by K-Anonymous
Editor’s Comment. On one level this blog contribution is a summary of the Kenneth story to date, but on another level it is asking questions about the slip-shod way that justice in the CofE is administered. There are three principles of natural justice that are being manifestly denied in this case. The first is indicated in the title. There is an assumption of guilt because an accusation has been made. The second principle of common justice that does not seem to occur to the members of the core group entrusted with this case, is the complete lack of interest in gathering all the factual evidence available. According to K-Anonymous, the author of the blog, there is vital evidence contained in the choir registers that would indicate when the offences could have taken place. The third principle that is being denied Kenneth is any possible appeal against the assumptions of the core group. No appeal system seems to exist against allegations of this kind. The Kenneth story is important in its own right but it is of wider interest because it reveals a justice system that seems not fit for purpose. We have currently the ongoing crisis with the Independent Safeguarding Board. This body is unable to function because unseen forces in the Church simply try to airbrush out its very existence as it seeks to exercise its independence. These matters are serious and undermine the integrity of the justice system within the Church of England at the highest level.
The impediments to resolving the ‘Kenneth’ case
The shame and disgrace of this case is that it has taken place in one of our prestigious Cathedrals and two of the perpetrators are a Dean and a senior Canon Pastor.
This case might have been resolved in September 2020 instead of which it has dragged on for a further two and a half years and still ongoing. The reason for this is that there is indisputable evidence of conflict of interest. This has led to the deliberate withholding of substantial evidence by the Core Group and the Canon Pastor in particular which might have exonerated Kenneth.
The Canon Pastor openly supported the boy complainant and his mother (who was a significant part of the allegation). In September 2020 a formal complaint was made about this to the Dean but was ignored.
Criticism of Cathedral support for complainant came from an Independent Reviewer September 2021 who said, ‘full consideration’ was not given to, ‘the case with the appointment of CSO [Cathedral Safeguarding Officer, Canon Pastor] continuing as the support officer for the victim and his mother’.
Lord Carlile spoke about the illegality of Core members having a conflict of interest (Micah 6:8 Initiative, 2020) and so did Dr Godfred Boahen, (‘Declaration of Interest’, 2021). Both of these have featured in our complaints but ignored, not even being acknowledged. The document From Dr Godfred Boahen was approved by the National Safeguarding Steering Group and in this group was the Diocesan Secretary who was also a Core Group member.
The Choral Registers
The case in point turns on the choir attendance registers which are not rotas, as the Core Group tries to maintain, but legal documents which are kept in the Cathedral library and should be available for scrutiny by any official body. These are the records which determine the pay for each singer.
The boy complainant could not give any specific dates of incidents. Although a specific date of December 1st 2019 was given to LADO, Kenneth could prove beyond doubt he was not in the city that day.
The boy however did give three different spans of time which changed according to the person he was speaking to: the police, LADO or the Cathedral Safeguarding Officers. Kenneth realised in the widest time frame the boy gave that for many of the weeks he himself was abroad. He researched those weeks when he was back in the country and found that in those weeks the boy choristers had sung only three times. He made a chart of those dates along with the chaperones on duty on each of those occasions. This was never followed through and the chaperones were never interviewed.
In September 2020 Kenneth asked the Canon Pastor, as the person responsible for the registers, if he could have the information as to whether or not he and the boy were together in the vestry at the same time on those three dates. If there was even only one date when they were not together it would throw doubt on the boy’s entire story because his only consistency of story has been, ‘three separate incidents’. If on one date they were not together then it begs the question of ,’when did the third incident take place?’ When could it possibly have taken place?
The Canon Pastor adamantly refused to give this information saying, “I’m afraid, though, that your request to in effect gather evidence is not something that sits comfortably within my pastoral role’. (September 29 2020). At the time she was openly pastorally supporting the boy and his mother which is recorded in a Core Group meeting found in a Subject Access Request document from Kenneth’s data base, held by the Diocese. A formal complaint was made to the Dean about this conflict of interest but was ignored. The Canon Pastor continued in her refusal to give the information from the registers throughout seven complaints in fourteen months.
After not commenting on and ignoring all requests for the information in the registers, eighteen months later, in a meeting with Kenneth, the Canon Pastor said she felt it would still conflict with her role as Canon Pastor.(January 12th 2022)
Latterly though, the Dean has taken part. At a risk assessment meeting on December 15th 2021, the Dean said, for the first time, that it was the Core Group who had refused access to the registers. This had never been said before by him even though we had sent him our first formal complaint about her conflict of interest in 2020.
