One of the expressions that I and other commentators in the safeguarding world use constantly is the expression ‘narrative wisdom’. This expression means simply a familiarity with the documents, speeches, reports and literature of safeguarding over the past 10 or so years. There is a lot of material. It is a matter of frustration that people who are appointed to senior positions in the Church’s ever expanding safeguarding industry often appear not to know much about the history of the whole enterprise. It is hard for those of us who are reasonably familiar with this material to have a conversation with someone professionally involved in this area but who is simply ignorant of all that has gone before. How can anyone work in this field who does not know the reasons for all the unhappiness of survivors? The performance of the Church in this activity has been described by one of its own leaders on some occasions as ‘shambolic’. One would like to see as a requirement that all employees and church officers, who have responsibilities in safeguarding, should read the key documents associated with safeguarding that have appeared over the past ten years or more. The survivors that they meet will certainly know them and be able to quote from them. Without a sense of the history, the current generation of leaders in safeguarding are in danger of repeating all the mistakes of the past. As the saying goes “Those that fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.”
The new website, House of Survivors, launched on Friday, and which has been produced by Gilo and Tony is to be an important resource for ensuring that the history of the Church’s response to survivors is never airbrushed out of existence. It is also designed to help survivors navigate the tortuous structures of the Church of England and help them make claims for support. From my perspective, its major value is that it prevents the past simply being forgotten or subject to an institutional amnesia. Here in one place we find the text of speeches made to General Synod since 2014 relevant to safeguarding. We also have links to the issues raised in various notable cases such as the one examined by the safeguarding expert, Ian Elliot. The material on the website is obviously incomplete but there are enough examples of institutional ‘cock-ups’ to show the high degree of failure in official church bodies over the years. In re-reading some of this material, one is reminded of the high levels of professionalism and integrity that the secular safeguarding bodies display. In contrast the church’s own efforts to do the right thing seem sometimes to be less than robust.
One of the interests of the two survivors, and which shows up clearly on this site, is the part played by lawyers and insurance companies. Much safeguarding work in the past was, at enormous expense, outsourced to these firms by the Church of England. Survivors’ own investigative work, assisted by an award-winning journalist in the insurance world, revealed shabby and dishonest practice which harmed survivors. The failure of ethical behaviour in some of these insurance dealings was sufficient to attract the attention of the Independent Inquiry for Child Sexual Abuse (IICSA). Two insurance company senior executives were required to attend for a second cross-examination because Ecclesiastical’s original evidence was inconsistent. The details of this and many other incidents of unethical behaviour by these agents of the Church are recorded on the site. There are echoes of acute discomfort about all this in a powerful speech preserved by the site in the Synod speech of Julie Conalty, now Bishop of Birkenhead.
One section in the blog to interest me are the records of demonstrations made by interested parties on behalf of aggrieved survivors. I attended one such demonstration in February 2018 outside Church House during a meeting of Synod. It is from that date, that my deep concern for church safeguarding became firmly established. Another important demonstration took place when the Bishop of Oxford was enthroned in 2015 with survivors protesting outside the cathedral. The fact of this protest may have been forgotten by people in the diocese of Oxford.
The House of Survivors is an important addition to the many resources that have become available to the Church of England in its effort to clean up its patchy record on safeguarding and responding to the needs of abuse survivors. My main interest in the site is to have so many documents and speeches connected with the past gathered together in one place. No doubt the editors will increase these as time goes on. Meanwhile we read documents such as the Micah letter and the Bread not Stones and many letters of truth spoken to power. Even among enthusiasts for the cause of safeguarding in the church, such crucial moments can be quickly forgotten. Thanks to this site, House of Survivors, corporate amnesia in those who manage the response to survivors on behalf of the Church will no longer be an acceptable excuse.
The compilers of this new website are obviously highly critical of a managerial and corporate mindset which puts the interests of an organisation above the needs and requirements of individuals within it. One summary of what survivors are trying to achieve is to make sure that the testimony and story of individuals is never allowed to be buried in files or under piles of paperwork. There is, of course, material which refers to the institutional processes of the Church of England. One speech at General Synod was especially important to indicate something of sea-change in attitudes among those who run the Church of England. The speech by John Spence indicated a change of direction from the traditional dependence on lawyers and insurance companies, which had allowed them to dominate and control the proceedings. A real attempt was going to be made by the authorities in the Church to introduce proper redress for abuses suffered by survivors. This would be in accordance with the principles of justice and compassion. Questions remain a year or two later whether these fine words, uttered by the church through Spence, are really going to be honoured. But the fact remains that we do have his recorded testimony to refer back to. So many of the promises made by the church to survivors and others have routinely become lost in an institutional amnesia. This is so common within the church structures.
