sent to the SCIE Lambeth Palace audit as part of extensive background. And I know someone sent it to Maggie Atkinson to share amongst members of the newly appointed ISB (Independent Safeguarding Board) of CofE.
https://www.change.org/p/the-micah-6-8-initiative
Kenneth and I should like to thank Stephen Parsons for identifying so clearly three areas in the Micah letter which have direct bearing on Kenneth’s case and the way in which he has been unjustly treated by the Safeguarding Core Group. I first came across this by chance soon after it had been published in August 2020. My daughter found the link in error for something else, but realising its importance to Kenneth’s case she sent it to me. Imagine our excitement when we clicked on the link: http://chng.it/HLF4dhVd6Q and read the letter. Here justice was to be found at last!
Not so! From August 27th 2020 to June 15th 2021 seven formal complaints were sent to every person in the Safeguarding Core Group and every individual person in the chapter with that link included. Furthermore I listed six of the eight points in the letter which applied to Kenneth. This was never acknowledged by anyone, not even the points which Lord Carlile said were illegal. How bitterly disappointing it all was. It was apparent that nobody had any intention of conducting an investigation or wanted to find the truth.
It is tragic that such a detailed, carefully written document ended up in a black hole. Let us hope now, thanks to Stephen, it will be resurrected and serve the purpose for which it was presumably written: to shame the Diocesan Safeguarding Core Groups and bring justice to the wrongly accused, like Kenneth.
If the chair of the charity commission found this letter too complicated to deal with perhaps my own letter making one point only was too simple to answer. That too disappeared into a black hole. But then why should one establishment group rush to examine another establishment group? Kenneth could prove his points and I could prove mine. So far the only ones to listen have been the auditors at Lambeth Palace. Their powers are limited and unlike the charity commission they cannot act in individual cases. How very convenient. No establishment group has the power or is willing to act. Meanwhile the illegal processes described in the Micah letter continue. Whether I write as a signatory to the charity commission or on my own account they are not willing to take action despite having evidence to prove misconduct. It really does not matter to whom you turn. Meanwhile, knowing that he himself disregards guidelines, Archbishop Justin says all the right things whilst protecting clergy from disciplinary proceedings.
Thank you for sharing, anonymous.
One way of dealing with something difficult is to look the other way and hope that the issue will soon be forgotten in life’s hurly-burly. I find it happens all the time. To give an example, of every twenty personal emails I send to people, I reckon to get about two replies. It took me a while to get used to it, but I am comfortable with it now. The thing to do is for me to be persistent in doing what I believe in even if others don’t appreciate it, and aim to show love and compassion to all each day. It starts with spending an hour on my incoming emails each morning. People appreciate replies.
Tough path! I hope you get to a place of peace.
Lord Lhisvaine, former Clerk of the Commons, has just been on local radio talking about being bullied by John Bercow. Shouting and swearing on a daily basis. Interesting that bullying can happen in a way that doesn’t actually destroy somebody and their career, but still can’t, apparently, be stopped.
Very surprised to see this blog quoted on Thinking Anglicans again as one of the founders has some personal involvement in my case and removed my previous comment from his blog. Seems hypocritical to permit misconduct and malicious police charges in regard to safeguarding whilst continuing to quote this blog as if they support the stance taken on surviving church. The cover up in regard to misconduct in regard to safeguarding cases goes so deep I thought it high time to call out those who publicly say one thing whilst themselves disregarding guidelines and provable offences.
Stephen, This was the formal reply, dated 11 September 2020, to the letter I received from Anne Reading, a “Senior Specialist Case Manage in the Commission’s Regulatory Services Directorate”:
“When someone raises concerns with us about a charity, we assess the information on a case-by-case basis to decide what steps to take. When making our decisions, we consider a number of factors, such as the nature of the issue, the risk involved to the charity, its beneficiaries and / or assets, and the likely impact of our involvement.
We also only take action where it is proportionate to do so.
I am assessing the information you have provided and the serious concerns you have
raised.
As I explained above, our role is to hold trustees to account and to focus on the
governance of a charity. If we determine that there are regulatory concerns about the
charity that fall within our remit, then we will address these with the trustees in accordance with our established policies and procedures.
It is important to stress that we are not a statutory safeguarding agency and we do not
investigate allegations of criminal offences. Nor do we get involved in employment matters. If we feel that another agency is better placed to take forward your concerns, we will notify them.
Please note that:
• we will only contact you again if we need further information from you.
• we do not provide updates on cases or details of the outcome.
• even if we decide to take no action, we will still keep a record of your concerns on
file.”
Martin Sewell asked a question of William Nye (Secretary-General) at the informal meeting Zoom meeting of General Synod members in February 2021. This was the question and the written answer:
“Q24 Could you please provide for Synod members the latest position in relation to the complaint about Church CDM processes which was addressed to the Charity Commission by a wide range of signatories in August 2020?
