By Martin Sewell

Shortly after joining General Synod in 2015 and following a maiden speech contributing to the debate of the Clergy (Risk Assessment) Regulations 2016, I found myself in the coffee queue alongside Archbishop John Sentamu. I had spoken critically, having contributed to commissioning some hundreds of such assessments, but the archbishop explained to me where I was reading the room wrongly. Essentially, I was seeking to align ecclesiastical legal process with secular safeguarding standards but, he said, “We are building a system suitable for the Church of England”.

Upon hearing of his being “stood back” from ministry following the Humphreys Review of the Devamanikkam case – and especially his “Old School” reaction to it –  I could not but reflect that that project is now truly dead in the water and Sentamu’s assertion that Church Law trumps good (secular) safeguarding practice has delivered the coup de grâce.

The future of Church safeguarding must surely now involve the unequivocal embracing of secular standards of jurisprudence and about time too; ask the many, many abuse survivors who have campaigned for vital reform in the wake of the Matt Ineson case.

That case became, perhaps, the first very public cause célèbre because Matt had the courage and integrity to put his own name into the public domain as he told his harrowing story. When he saw one of the bishops who had wronged him promoted from Sheffield to the important see of Oxford, he protested outside Christ Church Cathedral at the enthronement. It was a low-key protest but it has become hugely symbolic.

He was joined by another hero of the safeguarding resistance, Gilo, as the great and the good largely passed by on the other side of the road and some inside were told that it was a “Families need Fathers” demonstration (so nothing really to do with the Church). One of the few clerics to break ranks, to engage and make the protestors welcome, was the Dean of Christ Church, Dr Martyn Percy. He did not ignore them; he brought them tea and sandwiches and let them use the toilets.

It may not have quite been the door at Wittenberg, but it proved to be an important event in the safeguarding life of the Church of England.

Many years later, Matt Ineson was offered a review of his case – with strings attached.  “Old School” was at it again, reasserting its power over a victim and expecting gratitude. They found him awkwardly ungrateful.

If ‘Old School’ would not approach the matter in a modern collaborative way, consulting himself, Devamanikkam’s relatives, and Bishop Croft on the identity of the reviewer, and the terms of reference, Matt Ineson insisted that he would neither engage with the Review, nor permit his data to be used within it.  ‘Old School’ ploughed on, ensuring from the outset that the Review could only ever assess part of the story.

Matt had told his story powerfully at IICSA – as had Gilo – but  unfortunately the scope of IICSA closed just before the Smyth victims and Dr Percy could have their stories of cover-up and institutional bullying considered in that independent secular sphere, away from the corrupting influences of opacity and unaccountable power. There remains much unfinished business within the pursuit of cultural change.

Yet the Humphreys Review is not without value; it tells part, though far from all of the story, and the Church of England must now consider its response. If this is to be another step on the long slow journey towards integrity, the de facto suspension of the former Archbishop of York from ministry must be followed by the suspension of  the current Bishop of Oxford pending a comprehensive re-examination of  both their places within this story and beyond.

Bishop Croft has the historic misfortune of standing in the eye of a perfect storm of safeguarding scandals which we need to identify and confront. First, however, let us consider where we are in terms of precedent.

When the former Bishop of Lincoln Christopher Lowson was alleged to have responded inadequately to safeguarding matters, the then CofE Director of Safeguarding, Melissa Caslake, successfully established that the infamous ‘one year rule’,  time-limiting complaints, ran from the date of her learning of the alleged infraction. She was accorded the status to act independently in such cases. But if she had it, then so must her successor Alex Kubeyinje: indeed, he must have the duty to act. Bishop Lowson suffered a  lengthy suspension (initially imposed by Archbishop Justin before Caslake’s involvement) while the matter was investigated by Lincolnshire Police, with Welby insisting that the suspension was a neutral act. Those matters (in respect of of which the President of Tribunals later found there was no case to answer ) were not more serious than the multiple unexamined residual allegations against Bishop Steven Croft.