In commending this new website to everyone in the Church of England I am especially applauding its ability to restore narrative memory to the church on safeguarding matters. This is the most important part of its purpose from my perspective. The website of course is recognising other interests and needs of survivors, both in terms of understanding better what has happened to them and what they can do to find healing. This historical material still remains, for me, of the upmost importance for helpers and survivors. One can imagine a survivor visiting a bishop or a senior church official and saying to them in so many words: ‘have you read the section which contains speeches by senior Synod members on the topic of redress?’. Having instant access to all this important material means that the authorities can never say that something was never said or meant something different. Anyone with access to a smart phone can lay before a figure in authority all that has been said and how the church appears to be currently trying to move forward in safeguarding matters. The ability to hold senior church figures to keep promises and undertakings over safeguarding is something that this website can do a great deal to assist. Such a resource is something we can all applaud and celebrate.
The recent history of response to victims and survivors in the Church of England, its successes and failures, is encapsulated on this website. Of course the material is incomplete, but we can imagine that it will be treated as a work in progress. And I gather that the website will gradually include more links to reviews. One thoughtful feature of the site is that the reader is given the option of making a speedy exit if something triggering is encountered. One hopes that this will not be used often, as the whole is carefully written for the benefit and wellbeing of survivors. It is meant to be a place that survivors will find supportive as well as informative. It certainly feels to be that way.
I’ve already spent an hour reminding myself of an episode I’d rather forget, but needs to be remembered. This is an excellent resource.
As with any website, the challenge will be to maintain security and keep it in the public eye. Blogs with social media feed in, like Twitter, help to keep attention on it. As anyone who works on a major website will testify, it takes considerable resources to do the latter. Otherwise the fate of a site like this becomes similar to those numerous reports and books written. They sit on shelves and in (virtual) drawers and disappear from memory.
But congratulations so far to the founders with this valuable work.
PS don’t forget the site security
This morning we sent a request to the NST and the Lead bishop Jonathan Gibbs that the site https://houseofsurvivors.org/ be shared throughout the NST. And that it be sent on for dioceses and Bishops to read.
We pointed out in the letter the emotional cost for us in curating the experiences of cruelty and injustice that we ourselves have directly experienced. We are aware that many many others have equally bitter experiences of the Church’s corruption. It has shown us how hard survivors have to fight as the drivers of change against the force of intransigence.
House of Survivors is *not* a support site (there are other places that offer this) but instead seeks to provide a body of *narrative wisdom* as Stephen rightly says, which we feel has been lacking throughout the Church’s structures. We have created the site ahead of the Past Case Review 2 report and hope to see it cited in the report as one of the crucial resources alongside the key books and other resources. We also hope that news of the site will be posted on the Church of England website for the wider Church and Synod members to see.
We drew the NST’s attention to the ringing endorsements on twitter by the Lead bishop Jonathan Gibbs, by the ISB Chair Maggie Atkinson, by Ian Elliott, Richard Scorer, Mandate Now, Martyn Percy, Andrew Graystone, and others.
In the words of the Lead Bishop:
Please pass it on!
Thank you
https://houseofsurvivors.org/
‘The fourth house’ = house of survivors
This idea is genius
Its obvs really distressing to read, but a great tool to keep stories in the public eye . The only way to get change.
Is it possible to share a story with you to join this house?
Thank you for your words of praise. House of Survivors isn’t something to join, as it doesn’t have any existence as such. It is perhaps best thought of as a metaphor. In that sense *all* are members and *none* if that makes sense!
It is an attempt by two survivors from the SRG (Survivors Reference Group) to begin to outline something of the cruelty, corruption, and complacency we know survivors have faced in the struggle for truth and justice in this Church. We cannot attempt to be a case-by-case site, as the number of potential links would be huge and the site would become unwieldy. And we’d be working night and day to upload a thousand cases or more.
We know only too well that the corruptions faced by survivors across the Church, in dioceses, Church House and Lambeth Palace, are too great to include on one site.
But we aim to develop thematic *narrative wisdom* evidenced by media articles and pieces on respected blogs to highlight some of the shared experiences of survivors as we’ve faced the institution and its agents (whether lawyers, insurers, or NST).
We are not a support site but we point to places where support can be offered. It’s our hope that the shared wisdom will give a sense of solidarity to survivors (‘You are not alone in this’) and that it might above all be a crucible of learning and change for a Church reluctant to do both.
Hope this helps. It’s a sketchy and probably not very satisfactory answer I know, as the two of us who created the site are still feeling our way. It’s a work in progress. It will take time for us to develop the site with more thematic categories of what we currently call ‘Survivor Initiatives’.
Best wishes to you in the pursuit of your own case and struggle for truth and daylight. A wisdom received earlier today: John Lewis – civil rights campaigner. “There is never a wrong time to do the right thing”. Anger channelled to rights, justice, truth and integrity will overcome. Never apologise for anger at corrupt institutions.
Hi #churchtoo (and Gilo, thanks for the initiative and the continued pursuit for justice) while Gilo is seeeking to provide solidarity amongst survivors the NST seem to actively work to exclude the vast majority of survivors from any form of input into matters relating to their welfare. They select survivors voices from a very small pool of people and though they consistently tell me they are committed to wider survivor engagement it does not happen. It has now, in my opinion, become such a divisive factor that it is unethical to engage with them further until they evidence this.
