by Gilo
Since her appointment as Lead Safeguarding Bishop in mid-January, Joanne Grenfell has posted on everything on her Twitter account BUT safeguarding. In the four+ months since the Bishop of Stepney has been given this key role, she appears to be missing in action.
Imagine a Lead Bishop for the Environment ignoring harm done to forests, rivers, oceans, biodiversity! It would be strange not to say perverse. As it happens the Bishop for the Environment, Graham Usher, has done about half a dozen social media things in relation to his role during May alone. One particularly striking tweet was of the confirmation card sent to candidates in mid-May with a picture depicting a tree laden with animals in the process of being cut down. This powerful illustration by Nat Morley titled ‘The Tree of Life 6th Mass Extinction’ showed the ‘Environment Bishop’ unafraid of public visibility in his role. Another senior figure, Anne Hollinghurst, acting Bishop of Birmingham, attended Extinction Rebellion’s The Big One protest in Westminster in April.
But in the Church of England’s safeguarding structure we now have a Lead bishop perceived as silent to the harm and re-abuse being done to survivors on an almost daily basis; a bishop who seems to have decided the best course of action with this critical portion of a portfolio is to stay hidden beneath the mantle of the structure and hope the three years passes her by with little to no impact. There’s a rather more sinister possibility: perhaps the bishop has been instructed to follow this course.
What a difference from the part played by Peter Hancock, the last really pastoral bishop in this role. Woefully misguided and misinformed about mandatory reporting as he was, and at times out of his depth – he was nevertheless regarded with affection by many survivors and seen as someone who genuinely cared. He struggled to make a difference. He met with survivors. He went out of his way. It mattered to him that the Church was as dishonest and cruel and complacent as he eventually realized was the case. It was to be his tragedy and ours that weasel ecclesiocrats inside both Church House and Lambeth Palace ran merry rings round him to the point that he became deeply angered and stressed by their machinations. It was widely known that he was livid with Lambeth Palace following Archbishop Welby’s Ch 4 interview. Apparently he had not been informed it was happening, and found himself fielding the anger of Smyth victims at the array of untruths expressed in the course of the interview.
It is also widely known that Jonathan Gibbs experienced moral and emotional exhaustion at the cynicism he found in the culture of the House of Bishops. He was at one time on the verge of quitting the role. I urged him to go (if that was his intention) with a bang and not a whimper. He clung on but seemed to lose any heart in the role and in his last year as Lead bishop resembled a man desperately seeking a demob suit. The sight of him at that shameful Synod last year, sounding like a strangulated Jackanory presenter against the backdrop of brazenly strategic silencing of questions from the platform, was really pitiful. I think by that stage everyone knew he was a spent force who’d lost any power of persuasion that he might at one stage have had.
It is clear to all watchers that the Lead Bishops have their hands on rubber levers which effect little to no change. The power lies behind them on the platform of the carefully stage-managed theatre of Synod. The real levers are in the hands of those who control Synod, control the NST, control Archbishops Council, control the Comms in Church House, manage the Church’s response to Reviews and Reports, control the long drawn out delay to the Redress Scheme, and ultimately control the presentational mirage of ‘journey of change’ in this broken structure. The real levers are operated by the Nyebots while Lead Bishops must be content to handle rubber levers.
Survivors could be forgiven for thinking the Lead Safeguarding role is now little more than a purgatorial stepping stone to a bigger mitre. Do the three years and field your way through the unethical mess of it all and we’ll give you a diocese. That seems to be the way it works. Anyone remember the anger felt by survivors after the Synod? When a list of failures and major questions about accountability were skipped over and erased by a deeply cynical Archbishops Council. It was to be hoped that the next Lead Bishop would at least start with visible drive and recognition of the anger and hurt expressed by survivors, some resolve to mend bridges and show herself impelled by the call for justice, redress and institutional honesty.