Subsequently he had been included in our complaints about the choral registers always naming the Canon Pastor; he never acknowledged these complaints. He involved himself again because on February 5th 2023, he told Kenneth that as the boy complainant could not give precise dates the charts were invalid. He had completely misunderstood the way in which the dates had been determined.
It would seem that the allegation could have been built on a tissue of lies but only looking in the registers would ascertain that. The Canon Pastor is refusing to do this because of her close relationship with the boy and his mother (facebook friends; I have the photo shots of some of these).
After 27 months has she really not been tempted to look in the registers? If the boy and Kenneth had been in the vestry together on those three dates surely this information could have been used to incriminate Kenneth? They have tried other untruthful means to do this. If they were not together on any or all of those days the Canon Pastor must be held responsible for having allowed this case to drag on for almost three years without an investigation and based on deliberate and malicious fabrications.
In any case as the Canon Pastor had a conflict of interest in the case, this refusal was illegal because she had a vested interest in not revealing the information possibly of protecting the boy. Or now, after so long, herself?
Kenneth’s progress
in the meantime what has become of Kenneth? These last three years as you would expect have taken their toll. Perhaps if the information from the choral registers could have been given in September 2020 he might have been spared these years of suffering. If any of you have any questions you wish to ask me I can reply to them through the blog. Better still, if anyone knows anyway we can override the decision made by the Canon Pastor and gain access to the information, even at this late stage it would do Kenneth the world of good.
From November 2022 to January 2023 he went to visit his brother who lives in the Far East. He travelled there in a wheelchair, and was looked after by airport staff. I was shocked on his return to learn from his brother how he had noticed a serious deterioration in Kenneth’s health. So much worse than we had seen him in June. Kenneth does have chronic health issues of diabetes and what has been diagnosed as an ‘essential tremor’. The tremor especially was much worse.
His brother wrote to me:
The past 2 months spent with Kenneth have given me much concern for his health physical and mental. The events of the last few years have clearly taken their toll.
During a period of illness from a stomach upset he had no recollection of what medication he had taken or should be taking and he was totally disorientated & just lay in bed in a darkened room. He was very unstable on his feet suffering a quite serious fall on his first night. We, my wife and son, were alarmed at how bad his tremors have become, at time making eating & most other activities impossible.
I confess much of what I saw during Kenneth’s stay left me concerned for his wellbeing. Other friends who remembered Kenneth from previous visits expressed ‘surprise ‘ at his current state.
February 2023
You will be pleased to learn that Kenneth is now somewhat improved; his friends have rallied round him and he even goes swimming regularly.
I was struck by this narrative and while I can’t comment on the specific case involved, there is something to learn from the picture painted. In the secular world, most safeguarding issues involve a crime. When such things occur, there are numerous functions that are brought into play: investigation of the event; support of the victim and witnesses; determination of the facts; punishing the offender; restitution to the victim; and so on. Each of these involves one or several agencies, usually state-funded and some of them granted specific legal powers to compel compliance with their functions: police; social services; criminal civil courts; courts; prisons; probation services; criminal injury compensations; employers; employment tribunals; professional tribunals. The powers and privileges of all of these are specified and the processes are executed by people with specific experience and professional expertise. The procedures to be followed are laid down by law and corrective mechanisms exist in cases of maladministration or impropriety.
The Church is attempting to replicate all these functions — which require the resources of a sovereign state — internally. It does not have the legal powers to do so, nor does it have the resources in terms of money, time or people to do so. The people who are attempting to carry out these functions are untrained and undirected, typically attempting to perform multiple incompatible roles at once. Of course it doesn’t work. It never was going to work, and it never is going to work. It must be abundantly clear to the church leadership that the entire edifice is constitutionally incapable of delivering what the leadership claim to want. We can only assume that they know this and are do not choose to admit it to their church, or even to themselves.
Some safeguarding issues are not criminal, actually. Bullying is not illegal! But your point about the sheer number of different agencies involved is very well taken. Plus, the church should be concerned about things that are wrong even if not illegal, which adds another layer.
There is a debate about whether bullying is or is not a safeguarding issue. On the whole the C of E assumes not, but I agree with you that it should be. Bullying is very damaging to the target.
The safeguarding meetings I’ve been at do include bullying. It doesn’t stop them of course!