A The Charity Commission was in touch with me in August 2020 following the open letter of 11 August 2020. A meeting took place between the Charity Commission and Archbishops’ Council staff and trustees in the autumn of 2020. As requested, I provided information to the Charity Commission on safeguarding policies and proposed improvements. The Charity Commission was grateful for this information and was reassured by the steps the charity is taking to address the concerns raised in the open letter of 11 August 2020 to the Chair of the Commission. It was agreed that conversations between the Charity Commission and the Archbishops’ Council would continue as improvements and changes to safeguarding policies are made.”
Paper GS2244 was the Update paper on Safeguarding presented to General Synod last month. A ‘following motion’, critical of the report, proposed by Gavin Drake (Southwell & Nottingham), was effectively kicked into touch by a procedural motion to ‘pass to next business’ proposed by Simon Butler…
The charity commission may have been reassured by the steps being taken. I however am not reassured by the refusal of the charity commission to investigate why my Diocese has threatened me if I take advantage of my right under charity law to contact Trustees as a vulnerable beneficiary who was seriously harmed by an employee, that is the Diocesan Secretary, who made malicious charges against me firstly for reporting breaches of a written agreement implemented by the DSA and secondly for supposedly having made unfounded and baseless allegations against my former vicar who admitted guilt during can proceedings. The charity commission is allowing my Diocese to break charity law, allowing my Diocese to cause me further harm, with the implication that it can carry on persecuting vulnerable complainants at will. This clearly comes within the remit of the charity commission and has implications for many parishioners within the Diocese. As I wrote previously, it appears to be a matter of one establishment group protecting another.
The charity commission is allowing one charity to continue to harm many beneficiaries despite the fact that it already has a long history of harassing complainants as was proved in the enquiry into the sexual abuse of children within the Anglican church. I would like the charity commission to say how many more years the church can breach charity law before it will take action. Five years, ten years?
My sense is that the Charities Commission is too small to take on the might of the established Churches. By small I mean the individuals on regular salaries no doubt doing valuable work as far as it goes, but it is too risky for them to tackle a huge organisation with a bottomless legal budget.
Politically too, it would be very difficult for even a senior CC executive to risk proceedings against the C of E. With episcopal Lords patronage, it still carries the nation’s approval, like it or not.
I’ve seen many good books published, letters written with distinguished signatories, official Reports issued, but precious little changing.
If I were to suggest a direction to take, I would certainly agree to the idea of reiterating the initiatives from time to time to stir memories. But also I would suggest aiming at more manageable targets. Tackle one dodgy trustee, at one church, one at a time. Establish precedent. Rinse and repeat. The example set can then clearly be telegraphed across the sector by social and other media. Just a thought.
My understanding is that the Charity Commission is, effectively, a non-ministerial Department of State performing functions on behalf of the Crown, and not subject to the direction or control of any Minister of the Crown or of another government department but nevertheless subject to any administrative controls exercised over the Commission’s expenditure by the Treasury – my paraphrasing of section 13 of the Charities Act 2011. Quite how that fits into the present scenario, I am uncertain but it seems to me to rule out any suggestion of being “too small”, with the implication of not having sufficient teeth. In fact we know that the Commission has considerable enforcement powers, a recent example being its intervention at Christ Church, Oxford.
Another problem area is the ‘charitable status’ of the Church of England, which I understood to consist of all of the dioceses individually and parishes (whether or not registered charities), but no doubt I will be corrected if I am wrong. Nevertheless, it is significant that the Charity Commission has engaged in direct dialogue with the C of E centrally.
Of course, as usual, I would be delighted to be wrong here. But…
People run these services. People with mortgages, pensions and careers to protect. Political forces reign. CC Oxford illustrates perhaps a smaller entity being more targetable particularly when the political forces saw their alma mater being dragged into the mire. Then they acted.
Sorry, I’m afraid I can’t accept that concept at all! The Charity Commission is a statutory regulatory body. Its chair and members are appointed by the Secretary of State and include at least two members holding seven years’ legal qualification with full rights of audience. The issue whether a specific complaint falls within its jurisdiction is a separate matter, the point being made on behalf of the Commission by Anne Readings to David Lamming.
‘So are they all, all honourable men’
‘Its chair and members are appointed by the Secretary of State…’
Exactly. The appointments are political, as we are seeing in the controversies surrounding the current appointment process for a new Chair. The CC is very much an Establishment body, and I suspect would find it difficult to challenge another, and larger, Establishment body like the C of E. It’s taken four years of terrible headlines and pressure from parts of the Establishment to tackle Christ Church.
Steve may be right about tackling individual churches and trustees to set precedents; but how is that to be done? Steve, can you make suggestions?