But so far there has been little sign that this bishop is doing much else than marking time in a thankless role. Meanwhile the situation is worsening. Is worse now than it was during the time of IICSA. The Church of England is fighting fires on all fronts. Church groups across the evangelical world are waking up to the potentially huge scale of ramifications in the Soul Survivor scandal. Publication of the long awaited Makin Review is around the corner later this year and is likely to be as critical of senior figures and their awareness combined with the ability to look the other way, as has been the Devamanikkam Report. There is renewed interest in the media in the Church’s failure to deliver a Redress Scheme and its re-abusive treatment of survivors in the meantime. The Spindler/Reeves Review recently published on House of Survivors site is a coruscating report into the Church’s continuing cruelty in just one case alone. In the coming weeks a fresh complaint concerning dishonesty and corporate corruption inside the heart of the Archbishops Council will land on the desks of both Archbishops. And so it goes on…
Just this morning a Synod Member with many years experience in corporate investigations tells me, “We need a 10,000 watt spotlight on this organisation as I see so many corporate governance failures which I think need a total clean-up. We choose clergy to be shepherds of flocks, not to run billion pound organisations. Perhaps we shouldn’t be surprised when this proves to be beyond their competence. David was great at dealing with Goliath but proved to have many flaws when he became King. One of the issues is whether the problem is the King or the KIng’s advisers.”
I suspect the Lead bishop is overwhelmed by the sheer number of fires in her department, and overwhelmed too by the multitude of conflicts of interest apparent beneath the surface of the Church’s handling of so much of this crisis. But she will need quickly to find her voice and her courage, and show survivors that she has the moral strength to fight the injustice and intransigence of her structures on our behalf. She will need to step out from behind the purple enclosure and look behind her with a critical eye and call out serious wrongdoing within the hierarchy and their structure. Survivors need to see a Lead Bishop with tenacity to match that of survivors. Quiet complicity with institutional complacency, cruelty and corruption is no longer an option. It looks like negligence and begs the question: is the Bishop even trying to do the job?
Gilo
‘ There’s a rather more sinister possibility: perhaps the bishop has been instructed to follow this course.’
Silence, I’m certain, is planned. And ordered from her bosses. In fact if we were to advise them, ignoring any moral qualms we might have and disregarding the notion that a Church might act in a Christian way, we would recommend silence and inaction. There is nothing more demoralising for a survivor than the wall of silence. It’s their most effective weapon in sapping the energy from all those who challenge them. Because there are no justifications for what they have presided over, nor can there ever be. Most people realise this.
Silence mutes, argument fuels. Given its power, expect silence to continue.
What the Church doesn’t have complete control over however, is the messages delivered outside its jurisdiction by survivor activists and concerned responsible journalists. As the outcry grows across all media, even some church leaders are beginning to show concern.
Of course the Church of England is entrenched in the Establishment. Society as a whole will take a long time to extricate itself from an archaic heritage it largely still sees as good. That said the tide is coming in, and with tsunami size waves like with the latest Soul Survivor crisis, the speed of decline is hastening.
Joanne rarely replies to safeguarding related emails. The strategy is to cower behind the Great Wall of Silence the Archbishops Council has built, with Mr. Nye being the main architect and also 24-7 surveillance ensuring no bishop speaks or acts.
Joanne has her email auto response on permanently. She’s either away, too busy, or just adopts the classic Nye 3-D tactic for safeguarding issues: Delaying, Deflecting and Denying. It served Gibbs well. And Joanne is off to a great start ticking all these boxes for Nye. She will get a diocese in three years, as loyalty to the church hierarchy has a far higher value than truth and justice.
In the meantime, General Synod members can look forward to Joanne rocking up next month with platitudes on progress, journeys and lessons learned. A few tricky questions will sneak in under the radar, and there will be a bit of uncomfortable squirming. But Nye will ensure the other questions are shut down or screened out. Joanne will be politely applauded. A few vague promises of updates will be made. And the cycle will be repeated in November. This is how it works, folks. They will just keep lying to us. It is all they do. But they do it well.