According to the “Policy and practice guidelines” it is: see the web page https://www.churchofengland.org/safeguarding/policy-and-practice-guidance which recites that “All the policy and practice guidance on this page has been approved by the House of Bishops and must, where relevant, be followed by all Church Bodies and Church Officers”
Having a properly formulated due process affords at least some protection to those applying to use it. But with this shambolic make-it-up-as-you-go-along system there is no protection. The protagonists must be seeing this now. They come across as ill prepared, sloppy at best. As the proceedings themselves come under scrutiny, not just in this case, but in many others now, those party to it are at serious risk of damaging their own reputations irreparably.
As a retired Safeguarding professional ( not within any church) English Athena is quite right- issues where a crime may have been committed tend to be the clearer ones.
I know nothing of this case, but it can do no favours to anyone concerned for the enquiry to have lasted so long
An independent process is vital otherwise the juggernaut will lurch between competing stereotypes ‘always believe the child’ v ‘a lot of abuse claims are malicious’.
Children should always be listened to extremely carefully, not least because it is not unknown for them to start talking about actual abuse in respect of someone it may feel safer to accuse – so trained external professional scrutiny is not just an optional extra. The thought of investigation and support being vested in the same person fills me with dismay .
Thank you for that all of which I found helpful and encouraging. I am at present struggling to write, as fas as possible, a non libellous response to the the Diocesan Safeguarding Adviser who told me this week that ‘the case is closed’ and therefore my support to Kenneth is no longer needed!
I am pointing out that as there still, in three years, has been no investigation, the case cannot be closed. I really like your sentence,’The thought of investigation and support being vested in the same person fills me with dismay’ and as you have posted anonymously would like to use it. I shall write as, ‘only this week someone said……….’ It will fit in very well with my accusation that within the Core Group there are people with a strong conflict of interest biased for the complainant and with obvious prejudices against Kenneth.
Christian, if you’re still looking in from time to time, I’m thinking of you, and I’m sure others are, too. I hope you’re doing alright, all considered.
Unreliable Narrator, Yes indeed to all you said and thank you for it. However one essential element that is overlooked by most critics of the Diocesan Safeguarding Core Groups, is the absolute necessity of the Core Groups having basic literacy skills, which our one certainly does not.
The Diocesan Secretary was unable to spell ‘surplice'(she spelt it ‘surplis), “Canon’ (she spelt it ‘Cannon’ ); these were not typing errors, they were spelt in this way every time these words were used. Similarly, ‘where’ and ‘were’, ‘there and ‘their’ were frequently confused. Add to that an over inclusion of cliched phrases and sometimes it was difficult to understand what was being said. Some of these have caused much amusement to Kenneth and myself and they are now in the annals of shared jokes between friends. It is disgraceful though that our amusement is caused by their flawed literacy skills when dealing with such serious safeguarding issues. I and others have pointed out many times the overturning of basic justice by Core Group practices but this Core Group has also tried to overturn the basic English language to prove their point.
In the Police report of March 2020 it is recorded that: ‘Suspect has also brought IP presents’, which Kenneth vehemently denied.This was the subject of formal complaints to the Core Group but was ignored. A year later when I was interviewed by the Independent Investigator I asked what these presents were and could Kenneth have sight of them. The Investigator laughed and said I had misunderstood. He explained it was not ‘presents’ the noun but ‘presents’ the verb. I said that did not make any English sense at all but he disagreed saying it was what the boy and mother had meant!
These safeguarding practices are more and more depressing. It is as you said Steve Lewis, a ‘shambolic make-it-up-as-you-go-along system’.
These are legal documents and must be correct. Your last example is shameful.
Yes, but finding an independent person or organisation with sufficient authority to insist that we are given the information has been impossible. I have tried fifteen or so organisations and people. Their excuses are many and varied; I even had,”I find that hard to believe. Are you sure you understoood correctly?” Other excuses are:
1. Yours is a Canon Law case and we only deal with Civil Law.
2. Kenneth is a lay person and we only deal with Clergy.
3. We only look at cases involving Deans, Bishops and above.
4. We cannot interfere with an ongoing Core Group case (although the Core Group in this case had tried to silence me several times by saying, ‘The case is closed’).
5.Have you tried the official Diocesan complaints procedure? Here is the link. (I pointed out that the three people dealing with complaints were three of the people I was complaining about and yes, I had contacted the Diocesan official complaints in the early days). It made no difference.
6. Have you permission from the respondent to do this? (Kenneth had given me written permission to act for him in June 2020) but it made no difference to that particular organisation.
7. We cannot look in the registers; only an official person from the Cathedral can do that.(The official person is the Canon who finds giving such information is not something that ‘sits comfortably within her pastoral role’).