That was a good idea Steve and hopefully others will find it useful.But do you or anyone have any advice on how to tackle Trustees when Diocesan solicitors threaten you if you communicate with them and they have been told not to communicate with you? All ideas welcome. My situation is a little complicated because being blind I send emails not letters and the Diocese have blocked my email address. The charity commission are permitting this situation by not taking appropriate action although their remit is supposed to cover vulnerable beneficiarys harmed by an organisation. Although safeguarding per se is not their remit they did eventually act when Oxfam was not taking action about employees sexual misconduct oversees. If they can act in the case of Oxfam I can’t see why they fail to act when the church fails to take appropriate action. In my particular case I believe my Diocese is breaking charity law and the Equality Act by blocking my cards to Trustees. However I am not a lawyer and gladly defer to those who are.
Martyn Percy’s case was an important precedent, it seems to me. If I was looking to learn more about how to tackle malfeasant trustees I’d start by downloading everything he knows about the case he endured from his own lips.
What strikes me about him and Mary, although different circumstances apply obviously, is their extraordinary resilience in undertaking the work they faced. Few have this and as prequel to starting something, I would strongly advise against it unless you know you can take the mental pressure.
Basically my view is that “they” can do almost anything they like, violating conventions, laws even and certainly common decency, and they will usually get away with it.
If we were to tackle an individual over a single matter, that would be easier to prove if there is a pattern of “offences”. If you’re the only one they picked on it’s going to be much more difficult to prove. So find the other survivors.
As a principle, trustees like everyone else, have an audience to keep onside. People, even those of impeccable credentials will often take the path of least resistance. So, for example if you discover a trustee is a chartered accountant, the appearance even of the slightest financial irregularity being overlooked on their watch would be deleterious to their reputation. So perhaps do a little research. What are their other trusteeships and job?
More simply the presence of allies is critical. Even though there are attempts to exclude these from meetings, their being copied in often has the effect of helping keep people honest. I recall attending a meeting with a friend who was being pushed out of a church role. Just being there seemed to help as well as taking copious notes and name checking the attendees. I said absolutely nothing.
I’m not convinced the Charities Commission per se is the vehicle for change. That said, if we were to take a case on against a trustee, we should lever the politics of the situation to the best advantage. I.e don’t take on a celebrity vicar, but do consider one whose just had a publicised extramarital affair and a drink driving ban. Ugly? Yes it is. Hopefully you get my drift. To “win” you’ll need almost everyone onside.
As to what constitutes victory, that’s a difficult question. I believe Percy won, but it was a Pyrrhic victory.
Now that you have mentioned Dean Percy, I remember the police officer who interviewed (interrogated) me who put the case of the Diocesan Secretary saying the Diocese had spent a lot of money because of my complaint. But I don’t think the charity commission will act somehow. I cannot reveal the Diocesan Bishop involved, but there are reasons why this would be more awkward for him than for other Bishops. It is more awkward too for Archbishop Justin who ignored my formal complaint in the first instance. Although Steve is probably right in general, it will now be particularly embarrassing for Archbishop Justin so I am expecting the usual corrupt practices to show my Bishop did nothing wrong. I think in my case the fight is harder because if the Bishop says he did not know that the Diocesan Secretary charged me for making baseless allegations against my former vicar, he would have to explain why , when I made a formal complaint of gross misconduct in regard to the Diocesan Secretary, I received an email to say that the DS had done nothing wrong. This after the Bishop received a copy of an email from the police officer saying that the police charges originated from the Diocese so they could no longer pretend that the DS acted as a private citizen. I believe all this makes the battle harder. However as others cannot receive justice and the usual response of a cdm against a Bishop is that the Bishop did nothing wrong, in practical terms it makes no difference. Having an ally or witness in meetings is greatly beneficial. So is asking for subject access requests. This revealed my Rector making a transcript of my pleading with him to discuss my needs as a disabled parishioner which he ignored. The most damming evidence is that which originated from the Diocese and parish. The reach of the Diocese is far. How else can you explain the police officer investigating my complaint of abuse and hate crime filling in the form and saying there were no witnesses although emails show I said there were two? This coupled with the police tapes of another officer treating my reports of breaches of a written agreement as a crime is very telling. This officer failed to look at a letter from my Bishop telling me not to complain and the decision of cdm proceedings finding my former vicar guilty. She then filed a form for court saying there was no evidence to disprove the case against me. Be warned, before taking on misconduct in the church think very hard, and then think again. All sorts of dirty tricks you could never imagine will be used in order to break you. I can only agree with Steve. We are now living in a country where police, Bishops and Archbishops and Diocesan Secretaries and Registrars can break the law, act corruptly, frame you for trial etc etc. That is why I speak out. But do protect your mental health at all costs and don’t proceed without forethought. In the the end you can expect injustice and defamation and lies. Abuse is what the church is good at
Steve, I’m sure they have impeccable credentials! I realise that I am probably in a minority of one, but I don’t readily see Church of England safeguarding as being obviously within the remit of the Charity Commission, and I get the impression that Anne Reading’s letter contains more than a hint to the same effect. But I’m more than happy to take a back seat and see what happens, and wish to make absolutely clear that I have every sympathy for those who suffer as a result of inadequate and unsatisfactory handling of safeguarding matters and CDMs.