Yesterday, with 48 hours notice to reply, I was told that the NST is seeking 3 survivors to ask preliminary questions of the candidates seeking appointment as the Director of Safeguarding. If you or any other survivor on this blog (and that is a huge and wonderful body of wisdom) are interested in this opportunity please do write to:
ioannisDOTathanasiouATchurchofenglandDOTorg (replace capitals with the symbols)
by 12 tomorrow. It is via zoom from 10-12 on Friday May 13th and an honorarium policy exists should you wish to accept it.
Let’s shake them up, get some new voices on the scene. Even if people can’t do this please consider spending a moment to email Ioannis (Yannis) and ask him to include you on his email list and let survivor engagement truly be what it says it is.
Trish thank you for this. I didn’t know about it and will definitely email to be put on the mailing list. I will also point out they need to understand that zoom does not work with my assisted technology. I am fed up with the church excluding disabled people by the way they do things. They don’t appear to have heard of the Equality Act and don’t seem to take on board the requirements of people with disabilities. No surprises there.
Brilliant, thanks Mary. Please do stress the points you make about disability and inequality. I have made this point time and time again, the more of us that stand up to the unfairness the better. Look forward to you seeking opportunities to represent and stand strong with other disabled people in future NST calls for engagement.
Thanks Trish. I also complained that despite being in contact with NST recently they did not tell me about the mailing list and I had to find out by accident. The national caseworker was too bent on telling me I cannot put in a cdm against my Bishop to let me know they “welcomed” a wider pool of survivor input. I doubt they really welcome bloggers like ourselves to represent survivors as we are obviously willing to be forthright. Still it’s important to continue making these points.
Thanks Mary really appreciate it. Every person that stresses they won’t tolerate exclusion, inequality or nepotism in survivor engagement makes the present dreadful arrangements less sustainable.
At Synod Maggie Atkinson of the ISB said they would not favour any one person or any group over another, that is certainly not my experience of either the ISB or the NST.
I hope your request to be on the mailing list is met but when I next get an email from them (not for a few weeks I imagine) I will mention it on here so you can check you have received yours.
My pleasure Trish. Maggie Atkinson may have said that. However the method of filing cdm for a disabled person has not been honoured either by my Bishop nor by one Archbishop. Being disabled I have no way round the problem. The method favours able bodied persons who are able to fill in the relevant form regardless of the Diocesan attitude and excludes some disabled survivors who have to rely on the church to make reasonable adjustments as required by the Equality Act. When senior clerics breach the Equality Act as in my case, I am excluded. Unlike myself, able bodied survivors can file regardless of the attitude of their Diocese or Province. My current experience does not coincide at all with Ms Atkinson’s statement and I would like her to take notice. As you and many survivors know, survivors frequently cannot get the Church to adhere to its own guidelines so I do not have much hope that these recalcitrant clerics will comply with the law so that I am no longer excluded from the complaints process. This clearly favours the persons I wish to complain about and protects them from disciplinary proceedings to my detriment. The process already favours whoever the Church favours, as it is the Church who makes relevant decisions and rulings. We can all clearly see that some individuals or groups are favoured over others. But of course survivors like ourselves have no input so discriminatory practices continue whilst the usual blah statements are made.
Totally support your drive to ensure inclusion and equality in survvior engagement, Trish. We circulate all opportunities we know about through our Faith-based abuse mailing, all are welcome to sign up (on our website wwwDOTsurvivorsvoicesDOTorg/contact-us)
To that end we are hosting a virtual round table for all abuse survivors connected with the CofE, to meet Jasvinder Sanghera of the ISB on May 16th. Please spread the word to anyone not already on our list. Email connectATsurvivorsvoicesDOTorg for details.
Thank you Gilo I totally understand and thank you for the amazing work you do.
Ahh Trish I’ve just seen this fabulous opportunity. I would love it but probs too late. Will email anyway.
Mary I hope you are selected and it goes well
This is such an important development – and an antidote to the collective amnesia that has dominated and at the same time obscured the search for justice and truth.
Imagine if the House of Survivors actually met. Maybe once a year. Maybe starting small. Many survivors and supporters would welcome a chance to meet and perhaps receive teaching from some of the distinguished writers included in the site. Just an idea!
A really good idea
So important to have the ‘narrative wisdom’ controlled by survivors not the institution. A great initiative, looking forward to linking with our work & archive and contributing when we can.
https://www.churchtimes.co.uk/articles/2022/29-april/news/uk/archbishop-of-york-welcomes-fourth-house-website-built-by-survivors
Church Times have included our comments in their piece, as well as striking public comments by Stephen Cottrell, Jonathan Gibbs, Martyn Percy and others. Here below are our thoughts…
Gilo, one of the creators of the website and a survivor of clerical abuse, welcomed the “powerful public endorsements” that House of Survivors has received.
He said on Thursday: “The fact that many bishops have spoken favourably towards it is indicative of movement in the hierarchy — and all the more remarkable given the critical nature of the contents.”
The founders of the website, Tony and Gilo, in a joint statement, pointed out that many survivors have struggled alone “against an institution that prefers to forget its past and, in many cases, has been active in managing that forgetfulness.
“House of Survivors puts an end to the institutional amnesia. . . The curation of stories it contains provides a sobering weight to the voice of survivors”
A really good idea