From time to time we hear about people working in various institutions, like the police or the Civil Service, who call out some murky or corrupt behaviour within their organisation. We call this action whistleblowing. It may be that someone brings to light financial irregularities or an intolerable level of oppressive hatred towards minorities. Such behaviour may involve misogyny or homophobia and this behaviour has become impossible for the bystander to tolerate. The whistle-blower is the one who speaks out. In most cases we hear about, we discover that the costs to the individual speaking out in this way have been considerable. Whether it is the blowback from colleagues, whose bad behaviour is exposed, or a heavy institutional response from the top of the organisation, the whistle-blower usually has to pay a heavy price and put up with the stress that comes as the result of his/her whistleblowing activity. In summary we would suggest that whistleblowing is a hazardous, even heroic, undertaking.
When we take a look at organisations in general, I think it would be true to state that whistleblowing is rare. The reasons for this are worth thinking about. It is far from clear that fear of persecution from colleagues is the main factor in repressing whistleblowing. A more straightforward explanation that inhibits the normal member of an institution ‘spilling the beans’, is simple loyalty to the group. This would be the normal dominating thought of most people in, say, a firm or factory. The rule of not ratting on your workmates or colleagues is normally going to create a far stronger inhibition than ideas of morality or a loyalty to a higher good.
The bonds that tie individuals to an organisation are, of course, not just considerations of simple loyalty to the group. We can imagine a variety of scenarios where circumstances or events create an unquestioned bond to a group which is hard to challenge. As an extreme example, we have all watched films where the gang leader ties the gang member into the group by forcing him or her to commit a crime. Once the new gang member has robbed a bank or shot someone, it is hard for them to have any way back from their new status as gang member. A blackmail situation has been activated. No one says it out loud, but the threat is always there. If we get arrested and go to prison, then so do you. It is hard to see any obvious way out of this conundrum.
From the extremes of a blackmail scenario in a criminal gang, one can imagine many other lesser ways that tie the individual to the group so that whistleblowing becomes unthinkable. The idea of loyalty sounds like an honourable value, but in many situations, it simply means that the individual has become acculturated to a particular way of doing things. We recognise that such group acculturation often does not have honourable outcomes. A group of men might bond together with a common interest in macho activity. This might include the domination of, or even cruelty, to the women in their lives. Other movements or groups may indulge in wild conspiracy theories or normalise phobic behaviour towards minorities. I find it hard to understand how groups of Christians can sometimes act with so much hatred towards those they do not like, such as gays or liberals, unless there are social benefits attaching them to this kind of group loyalty. Feeling good because your group hates the despised ‘other’ seems a remarkable inversion of Christian values. But it seems to exist in church settings just the same, seemingly impossible to challenge.
Before we return to a consideration of the whistleblowing phenomenon, it is important to linger for a moment on the account of group behaviour in a church context told by Yvonne and David Shemmings in their reflection on the child-abuse saga in the Diocese of Chichester. https://houseofsurvivors.org/shared-files/1186/?Shemmings_Report_ib4lHC8.pdf One suggestion that the Shemmings investigated was whether the abuse was organised. The evidence that was uncovered did not lead them to suggest a conspiracy of abuse. Rather they found such abuse was to some extent normalised in certain clergy networks so that offending clergy knew others who were, if not active abusers, able to look the other way if any evidence of such behaviour came their way. In this we are naming another group phenomenon which militates against whistleblowing, the almost sacred devotion to the preservation of secrets. Supressing information by insisting that others keep secrets is a very powerful dynamic within groups. Having a secret, knowing something that others do not know, allows an individual to feel endowed with a sense of power and privilege. One surmises that the popularity of Masonic groups is partly to do with the promise of secrets that will only be divulged to a privileged few. Cultic groups like Scientology also peddle in secrets about the origin of the universe. The power of Scientology has lessened considerably since much of this ‘secret’ hidden knowledge has been leaked out to all and sundry. More powerful than the meaning of masonic symbols and myths and theories about the beginning of the universe, are the human secrets that actually exist in groups like churches. Sometimes these secrets include hidden episodes of shame which relate to important leaders. Such leaders are controlled by the fact that, at any moment, documents or oral testimonies could be released which would destroy their reputation and authority. Where does real institutional power lie in such a complicated situation? The real power in the group probably belongs to the one who possesses the shameful secret, as long as no one has any past secret to reveal about them. Organisations which alternatively reveal and hide such secrets for political reasons are toxic environments to work in but they are found within the Church as in other organisations. One would prefer the attempt to blow fresh air into an institution through whistleblowing to the rancid air of power games and nervous stress that permeate so many organisations, including our own.