These are just some of the reasons given for not helping us and I am sure will be familiar to many people in a similar position to Kenneth. More importantly, I hope it will draw attention to the plight of other wrongly accused respondents and the reason they cannot find justice.
We are grateful to Stephen for creating this blog and giving us a public platform to share our views and support each other but more than that, we fervently hope that the influential ones in the Church of England will read these blogs and maybe, just maybe, have a stab of conscience.
The C of E needs to be disestablished or dismantled. The people in it who have power can’t be trusted. As far too many of us have found to our cost.
https://www.thinkinganglicans.org.uk/opinion-18-february-2023/#comment-455820 Josephine Stein has some wise words about establishing the truth or otherwise in church cases over on Thinking Anglicans. This is a must-read for those interested in the issues raised by the Kenneth case.
Many thanks. This volume (forthcoming and likely to be open access) may also be of interest to you: https://www.cambridge.org/gb/academic/subjects/law/socio-legal-studies/transitional-justice-and-historical-abuses-church-and-state?format=HB. The author’s specialism (and the subject of his doctoral thesis) is in the mother and baby homes scandal in Ireland, but some of the themes covered in this new work (which I have not yet seen) may be pertinent to the subject of this blog.
Thank you to you both above. I will look at the links carefully. They look very interesting and relevant.
I can well believe that no one will make a note on Kenneth’ s police report to the effect he did not give presents. A distressing factor in all this is that we have police files which do not even contain the truth and we can do nothing about it. I made a subject access request to the police. In regard to the police charges made by the CEO the officer questioning me wrote that after receiving the cease and desist letters from the Diocesan solicitors I had signed saying I would not complain. Police tapes make it clear I told her during interview that I did not sign, particularly as I was asked to sign away my right to complain about abusers who were breaching restrictions, and this would obviously place me in danger. I found several deliberate lies on police forms sent to court which did not match what I said when interviewed under caution. They remain on file. A look at the files would present a very different picture from the truth. That may be why, even when declared innocent, Diocesan solicitors cynically renewed their threat saying that I already had a file and clearly implying that because I already have a police file things would be the worse for me. With scoundrels masquerading as police and solicitors of integrity, Kenneth, I and many others will be damned for life.
Thank you Mary for your supportive message. I am very sorry indeed for your experiences with the police. That of Kenneth has been different. True, at the beginning he was not told precisely what the accusation was or given the opportunity to defend himself, the isolation of Covid rules being given the excuse for this( it was March 2020 it all happened).
After I became involved I asked the area police for all information they held about Kenneth on file. When it came we realised that some of it was grossly untrue and we could prove this. I listed the accusations held by the police evidencing their falseness and sent it to them.They were surprised that the Core Group had not dealt with this.
Although the original statement cannot be altered my document is on file next to the case notes. I sent this to the Core Group who had a meeting and denied everything; a denial they sent me.
The point in my writing in the comments of this blog ‘Suspect has also brought IP presents’, (which was not true anyway) was to indicate the nonsense of my being told that ‘presents’ is a verb not a noun. It is worth pointing out that this was said by the Independent Investigator, who was working within the parameters set down by the Core Group.
With prayers for your future.
Glad to hear your document is on file. As to the new meaning of “presents” they clearly did not want to prove that there was any untruth in the allegations . I was extremely fortunate during cdm in that the Church solicitor was interested in getting at the truth. He did not favour one side or the other but was on the side of truth. Just what the core group should be about …
Should be, but too often isn’t. Safeguarding, in their view, is about preventing all possible risk, rather than fact-finding.
Surely it should be preventing risk after a finding of facts. Our laws are not based on being guilty until you prove your innocence, but being innocent until you are proven guilty. We have accepted this in the UK as being the lesser evil. That is that some perpetrators will go unpunished because their guilt cannot be proved in order that miscarriages of justice do not occur. Of course in the Church we see both scenarios; perpetrators who can be proven guilty escaping justice, and no action taken against those whose allegations can be shown to be malicious. I find it ironic in my case that Diocesan safeguarding ignore breaches even when witnesses are present, yet have me Investigated by police because I proved the guilt of my former vicar and because I reported breaches. That’s the Church of England for you. I suppose it all depends on what Bishops and core groups prefer to find in particular cases. The Church seems to prefer a foundation of straw to our true foundation. I am afraid truth seekers will turn away from the Church. I am deeply saddened that the Church spends so much time on consensual sex between adults, whilst pervasely ignoring a main strand in the bible, that of truth and justice.