When six allegations of mishandling safeguarding  were brought against Dean Percy (with no actual complainant supporting them) in 2020 he too suffered a lengthy suspension, at the hands of Bishop Croft, before those complaints were found to have no substance. Archbishop Sentamu is complaining: “Those who believe that suspension is a neutral act – its effect on me is more devastating than they will ever remember”. Does anyone recall him lifting his voice when Dr Percy was being repeatedly judicially bullied by College, Cathedral and Diocese?  Me neither…

In June 2020 Bishop Croft revoked former Archbishop George Carey’s Permission to Officiate (PTO) in the church where he worships in retirement. Keith Makin had passed on to the National Safeguarding Team two letters that suggested a report about Smyth’s abuse had been seen by Carey in the early 1980s when he was principal of Trinity College Bristol – prior to becoming the archbishop. Carey denied ever seeing the letters and his PTO was restored by Croft seven months later. Croft was effectively instructed to revoke Carey’s PTO by the NST, but the point is that he was ‘suspended’ pending an investigation into poor complaint handling while Croft, still in active ministry, is not.

What cannot be right is for the Bishop of Oxford to enjoy a more privileged response from the institutions of the Church than Lowson, Carey, Percy, and Sentamu pending the fullest  investigation of the facts about his actions. His handling of both matters must be considered, especially after Archbishops Justin and Stephen have been joined by the independent members of the Independent Safeguarding Board (ISB) in affirming the need for a proper examination of Dean Percy’s allegations of institutional bullying and a toxic culture across the upper echelons of the Church, including Lambeth Palace and Church House. Why the delay there?

There are eight points which readers might find clinch the argument for a swift Croft suspension and a joint Percy/Ineson review.

• Matt Ineson alleges that Bishop Croft gave damagingly inconsistent explanations to BBC Radio about the repeated disclosures made to him. This allegation must be resolved one way or the other.

• When an assessment was required of the risk (if any) that Dean Percy posed to all and sundry within Christ Church Oxford, following the allegation in October 2020, so-called ‘assessments of risks’ were prepared, ostensibly by cathedral staff rather than any of the ten approved assessors listed by the Diocese and ignoring the approved CofE procedures for such assessments. Bishop Croft has consistently refused to condemn such irregularity . He needs to account for effectively endorsing the departure from policy and good practice.

• When Dean Percy emerged unscathed from the allegations against him, Bishop Croft did not immediately allow him to return to ministry and refused him a proper leaving Service; now he is under scrutiny, he invites everyone to ‘draw the line’ early and move on. That looks a tad hypocritical, which should not become de rigueur for any bishop let alone a member of the House of Lords.

• Bishop Croft arrived in Oxford whilst under the Ineson CDM investigation. When Cathedral members brought to him evidence that one of his staff might be seriously misrepresenting the character of the final Percy allegation, he took no action and later wrote a ‘fit to receive’ letter, perpetuating the Old School culture of picking and choosing who gets the favours and who gets the hit.

• When such matters were aired publicly in the Archbishop Cranmer blog, questioning the Oxford safeguarding culture, the bishop’s response was to threaten the editor with ruinous defamation proceedings. That is not what openness and integrity looks like.

• In his self-exculpatory letter to 700 Oxford clergy in response to the Humphreys Review, the Bishop ‘victim blames’ Ineson for his being “distracted” by referencing a 10-year-old CDM brought against Matt Ineson after he had disclosed his rape and which Croft himself dismissed. Ineson says this infringes his right to anonymity on that dismissed allegation which he describes as “trumped up” in response to his disclosures.

• Matt Ineson’s complaint extends to the want of care afforded to his mentally ill rapist who committed suicide.

• While the effective suspension of Lord Sentamu is procedurally correct, it is unedifying to see public opprobrium heaped upon ‘the retired black guy’ while the white bishop with far greater responsibility in the matter remains in post.