When we return to our consideration of whistleblowing, we might want to express our surprise that it ever happens. The whistle-blower has not only to face social ostracism and even violence from those guilty of bad behaviour. He/she has also to overcome the extensive social inhibitors that operate when we are part of any group. Nobody wants to ‘shop mates’. We have to conclude that,. when whistleblowing does happen, there need to be some highly principled and brave individuals at the heart of it. As a general rule we might want to suggest that such people are more likely to be worthy of our admiration than the opposite. Of course, there may be unworthy reasons for whistleblowing, but I also want to suggest that the person who breaks through all the social inhibitors to stand up and declare the truth is a brave unusual person.
In our survey of discussing why whistleblowing is a rare phenomenon in society and its organisations, we have noted that the reasons for this rarity have much to do with the nature of groups and organisations and the way they normalise and control our behaviour. Some of this institutional control is honourable but much is not. The dynamics of groups can make for a sense of stability but often that stability is very fragile because of the misdeeds and secrecy that can often be hidden within these groups. Currently the Church itself is going through a number of crises, as its ability to be open and honest with its members is being challenged. When an institution shows itself unable to be open and honest and selective over the information it shares, an atmosphere of mistrust is created. Those who challenge the narrative that the Church is ‘on a journey’ to deliver the highest standards of safeguarding to survivors, find that they, along with whistle-blowers everywhere, suffer the sanctions I have described. The Church has considerable institutional power to hit out at such critics which include those who are already victims of church-based trauma. The sight of a religious-based organisation playing dirty tricks, involving the heavy use of institutional and legal power, is not very edifying. As I have suggested before, the reverberations of these battles can never achieve what is desired, the protection of the power and assets of the organisation. What they do achieve is an atmosphere of unease, and a weakening of loyalty on the part of ordinary members towards the leadership.
The next meeting of General Synod is likely to show up the cracks that exist between the official narrative of unity and competence in the church and the real situation of muddle and intrigue that seems to exist at the centre. I have nothing useful to add to the gay marriage debate, but feel that an equal amount of time should been given to looking at the present state of safeguarding. There is, it can be confidently asserted, a great deal of unhappiness in the Church over safeguarding. The problems do not seem to relate to the training that is being widely shared across the Church but in the reluctance of the Church authorities to speak frankly of what has gone wrong in the past. Coverups, silence and persecution of whistle-blowers creates a toxic environment in which few can flourish or grow. Whistleblowing is a messy inefficient way of sharing truth, but it is an improvement on all the secrecy that seems to exist at the heart of our national Church. The hints that we are given suggest that maintaining the status-quo in the CofE safeguarding narrative is not only almost impossible for those in charge, but a cause of unbearable stress. Stress creates burn-out and we have seen a suggestion of this in the rapid turnover of those heading up the NST since its start in 2015. The forthcoming Synod safeguarding debate on February 9th will be instructive. Will the message be ‘business as usual’ or will there be a hint of changes, the kind that whistle-blowers seek to introduce to their organisations everywhere.
Cultures differ. Here in Britain, we’re brought up on not “grassing” people up. I understand that in the States people are rather taught to do the opposite.
And as for the effectiveness or otherwise of safeguarding training, well, it isn’t! People who have done loads of courses still think it’s all about child sex abuse. I was asked by someone who is no fool why the homeless lady sleeping in the Cathedral porch was a safeguarding issue. There’s all that stuff about how to behave if someone discloses to you: treat it as if it’s current, record and report, act immediately…. But do they do that? Do they heck! And if you’re in a discussion about sex abuse, all the clergy start to obsess about false accusations, with complete avoidance of “what if it isn’t false”? The training is pretty good in my experience, but it isn’t sinking in. So nothing is changing.