The silent treatment isn’t new and groups have been frozen out of religion before now – shunning, stonewalling, ghosting, excommunication, socially isolating, now blocking on social media: all essentially forms of ostracism. It’s all disconnection, and the opposite of relationship.
So why do it? It doesn’t initially look like abuse though of course it is, and it makes the person (or group) who is not responded to feel really bad and unheard. Why is this lead bishop not speaking out – yes probably being told not to respond – and that’s about central power and control, and at a personal level it’s a way for her to avoid conflict and confrontation. Sad! … and so far another missed opportunity to do the right thing and speak out for truth and justice… still what’s new amongst the bishops …
I won’t comment about the possible reasons why there has been inaction here. But I will say that victims and survivors deserve and need something so much stronger – right now.
With the immense challenges I have faced, partly documented in the ISB report recently released, I have cc’ed the lead bishop in correspondence a number of times over the last few months.
The result? Nothing. Nothing but an auto responder telling me how busy she is.
Action is needed – or a change.
That is indeed very shabby treatment. I am sorry to say that it is only those survivors who have not become too worn down and their friends and supporters who are the ones taking action. And many victim/survivors cannot take the retraumatisation that dealing with the church engenders. The best we can expect from the Church is cynical silence, the worst threats and defamation. Recently we have witnessed the chairman and President of CBI stepping down. Considering the abuse of children and young people alone, we would expect the equivalent from those who parade their moral leadership in public. Considering the establishment nature of the Church, we could reasonably expect government intervention. It seems that even business organisations are not the hardened cynics our church has become. The Church of England has now shown itself to be far less accountable than the CBI.
Sir – We need to have a major review into every contact the Archbishop of York, Canterbury, and, all our Diocese bishops have, nothing is kept secret and, they have external safeguarding reviews in every diocese.
The Great Firewall of Lambeth has successfully protected The Club for many years now, and behind The Club stands their insurance company, which is determined to limit any claims to the barest of minimums.
The only way forward, as happened in the USA, is a class action lawsuit for many millions of £££ for survivors and victims of abusers and of the system, which is itself an abuser.
Many thanks, as ever. Being bishop of Stepney used to be a really Big Thing. Winnington-Ingram and Lang were preferred to London having done their punishment tour in the role. I know that the East End is not what it was, and the Church has faded dramatically in that area, but I would have thought being at Stepney would still be hard enough to be incompatible with any other role.
Yes, it does seem that being safeguarding is a stepping stone to a diocesan role, much as being Treasury ‘devil’ would all but guarantee a spot on the High Court bench. It is about taking bullets for the team rather more than it appears to be about directing policy (Dr Grenfell admits she does not implement anything, as such, but that she does a lot of steering and comms).
It has to be asked why there needs to be a lead bishop of safeguarding or, indeed, anything else. All this allocation of spurious pseudo-cabinet portfolios is a largely useless distraction from what ought to be the pastoral day-job. It should not be for any bishop to dictate policy; rather it should be for the ISB and NST to formulate policy (or, perhaps for the ISB to dictate it, and the NST to implement it). The bishops should instead get out of the way and take directions (i.e., commands) from the national safeguarding professionals who actually know (or ought to know) what they are doing.
There should be redress for survivors. I find it can make my blood boil if I’m not careful, when watching the ridiculously inadequate attempts by the Church to address its shortcomings.
I’ve long since given up the idea that the Church can reform itself. It only responds to external forces. Appointing a new face to represent this or that initiative, is merely a distraction. I’m assuming she will do nothing. Very occasionally I’m surprised in a good way, but I’m certainly not expecting anything.
The drift away from C of E attendance (and giving) is well documented. That drift is accelerated with every fresh scandal. Their main effort is to minimise the impact of these and hope people quickly forget about them.
A common theme that emerges from the dismal responses by the Church on safeguarding is that there’s nobody in charge of safeguarding. But that’s a decision. Welby was quoted as saying that there was nothing he could do about bishops from using non-disclosure agreements, for example. Well, that isn’t true. What it means is that he isn’t willing to take the, admittedly difficult, steps needed to do something. Hancock and Gibbs could have resigned and made public their reasons. Grenfell could resign and admit that her job is useless.