Bishop Croft has had the Humphreys report for several months to prepare a response; regrets and the Ad Clerum letter are not sufficient for closure on doubts over his episcopal stewardship in these matters. There remains a great deal of unfinished business swept under the carpet at Woodstock Palace / Church House, Oxford / Bishop’s Lodge, Kidlington. It is not unknown for a suspension to free other complainants to come forward.

These are important matters of principle; they are not trivial, vindictive or personal. For too long the critics of the Church have seen cover-up and expediency rule the roost; we may be at the tipping point, but as things stand the essential change cannot be taken for granted especially if laxity, partiality, and expediency are allowed to creep back in.

Sentamu only articulated what many bishops have de facto thought for years, but it is substance not presentation that counts. Croft had primary responsibility for processing the complaint of abuse of a minor and leaving a potential rapist at liberty for a further five years.

Incidentally, one cannot help but notice a public silence on such an important point from Meg Munn, the putative acting chair of the Independent Safeguarding Board since the story broke. This may add to why there is a widespread lack of confidence in that appointment.

The Church is about to face another tsunami of embarrassment over the Soul Survivor allegations. The toxicity of lax process must surely be recognised as having played a part in this fresh scandal, for can it be seriously doubted that had the issues described above been addressed with due regard for transparency and accountability, the attention of the Soul Survivor leadership might have sharpened and victims been emboldened to come forward at an earlier stage?

Of course, suspension and inquiry does not equate to guilt and even adverse findings must result in a proportionate response. Yet if you want to change the Old School culture – you have to change the Old School culture. This can only be done by the Church following its logic over John Sentamu and applying it to Steven Croft without more ado. Good impartial process has to be the order of the day.

The elephant in the room, of course, is that much of what is said about Croft and Sentamu can also be said about Archbishop Justin Welby over similar matters: there is the long-delayed Makin Report. I suspect that after the week he has had, following the Coronation, Archbishop Justin will be seriously considering his own position alongside those of his colleagues.

Some of us have been pointing out that the writing has been on the wall for years.

by Rosie Harper

This is a short reflection about power in the Church from Rosie Harper, a former member of General Synod and Chaplain to the Bishop of Buckingham.

On Tuesday afternoon I attended the 368th Festival Service of the Clergy Support Trust. It took place at St Paul’s and in a weird way it was done in a mini-me style of the coronation. There was a past PM, the Lord Mayor who processed ‘in State’ whatever that means. It seemed to involve a couple of folk in tights who had to carry very heavy stuff ahead of him. Then there were Sheriffs and Bishops and Aldermen and so on. There were three cathedral choirs and lots of fancy dress. Of course it was rather fabulous. The music was beautiful and they had thought hard about being inclusive.

On the front row in contrast to all the gold and entitled flummery were a handful of ‘ordinary’ people who had been the beneficiaries of the Support Trust’s generosity. Tick!

I was squeezed, rather too literally, between two charming gentlemen who seemed to have strips of dead bear hanging for their shoulders. Probably something to do with Livery Companies.

The man on my left was Mr Geoffrey Tattersall KC known to me as an experienced and kind chair of General Synod debates  Naturally he asked me why I wasn’t doing Synod anymore and I gave my usual reply. I no longer believe in it. I felt played and manipulated by the puppeteers behind the scenes. Ah well, he said, it is what it is.

So despite the wholly good and generous intentions of the Trust the service simply dripped entitlement and hierarchy. It dripped power. It mirrored the service last week at Westminster Abbey and was a very vivid display the Established Church. Boy is it established! The nearer to the front you were the more important you could feel. Someone forgot to read the gospels. So I was feeling distinctly queasy as I made my way home. I was trying to join up the dots. For some reason it seemed that Mike Pilavachi was part of the pattern.