‘Coverups, silence and persecution of whistle-blowers creates a toxic environment in which few can flourish or grow’
This exactly describes our diocese and runs counter to the diocese mission to encourage growth and bigger church. The interim bishop has withdrawn from her own process of mediation advised by the President of Tribunals because one party whistleblew to the Charity Commission.
I hadn’t seen the Shemmings’ report before. Thank you for the link. However, whilst it is perfectly good in its own way, I felt slightly unsatisfied by it. Specifically, how was it that a diocese which was once perceived as fairly run of the mill under Roger Wilson (although with a pronounced A-C element in the Brighton area) should have become such a sewer?
It seems to me that it must have had something to do with Eric Kemp, and his intransigent A-C approach, which attracted a raft of often second or third rate A-C clergy (and a number of conservative evangelicals) for whom adequate berths could not be found in London under the equally dogmatic and reactionary Graham Leonard (Chichester being fairly accessible to the metropolis).
Moreover, the Brighton & Hove area was under the personal jurisdiction of Kemp (as was Chichester itself and Worthing). As far as I am aware, comparatively few of the abuse scandals occurred within his personal fief. Why was that, given his unique gift for mismanagement, his legalistic arrogance, his surliness, his remoteness and diffidence, his pastoral incompetence, and his contempt and almost total lack of empathy for those outside his cosseted clerical kraal?
I appreciate that Ball’s leadership in East Sussex attracted many malefactors, but not all of the abuse cases occurred within the Lewes area. Again, why was that?
The portrait which the authors paint of the A-C tendency within the diocese is extremely unflattering, and I recognise certain of the traits described with acute displeasure: the pretentious theatricality, the backbiting, the insufferable snobbery, the casual misogyny, and an often ersatz faith so choked with ritual that the essence was at risk of being lost, etc. What is striking is how badly things went wrong at certain theological colleges in the 1970s and 1980s, and how this fed into the malign culture of the diocese, judging by the description of the defunct Chichester Theological College (and, I assume, the likes of St Stephen’s House and, perhaps also, Westcott House). Yet again, this suggests (to me) that seminaries often do more harm than good, and that they are something the Church could get along quite well without (and without the cost).
The diocese (which I think should have been abolished further to the visitation) strikes me as having retained at least some of the habits of mind which characterised the dark decades of the 1970s to 1990s. It seems to have been only partially reformed, although Martin Warner made a strong impact in about 2013-15. There is work still to do, but I feel that the report only scratches the surface of the underlying malaise and its putrid evolution under Kemp.
This blog resonates very strongly with me in the case of Kenneth. Some of you are well versed in the events of the ‘Kenneth Saga’ from previous blogs.
May I refer you to the first one ever, written by Stephen December 13th 2021: https://survivingchurch.org/2021/12/13/cdm-a-case-study/
Paragraph 10 is of particular significance in this instance but especially where Stephen writes:
“This one member of a core group, with a strong partiality towards the victim, at the same time representing the strongly negative attitude of the mother against Kenneth, is easily able to disrupt any sense of neutrality in the Group’. [The mother added her complaints to those of her son although they both contradicted each other].
It was therefore not surprising that in June 2021 James Foy in his Independent Review Document spoke of inadequate communication in the Core Group,
‘All attending persons were not given opportunities to share their thoughts and views adequately.This would then result in decisions being made without due consideration of all attendees’.
However it was surprising the information seemed to come from Core Group members themselves. As Stephen says in this blog,’ Nobody wants to shop mates’. Dare we now hope for a whistleblower?
Over the years, Kenneth had made three requests for Subject Access Information. Although when they came, in total there were 91 pages missing and a great deal had been redacted; not just names but entire sections of minutes, emails and telephone calls. Nevertheless, I still found indisputable proof of bias, prejudice, fabrications, untruths, unlawful and illegal practice of conflict of interest amounting to what might only be called, malfeasance on the part of senior clergy. In August 2022 I collated all this material in a document of topics which I called, ‘Abusive Practices in Safeguarding’.
In November 2022 I sent this document to the Safeguarding Officer at Lambeth Palace with whom I had been in contact and who was aware of the case. She in turn sent it to the Diocese asking them to respond to me.They have not done so. That is where we are now.