The unpalatable conclusion is that the senior leadership of the church does not want safeguarding to be done properly: at least, not enough to do it.
Spit on: as my colleague Revd Carl Chambers ( follow him on Twitter) points out the Bishops have evolved a cukture of Learned incompetence. If they cannot do anything about it they can’t be blamed. It is the perfect defence strategy for the morally corrupt ( that bit is mine)
It appears that the Lead Safeguarding Role being delegated to a Suffragan Bishop is an avoidance of responsibility from both Arch Bishops and their Council. They can prevaricate and refer questions to her, which she is patently ill equipped to respond to. She has no power to influence events unless she breaks the chain of restrictions imposed upon her and goes Native and breaks the mould with honesty and integrity, something sadly lacking so far. Do we as a church just roll with what is being done to Survivors, day in and day out, or do we protest. Perhaps if the whole of General Synod , clergy and laity in particular rebelled and went public with the Survivors concerns, calling for immediate and urgent action, things might change. But GS is cowed along side the Lead Bishop, unable to act independently. Time for Safe Guarding to be taken away from the Church with a totally external organisation able to make and enforce policy in favour of survivors and if it drains the Insurers resources, so be it.
Totally agree that since Peter Hancock Lead Safeguarding Bishops and their deputies have been a complete waste of space. They are so far off my radar as a possible source of help I don’t bother with them.
I also completely understand the frustration around the procrastination of the Redress scheme but my concern about it being a massive clear up operation for the reputation of the church goes unanswered, even though i am assured of a response from senior members. Handing out cash or other baubles is unlikely to come without actual or implied NDA’s, a “you have your little present now bugger off and shut up”. That will be a catalyst for a mental health crisis amongst survivors. A Redress scheme that cannot interfere in diocesan process is unlikely to bring restorative justice for many who fight that particular corner and redress, once accepted, that closes down any further dialogue or investigation is likely to cause further trauma.
Readers of this blog may not be aware that Bishop Grenfell is now a member of the House of Bishops and, thus, of General Synod—in which role, presumably, at York she will propose the approval of the ‘Safeguarding Code of Practice – Safeguarding Practice Reviews’ (GS 2295) which will not now be slipped through as ‘deemed business’ as the required 25 Synod members have asked for it to be debated. This is the Code of Practice that, in an earlier version, was the subject of significant criticism on this blog by ‘Graham’:
https://survivingchurch.org/2022/10/30/a-reflective-exercise-on-proposed-change-to-reviews/
The circumstances in which Joanne Grenfell became a member of the House of Bishops are, I suspect, not well-known, and are not without controversy. These, then, are the facts concerning Bishop Joanne’s election to the HoB:
As Area Bishop of Stepney, Joanne is a suffragan bishop and was not one of those elected to Synod to represent the southern suffragans in the ‘general’ election in October 2021. Indeed, she did not stand for election at that time.
Earlier this year a vacancy in the HoB occurred caused by the ‘translation’ of Bishop John Perumbalath, who was one of the five suffragan bishops representing the southern suffragans , to be the diocesan Bishop of Liverpool.
Under the Synod’s election rules, when a casual vacancy occurs within two years from the last ‘general’ election, instead of there being a by-election, the votes in the general election are recounted after eliminating the person who (in this case) is no longer a suffragan bishop and any of the unsuccessful candidates who indicate that they no longer wish to stand. In the constituency for southern suffragans in October 2021 there were ten candidates, of whom five (including John Perumbalath) were elected and five were unsuccessful. The five unsuccessful candidates were:
• Jonathan Baker (Bishop of Fulham)
• Gavin Collins (Bishop of Dorchester)
• Jacqueline Searle (Bishop of Crediton)
• David Williams (Bishop of Basingstoke)
• Dagmar Winter (Bishop of Huntingdon)
Looking at the October 2021 voting figures, if none of the five stood down, it seemed likely (though not certain, as the STV counting is complex) that Jonathan Baker would have stepped up to fill the vacancy. However, that did not happen.