So here’s my question. Is all religion inherently abusive? I have yet to meet organised religion that does not use and abuse power, and the worst version is power which comes via a hotline direct from God. This tends to be embedded in a theology rooted in a scary model of God. A God who is so angry that he takes his (righteous, of course) anger out on his own innocent son. If your theology is abusive your structures will be too. And if your structures are abusive they will attract abusers. We don’t know yet how the Pilavachi story will play out, but Ian Paul shouting at everyone to shut up, and hence fanning the flames, does not bode well.

I wonder why, as a religion, a sect, a denomination begins to organise itself as a result of growth, it always creates power structures? There are other more equal and less controlling ways of being community. But power is seductive and pretends to be a servant for the greater good. The temptations of Christ in the desert nail it. Trade your integrity for power is the siren call. Jesus saw right through it, but organised religion falls for it hook, line and sinker. 

I know, I really do, that there is love and kindness and generosity and life changing support that flows from people of faith and from faith communities. Goodness is there and it is abundant. I am scared though that when I see an institution like the CofE or the Catholic church completely unable to reform, to recognise abusive leaders, to accept any independent scrutiny, to name spiritual abuse and most of all to treat survivors with the respect and value and reparation that they deserve. Is it in the end it’s because it can’t be done? The question is horrible. What if religion is abusive -full stop.

by Anonymous

An occasional series looking at how ordinary words and terms have been redefined in the Church of England (CofE). Others in the series to look out will feature mutual flourishing, vulnerable adult, pastoral care, equality, collegiality, mission, appropriate, growth and accountability. And of course, the term ‘safeguarding’. This week, we take a look at ‘independent’.

Readers of this blog may have a fond recollection of the launch of The Independent newspaper in 1986.  It was memorable for many reasons.  This was the first broadsheet newspaper to be launched in the UK for 112 years.  The founders of the newspaper – dissatisfied with the ding-dong battles between Robert Maxwell and Rupert Murdoch slugging it out in circulation figures, scoops and advertising revenue – sought to establish a newspaper free of mogul-ownership.

One of the more striking features of the newspaper was its marketing, with Paul Arden and Tim Mellors leading the team at Saatchi & Saatchi responsible for creating the advertising campaign. Who can forget the giant billboard posters: “It is. Are you?”. Just four words, and then the title of the newspaper. As zeitgeist captions go, hard to beat.

Yet the Archbishops’ Council have rubber-stamped the appointment of Meg Munn as the new chair of the Independent Safeguarding Board (ISB). Munn takes up post this month. This comes at a delicate moment in the gestation of the ISB. The two board members, Jasvinder Sanghera MBE and Steve Reeves CBE, have recently issued a number of statements and reports stressing the need for the ISB to become an authentically independent body. You’d think that request for independence would be granted? Think again.

The Archbishops’ Council has responded by imposing Ms. Munn as the new Chair. She already sits on or chairs other CofE safeguarding panels. She is not independent. Moreover, more than fifty survivors have written to the ISB to protest. They do not have confidence or trust in Ms. Munn. The likely incontinence between the NST, NNSP, NSSG and ISB is now a certainty. There is no proper data-related ISA (Information Sharing Agreement) in place. Anything communicated to Ms. Munn in one forum cannot avoid leakage into another.

The Archbishops’ Council don’t care a jot about any of this, because when you dominate an institution and its culture, words mean what you say they mean.  Take a word like ‘independent’. It means ‘free from outside control; not depending on another’s authority’ (e.g., “the study is totally independent of central government”). But this is not the definition applied by the Archbishops and most bishops. In their case, ‘independent’ means “it wasn’t me that did or decided this: it was s/he, her/him, they/them…but they came to the same conclusion as me, and honestly I did not influence their decision…and they are not me, so they are independent”. In other words, ‘independent’, in episcopal hands, means a separate person agreeing with a decision the bishop has already made.

In case you doubt this Orwellian, Kafkaesque and Lewis Carroll Dictionary World, you may need to remind yourself that the CofE has no written conflict of interest policy. That is partly because “thoughts and prayers for you at this difficult time”, “we have offered pastoral care” and “it was a difficult decision, but I can’t comment further or give my reasons” are what are usually substituted for truth and justice in the CofE. Time and time again.