From the SAR information in the minutes of some Core Group meetings it is recorded that some members expressed their concern at the unjust way in which Kenneth was being treated. It made no difference, proving the point of para10 in Stephen’s first blog (See above).
Are we now waiting for an official whistle blower in addition to the information revealed in my document?
On the general topic of whistleblowing, NHS Trusts are noted for their inability to tolerate criticism and challenge from doctors and other staff, despite superficially encouraging feedback to “improve service delivery” and employment law allowing for “protected disclosures”.
There are multiple cases of doctors, who having raised their heads above the parapet are then been forced from their jobs and into signing nondisclosure agreements or have their careers (and health & wellbeing) seriously or terminally damaged.
One current notable case is that of Dr Chris Day, who with extreme tenacity and remarkable bravery persistently continues against all odds.
It has now come to light that the NHS has spent in excess of £700k in attempting to defend the indefinable and that the Trusts involved and their firms of Solicitors have actively destroyed evidence and lied in court proceedings.
Stephen is right to say “that whistleblowing is a hazardous, even heroic, undertaking.”
It is not indeed a truth that all institutions will turn on those who attempt to disturb their espoused culture and assumed beliefs?
Was this not the human reason that Jesus was crucified?
Errata…
It has now come to light that the NHS has spent in excess of £700k in attempting to defend the indefensible……
Yes indeed, wise words Chris. Perhaps in our case we don’t need a whistleblower,the truth is all in my document…..always supposing anyone reads it and dares to take notice of course and that I pray for daily.
Your line, ‘the Trusts involved and their firms of Solicitors have actively destroyed evidence and lied in court proceedings’, I find worrying but believe very firmly that ultimately good arises from evil as indeed it did from Jesus’ crucifixion. I will bash on for Truth in safeguarding and wait for the resurrection, which I firmly believe will come.
I think I ought to repeat a comment I have also made previously. Any solicitor who destroyed documents (potentially perverting the course of justice) and lying to the court (perjury) risks both being struck off and a possible jail sentence. Solicitors don’t normally give evidence in a trial so I’m wondering how this lying occurred. The Solicitors’ Regulation Authority is rightly merciless to the few ‘bad eggs’ that sometimes turn up in the profession. Their disciplinary tribunals and penalties are published in full detail. Solicitors are also, individually, officers of the Court and subject to the Court’s disciplinary powers as well as the SRA’s.
Individuals are “expensed”. People are written off. If you make a complaint, aren’t satisfactorily treated, and decide to leave, no one cares. There may be a ripple, but soon the waters close over and the surface appearance is as before. If enough people leave, the water level begins to drop (extending the analogy) and deep dark things submerged below the surface begin to emerge in the murky gloom.
For whistleblowers, this glacial pace of discovery is too slow. They want their suffering and their reports to make a difference. Now. To mean something.
Deep dark secrets damage an organisation usually fatally, like an untreated cancer. We know it doesn’t go away on its own.
From an outsider’s perspective, the pathology in a Church is a lot more evident than its appearance from within. I bumped into a friendly northerner recently waiting together on a southern platform for a delayed train. Within ten minutes he’d shared his fascinating life story and assured me of how fit and strong he was even over 70. But he’d been unwell and his breathlessness even after just talking indicated (to me at least) significantly impaired lung function, perhaps 60-75%? His life story and busy-ness indicated a deep personal sadness perhaps too. I don’t know. We exchanged handshakes and he was gone. You can’t disguise your poor health, and neither can the Church. The breathless signs are blatant: a haemorrhaging of numbers, scandals, endless spin-speak, repeated deflections, fraud. Whistleblowers aren’t even necessary per se, to witness the rot going on, although they do mercifully accelerate its exposure. The question is, are we prepared to observe the signs of advanced disease, or just walk away?
A question for Chris H: can a non-disclosure agreement (NDA) be “forced” on someone, as is frequently claimed in the media, other than as a condition of payment – that is, bribery to keep schtum? It’s a deal, in other words.
Surely, in effect, people could just ignore them?
Rowland.