On 30 January 2023, Simon Gallagher, ‘Director of Central Secretariat’ sent the following e-mail to the members of the College of Bishops (i.e. all the bishops – diocesans and suffragans) “on behalf of William Nye”
[Continued…]
Comment continued…
“Dear Members of the College of Bishops,
“This message is addressed primarily to southern suffragan bishops. You will shortly receive (or have just received) a notification about an election by the southern suffragans to fill a vacancy in the House of Bishops, and in General Synod.
“Following the translation of Bishop John Perumbalath to the See of Liverpool from the See of Bradwell, there is now a vacancy for a southern suffragan in the House of Bishops.
“Under the Synod’s Standing Orders, because it is less than two years since the last election, there would not normally be a by-election for this vacancy; instead, we would re-run the count from autumn 2021, to see who from the five previous candidates would be elected without Bishop John standing. However, the five bishops who stood previously but were not elected have all graciously agreed not to stand for this re-run, in order to enable Bishop Joanne Grenfell to stand for election so that, if she were elected, the Lead Bishop for Safeguarding would be on the House of Bishops and in the General Synod.
“As such, there will be an election for the vacancy for a southern suffragan in the House of Bishops. Of course, it is open to anyone eligible to put their name forward for this election and any southern suffragan bishop is free to do so. However, may I encourage you to reflect on whether it may be preferable for Bishop Joanne to be able to take the place on the House of Bishops, so that she may be part of the House and the General Synod in her role for Lead Bishop for Safeguarding.
“Best wishes
“William”
Although there has been no announcement on the C of E website, it is my understanding that the southern suffragans dutifully complied with the Secretary General’s wishes, with the outcome that Joanne has been elected unopposed to fill the vacancy.
Putting to one side the arguments for the Lead Bishop on Safeguarding to be in the House of Bishops (and thus able to speak in that capacity in both the HoB and General Synod)—and I acknowledge that there are good arguments—is it the business of the Secretary General of the Synod to, in effect, seek to influence the southern suffragans to achieve that outcome? Indeed, is it really his role to write to the bishops at all about filling the vacancy in the HoB? If the southern suffragans are to be written to with a view to securing the unopposed election of Joanne Grenfell (since the clear message of Nye’s e-mail was to discourage anyone from standing against her and thus to require a vote), should that not have been by the Archbishop of Canterbury (or the two archbishops jointly), or possibly a suggestion by Jonathan Gibbs as the outgoing lead bishop?
A related question: who approached the five suffragan bishops who failed to be elected in 2021 to ask/persuade them ‘graciously’ to step aside? Was that William Nye or, if not him, who?
With regard to the issue of whether Bishop Joanne is “missing in action”, not being a contributor to or follower of the ‘twittersphere’ I will not comment on that aspect of Gilo’s post. That said, it is worth noting what the bishop (‘JG’) said when interviewed by Ed Stourton (‘ES’) on the BBC Radio 4 ‘Sunday’ programme on 14 May 2023:
The interview started (at about 7.43 am) with questions about the news that Lord Sentamu had been asked to step back from active ministry following publication of the Humphreys review into the Devamanikkam case. Ed Stourton followed it up with questions about the Independent Safeguarding Board (ISB) and the recent appointment of Meg Munn, chair since 2018 of the National Safeguarding Panel (NSP), to be also acting chair of the ISB.
ES Well, by a sort of grim serendipity, I suppose you could say, we were anyway going to do an item, as you know, this week, about the allegations from some members of the Independent Safeguarding Board you have, who have the job, I suppose you could say, of marking your homework, as it were, allegations that actually their independence is being interfered with by the Church of England. What’s your response to that suggestion?