The last thing your average bishop wants is any independent scrutiny, external accountability or regulation. God forbid! The CofE is a large unregulated body, and in a literal sense, a law unto itself. Employment law, gender, discrimination, pay and conditions – all testify to a culture that works with its own standards (which would be unlawful outside the CofE) Having its own system of ecclesiastical law means it can (almost) get away with murder.

Well, certainly a few suicides – which in any secular body or organisation would prompt a public inquiry, much soul-searching and several sackings – but barely causes a ripple in the CofE. So, after the tragic gas-lighting of Fr. Alan Griffin and which led to his suicide, the senior diocesan officials carry on regardless, safe in the knowledge that any ‘lessons learned review’ will have terms of reference set by the accused, and be conducted by those whose main concern is to protect the reputation and optics of those who might be criticised.  This is a serious pathology within an institution, this is an advanced case of Truth Decay.

Of course, it is true that a term like ‘independent’ can be used in a rather pliable way. My local coffee shop is ‘independent’, by which it means it is not a branch of Costa, Starbucks and the like. But my local independent coffee shop has three branches. Next door to the independent coffee shop is the independent bakery – it has seven outlets.  OK, it is not exactly Greggs, I grant you. But if the bakery had 40-plus outlets, is this now an ‘independent chain’? The term ‘independent’ is a commercially-positioned identity. It connotes local, and not being owned by some faceless foreign conglomerate. It may even mean it makes its own pastries rather than buying them in bulk. Fair enough.

But when the CofE uses the term ‘independent’ in safeguarding, what does it mean?  Is it “free from outside control and not depending on another’s authority”, or the more commercially local definition?  No. Plainly, it is a PR term, and absolutely nothing remotely proximate to genuine independence.

Thus, the Diocesan Safeguarding Advisor (DSA) in your diocese will sometimes be referred to as independent. But they are paid by the Diocese, accountable to the Diocesan Board of Finance, work in Diocesan HQ, and ultimately be accountable to your bishop. (So, good luck with your complaint to the DSA about your bishop’s recent handling of X or Y…how is that investigation progressing? Seems a bit slow…and s/he’s not “stepped back from ministry” as required of all other clergy, pending outcomes…hmm, strange that, strange…).

Last year I wrote to both Archbishops to complain about the fact that the (then) Chair of the ISB, Maggie Atkinson, was not acting independently, and instead seemed to be conducting her work in a manner that was partial and protectionist of existing power interests, including church lawyers, senior officials and PR agents. The Archbishops waived away these objections in their first sentence: “we obviously have a different definition of what ‘independent’ means”.

They went on to explain that the way they used the term had to be qualified, and to factor in that as the Archbishops’ Council were paying for the ISB, yes, of course, to some extent they were inevitably controlling it, and had authority over it. But the ISB was still ‘independent’, they maintained – in a way that one might argue the Isle of White is unattached to England. Or I am independent from my partner.

Or the Basingstoke branch of Costa is from the ones in Basildon, Bicester and Barnet. I mean, those Costa branches are not physically joined together, are they? They have different staff, variable turnovers of income, dissimilar customer profiles – so in a sense they are independent of each other, aren’t they?

Put like this, then pretty well everything in the CofE is independent of everything else in the CofE, and that is also sort of true, isn’t it? Parishes are independent of each other. Clergy too. Dioceses, when it comes to questions of maternity leave, housing allowances, moving expenses, employment…well, yes, they’re all independent of their neighbouring dioceses. You see, having your own definition of words really can work awfully well in certain kinds of cultures and kleptocracies (i.e., 1984, Handmaid’s Tale, etc).

So, when the Lead Bishop for Safeguarding asserted at General Synod that the ISB was ‘independent’ he was not lying. He was just using the word in a rather unconventional way that is different to the rest of the population.