I believe that in the Dr Chris Day case referral has been made to the Solicitors’ Regulation Authority. Not being legally qualified myself the I find it difficult to follow all the convolutions of his saga. I can only suggest that you research the case, as there is ample online material. It would seem that the Employment Tribunal (ET) system and their judges are themselves not above criticism, for example there is no official independent court transcript of proceeding only what the judges themselves choose to document! Indeed the latest judgement is being appealed supported by crowd funding and the BMA. Other court appearances for other aspects of his case are pending.
Bob P,
Of course accepting a NDA is a choice but it may be the only rational choice available to the individual and their family.
After months or years of “gardening leave”, pressure and threats of referral (or actual referral) to the GMC and being professionally and personally undermined many come to regret ever having raised concerns!
Having said that, I have known a very competent Paediatrician choose not to accept a NDA but rather progress to an ET (at which he was not successful) rather than compromise his moral integrity informed by his christian faith. He sadly chose to retire financially poorer but personally richer.
Doctors may just not be able to return to their work having been through this sort of mill even if successful in ET proceedings. Trust in their employer and sometimes their colleagues being shattered.
EnglishAthena,
No doctor who is still in employment and registered with GMC is likely to break a NDA. They are likely to be honourable people but would certainly not wish to call down yet more wrath on themselves and lose their livelihoods.
My comments are as a retired GP who continues to be generally interested in my erstwhile profession and without any personal involvement in whistleblowing situations.
It must also be said that not all employment difficulties are due to honest whistleblowing. Some doctors are just difficult/arrogant people who must be a nightmare to work with and manage!!
It is probable that Trusts are unable or unwilling to identify the difference.
Valuable parallels here with the established Church.
I suppose the many survivors who speak out about their poor treatment could be seen as “whistleblowers”. It would be good if they (we) had more public support from staff and other church members, truth-tellers like Fiona (Gardener) are rare.
One reason why whistleblowers are so essential for safeguard in the CofE is that there is no complaints process. You can complain about the general conduct of a member of staff, but there’s no route to complain about safeguarding decisions or the way investigation have been conducted
Regarding “the complaint process” Jane, may I point you towards a mature, authoritative and powerful complaints system that’s been in operation for some 47 years and is expanding it’s work? I refer to the Aviation Safety Reporting System, or ASRS, which is the US Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA) voluntary confidential reporting system that allows pilots, air traffic controllers, cabin crew, maintenance technicians, etc, etc to confidentially report near misses or close call events in the interest of improving aviation safety. See here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aviation_Safety_Reporting_System It is run by NASA (National Aeronautics and Space Agency) an independent agency of the US government which is seen as a neutral third party organisation.
There is also the FAA Hotline Information System (FHIS) which includes “complaints about fraud, waste, abuse, or mismanagement of FAA programs, personnel, organizations or facilities. Safety concerns reported to the FHIS include, but are not limited to, aircraft maintenance, suspected unapproved parts, crew flight and duty-time issues, and other matters related to aviation safety.” See here https://www7.transportation.gov/individuals/privacy/faa-hotline-information-system-fhis
My point is that there’s been a system available for decades that has a proven track record for the CofE, NHS, etc to copy and adapt to it’s own needs.
Yes, this is a great system and a similar is used for maritime safety incidents, CHIRP, as keen sailors we read their serious incident reports avidly.
It would be good if the CofE set up something like that, maybe phase 2 of the ISB?
However in the meantime you cannot complain about NST safeguarding practice.
Michael, I agree with Jane. There is no independent complaints process. I do not know about the NHS only the Church of England and the problem there seems to be that they do not want criticism. Perhaps they do know a proven track record exists for complaints but choose to ignore it.
In the case of Kenneth,after sending three formal complaints and not receiving even an acknowledgement, a year later the Diocesan Safeguarding Adviser told an Independent Reviewer she did “not know how to respond to formal complaints and it had been a learning curve”! It made no difference though, nothing changed, she is still in post presumably earning the same salary and Kenneth’s situation is the same.
In three years we have been passed from one person or organisation to another, more than fifteen of them, each time being told, “Try this person”.
We have been told through these blogs that 5% of accusations are unfounded but that makes no difference either; core groups still do not investigate because the complainant must be believed.
Is the Church of England so afraid of what might be revealed if justice is sought and honest and open investigations are instigated? Are safeguarding procedures that bad?