JG So, the Independent Safeguarding Board is in the process of being set up. It’s in phase one and it’s looking forward to the next step, which is to sort of full independence. I absolutely recognise that there have been teething problems in getting that going. Now, we’ve had more conversations this week that have been actually really constructive about how that should look, but it’s not because the Church is resisting independence. It’s about getting the right structures for independence: how it’s funded and what the scope of work is, what reporting looks like, and I think that does need further work, but we are taking some really constructive steps towards that at the moment.
ES Well, what about the hiring of a new chair for the Board, Meg Munn? One of the concerns of some of those on the Board, and indeed some survivors, is that she is actually also the chair of another group within the Church of England, which does make it rather difficult to see how she could be independent.
JG I really hear the concerns of victim and survivor representatives and advocates in the way that that process has been handled, and I think we can all put our hands up and say that it’s not been right. And, in particular, I think there’s been quite a lot of confusion about terms of reference and responsibilities and we’re spending some time at the moment trying to disentangle that so that we all are clear about who’s responsible for what and how these things should happen. Meg brings a lot of skill to this, but what we’re trying to do is separate out what’s the work of the ISB, and then what’s, perhaps, the separate piece of work, about what does the next stage of independence look like; but I do acknowledge that it hasn’t been the best start…
[… interview of Joanne Grenfell, continued]:
ES Let me sort of just cut through that. Do you think people can have confidence in the independence of the Board if she remains as its chair?
JG What I hear clearly from victims and survivors is that while there is a perception of a conflict of interest, even if that isn’t the case, then they aren’t able at the moment to feel trust in them. But I think people within it recognise… (ES interrupts)
ES But I’m not quite sure what your answer is on the position of Meg Munn. Do you think she should remain, or do you think she should withdraw, or do you think you should withdraw her hiring? What do you think should happen about her?
JG Personally, I have huge confidence in Meg because of the competence that she brings and the wide range of expertise from, you know, other fields she works in. I recognise that the issue of her chairing is not yet resolved and I can only say that there are some really deep and detailed conversations going on at the moment that are constructive that we hope will mean that we can make progress in the next week or two.
It will be noted that the bishop admits (i) that the process for appointing Meg Munn had been handled had “not been right”, and (ii) that the issue of her chairing the ISB was “not yet resolved”, adding that she hoped progress could be made on that “in the next week or two.” That was nearly 4 weeks ago now and there has been no announced resolution of the issue, so it appears that Meg is still in post.
Instead, on 24 May, the other two members of the ISB, Jasvinder Sanghera and Steve Reeves, served a formal ‘Dispute Notice’ (under the terms of their respective consultancy contracts) on the Archbishops’ Council. Clause 21.1.1 requires that on service of such a notice “the Secretary General of the Archbishops’ Council and Member shall attempt in good faith to resolve the Dispute.” A relevant question, perhaps, is whether the Secretary General (William Nye) should be referring the Dispute Notice to the Archbishops’ Council so that its members can direct him on how he should respond to the notice. So far as I am aware, although a statement was issued on 24 May (reported in the Church Times on 26 May, page 4), saying that the Dispute Notice had been served and that “the Board members assert that the Council has interfered in the operation of the ISB, compromising its independence” and complaining of “actions taken by the Council, without consultation with the ISB” being “a direct threat to its independence… contrary to the Council’s undertaking not to frustrate the work of the ISB”, the full terms of Notice have not yet been made public.
A comment on the appointment of Meg Munn. The issue is not whether she is or is not sufficiently independent of the other safeguarding bodies (although it would be hard to see that she is). It is that her appointment specifically breached the Terms of Reference of the ISB in force at the time of her appointment: “Phase 1 ISB has three members. All are independent of all Church bodies.” (Membership section 1 on page 5) It is clear that as a matter of fact, not subjective judgement, she is not independent of the NSP, since she is its chair, and that is a Church body. She is therefore explicitly disqualified under the TOR. It is also clear that her appointment did not follow the procedures laid down in Membership section 5.