When IICSA demanded independent oversight of safeguarding in the CofE, it was of course left to the Secretary General of the Archbishops’ Council, Mr. William Nye, to properly interpret and translate the term ‘independent’ into a concept that those inside the CofE could work with. Because if ‘independent’ was used and deployed in the conventional sense in the CofE, then bishops would lose power and authority in safeguarding, and be open to challenge. IICSA surely didn’t mean that to happen, did they?

So here are three clusters of questions to ponder the next time you hear your bishop, DSA or some senior official in the CofE say there has been an “independent investigation” into some safeguarding matter or other. Just ask yourself the obvious questions, and put yourself in the position of being on the receiving end of the implementation. Ask yourself if you are comfortable with the standard of truth and justice operating.  Or, feel rather betrayed?

The Set-up:

Who made the complaint? What do you know about the accusation? Were there other charges, victims or complaints? Who set the terms of reference for the investigation? Who paid for these to be set? Did you have any input into this set up, either as a victim, witness or as accused? Is there anyone involved at this stage who has a conflict of interest? How would you even know, or challenge this?

The Execution:

Is the legal firm advising on the investigation process the same one that the Diocese and the Bishop have? Do you have any legal representation, or even legal rights? Is the investigator regulated or accountable, and if so, how and to whom?  What evidence is going to be considered? How was the scope of investigation communicated to you?

The Outcome:

When a decision is made, what rights do you have as a victim or as the accused? If you discover that there have been false witnesses, or that evidence has been redacted, supressed or co-ordinated, can you do anything? Is your Bishop in this acting as your pastor, prosecutor, judge, jury, employer – all of these, or maybe none of them? Can you trust this system in which there appears to be no accountability?

In conclusion, it is these sorts of questions the independently-minded Jasvinder Sanghera and Steve Reeves were beginning to grapple with. Whatever the shortcomings of the nascent ISB – largely attributable to the abysmal resourcing and obstruction from its parent body the Archbishops’ Council – Sanghera and Reeves at least understand independence, and also what a problem conflicts of interest are for the destruction of trust and confidence.

This explains the imposition of Ms. Munn as the new chair. She is in post to remind the rest of the CofE that ‘independent’ is a meaningless term in a church run by autocratic and unaccountable leadership. If Ms. Munn had any decency, integrity and probity, she’d refuse to take on the role. Those who have imposed her are banking on her toughing it out.  That, at a stroke, renders the concept of independence void, and simply leads to a total incontinence with the data and lives of victims, survivors and complainants already abused through CofE safeguarding.

As a postscript, we note that The Independent was eventually bought by Tony O’Reilly’s Independent News and Media Group, before being sold to the Russian oligarch Alexander Lebedev in 2010. Lebedev, like Putin, is a former KGB officer. Lebedev also owns a newspaper with Mikhail Gorbachev. In 2017, Sultan Muhammad Abuljadayel bought a large stake in The Independent.

In theory, The Independent could run a critical story on Lebedev, Gorbachev or Abuljadayel.  But it doesn’t seem likely, does it? You might then ask yourself if it is not a little impertinent, and indeed slightly misleading, to be the owner of a newspaper called The Independent?

We are back deep into CofE safeguarding terrain here. ‘Independent’ is a commercial and marketing-PR term as much as it is a legal one. The Archbishops’ Council hope you will believe they are using the term as a legal or regulatory word. In truth, they are selling you a huge con: it is only their marketing-PR term.

As I say, once you realise that the DSA works for your bishop, it isn’t going to be easy to raise your concerns about episcopal safeguarding conduct. The ISB might have been a useful avenue that opened up an alternative route. Ms. Munn’s appointment puts a huge roadblock firmly in the way. The advertising campaign for The Independent once teased “it is, are you?”. The CofE, with Munn’s appointment, shows that it has its own secret advertising campaign well underway. But there are no teases here. “Independent Safeguarding? Certainly not! Why in God’s name would we?”.