Meg Munn’s appointment as acting chairman of the ISB is irregular for a number of reasons, as I explained in my letter published in the Church Times on 28 April 2023:
“The Annual Report 2022-23 of the Independent Safeguarding Board (ISB), written by the two members, Jasvinder Sanghera and Steve Reeves, and published on 24 April, blows away any remaining claim that the ISB is independent, stating on page 19 that it “currently exists within the structure of the National Church Institutions with oversight from the Archbishops’ Council”.
“That servile relationship with the Archbishops’ Council is highlighted by the fact that Meg Munn has been imposed on the ISB as acting chair, in clear breach of the ISB’s terms of reference, which state that the Archbishops’ Council “ratifies” board appointments and that each member is appointed following a process that includes “public advertisement of vacancies” and “the use of expert recruiters to ensure a wide field”. Added to this is the obvious conflict of interest in appointing a person who is also chairs the National Safeguarding Panel [NSP].
“It is especially disturbing to note, according to the report in the Sunday Telegraph on 23 April, that neither board members nor abuse victims were consulted over the appointment of Ms Munn, and that the members were “instructed not to engage with victims on matters of ‘independence and the arrival of the chair’”. Given, too, the expressed lack of confidence in her by many survivors of abuse, Ms Munn must surely now state that she will not take up the role of acting chair, and the Secretary-General, William Nye, must give a full account of how her appointment came to be made.
“In February, General Synod members were denied the opportunity to debate the ISB (News, 2 February; 6 February). Patently, such a debate must take place at York in July, when those responsible for the current débâcle can be held to account.”
Jane Chevous, a ‘survivor’ member of the NSP, who was also interviewed by Ed Stourton on the ‘Sunday’ programme, said this about Ms Munn’s appointment:
ES: Are you saying that you can’t have confidence in the independence of the Board unless she withdraws or in some way goes?
JC: Absolutely, my view is that we do not have confidence in an appointment that has been made without due process, without any consultation with survivors or existing members of the Board, and where somebody has had that conflict of interest, it is a red line.
At present there seems to be a stand-off, with both the Archbishops’ Council and Ms Munn seemingly having ‘doubled-down’ on the issue.
Recently I had a zoom call with Jasvinder and Steve, I asked them to resolve some issues for me, and, they did not manage to do so, just a cheap listening exercise.
Thank you David for this contribution to what was broadcast last Sunday as well as the previous comments. It is very easy to miss this material on the radio and it is good that it is now published to read by anyone who is trying to follow the saga.
I have asked Bishop Joanne to remove a couple of Diocese Safeguarding Advisors from being able to work in the Church of England, and, to refer them to the Disclosure and Barring Service, she refused to speak to me on the telephone but I had to speak to Debi Tony, and, I have asked them to resolve some issues, and they have covered this up.
I have never met a bunch of incompetent safeguarding advisors in the Church of England, who have said they want to speak to me about some safeguarding issues, they talk to others about me, and, then ask others to ask me to speak to them, and, then when I make contact give me the silent treatment.
I have asked for a major investigation like the police are doing and every Diocese and Parish Safeguarding Advisors in the Church of England are re-vetted, and, incompetent Diocese and Parish safeguarding advisors are removed from being able to practice.
I have also asked that in the light of the Soul Survivor Festival scandal, that every Church of England festival in the United Kingdom, every Christian retreat, church away day, have a major safeguarding review to ensure that no other scandals come out of the Church of England.
I have asked for a major review into every person who has a disability and a mental health condition if they are subject to Diocese Safeguarding agreements, assessments, and, monitoring.
Every Diocese Safeguarding Advisor should also report to a member of the National Safeguarding Team as well as a Diocese Bishop.
Mark, did you pick up that Steve and Jasvinder have gone?
No but they could explain why the ICB say they cannot help and Jasvinder was not survivor focused, we only had a zoom meeting a few weeks ago. Russell is in charge of the ICB. I asked for Independent input and they closed the case. Steve Reeves I do think is excellent.