Last Sunday at General Synod in York, something seemed to crack. The power dynamics that have kept the members of the Church of England hierarchy firmly in charge. shifted significantly to favour voices from the floor in a decisive way. At a critical moment, it seemed that the rule book of Synod would prevail to suppress the manifest desire of the gathering to hear from the two sacked members of the Independent Safeguarding Board. On the fourth? attempt, a procedural arrangement was found to allow them to speak. Jasvinder Sanghera and Steve Reeves who, until two days ago, were members of the ISB, were allowed to present Synod with their perspective on the recent struggles to bring clarity and decency to the whole tarnished record of safeguarding in the Church of England.
Any examination of the power struggles that have been going on around the CofE on safeguarding will have noticed that survivors and their supporters have grown in confidence in recent times. This is in no small way thanks to the ability of the internet to allow communication between supporters of this cause to flow freely and quickly. The power of the ‘establishment’ to dictate a version of reality that suggests consistent competence and good judgment on the part of senior members of the Church, has been increasingly questioned and challenged. Finally, the voice of the weak, illustrated in the Gospels by the importunate widow, has broken through decisively to claim the moral and political high ground. It is quite clear that institutional power as represented by the Archbishops’ Council did not hold the version of truth that the bulk of Synod members wanted to affirm. They applauded the cause of the abuse survivors and those working for them, especially Jasvinder and Steve. Attempts by the platform to control the narrative and show the Church of England as a consistently compassionate and competent body seem to have totally failed.
Overall the dynamics of power within the Church of England have proved remarkably stable over the centuries. Looking at the office of bishop, we see how anyone achieving this rank in the past acquired automatic access to the highest social and legal institutions in the land. Even the manner of your dress was meant to impress your social inferiors with an aura of high status and power. The ordinary folk did not disagree with a figure who could claim superior learning, the authority of God and the law of the land on his side. Whether the advent of women to the status of bishop will do much to change this still powerful dynamic is unclear. What still seems to be true is that, despite many changes in society, bishops still possess considerable power and influence over others. Synodical government in the CofE and the later institution of Archbishops’ Council (AC) by Archbishop Carey attempted to inject a more collegiate feel to the office but the influence of each individual bishop is still strong. Currently, particularly over the past day or two, the role of the AC has come under scrutiny. Although the membership of this body, which includes lay and clerical members is known, much of what they do and the way decisions are reached is shrouded in mystery, since no minutes are published. It is also unclear who has the most powerful voice within this Council. The episcopal voice nevertheless appears to be strong. We are also assured that the Council decision to dissolve the ISB was unanimous. There is however a suggestion, based on some informal remarks of Archbishop Justin, that both Archbishops wanted a pause in putting this decision into effect. It would be expected that someone on this Council would have realised how utterly devastating to survivors the precipitate dissolution of the Board would prove to be. The sudden withdrawal of support to dozens of survivors would be a reckless action and probably seriously detrimental to their well-being. A ‘unanimous’ decision on this point would indicate a lack of heart as well as a political insensitivity to the mood of Synod as well as the wider Church. It is hard to believe that a true representative body containing so many illustrious members of the national Church would be so totally lacking in emotional intelligence and good old fashioned common sense. If the decision to abolish the ISB was indeed unanimous, then this should give us serious concern for the calibre of those who manage the affairs of the Church at the highest level.
July 2023 will be remembered in the CofE as the time when some of the old patterns of unquestioning obedience to bishops and their power was challenged. Another momentous day took place in the Winchester diocese two years ago when a group of courageous clergy and laity made it known that they intended to propose a vote of no confidence in their bishop. For those in stipendiary positions this was a high-risk action. Bishops have considerable power over the careers and livelihoods of active clergy, and it was possible that some careers would be blighted for ever because an individual had been identified as a ‘troublemaker’. Promotion in the Church seems to work well some of the time, but it is easy to become ‘non-grata’ for taking a strong line or taking up an unpopular cause. I am also aware of at least two recent cases of the opposite – favouritism. Two individuals have been preferred or promoted in the middle of serious CDM processes against them. The question arises:- Was this individual being promoted to remove them from indiscretions in their old post? Was there a hope that all the CDM problems would thus somehow vanish? Are sending or receiving bishops in the CofE, by ignoring an unresolved CDM, colluding with what is effectively a corrupt procedure? I mention these two CDM processes left hanging because they indicate that at least four bishops are using their authority to steamroller the statutory systems of justice so as to favour individuals. Arbitrary decision making by bishops is likely to be an issue in many parts of the church, but it is only occasionally, as during this past week, that the curtain is pulled back sufficiently for us to see arguably dishonest, even shameful activity among our leaders on the AC. Perhaps it is only a matter of time before laity and clergy routinely question episcopal decisions that are made. Of course, the bishops may be correct in their judgements but equally they may be wrong. No one should ever be penalised for not adopting the necessary awe and deference to the fathers and mothers in God.
The speeches given by Jasvinder and Steve this week at York will have considerable impact on the future of church safeguarding. They will also make it much more difficult for people with power in the church to ignore the needs of survivors and the abused. I suspect that every bishop in the CofE will feel the effect of the fresh air of decency, justice and fair play that were on display at York. Any future attempt by those In authority to favour the institution over abuse sufferers will find that task far harder. They will be less inclined to ignore or suppress systems of justice because they can. Rather they may be inclined to look for the path that indeed puts the survivor at the centre rather than the reputational and financial interests of the Church. We will see. At the very least we hope to have a clearer sense of the way that everyone in the Church, from archbishops downwards, can work together with the standards of love, justice, openness and healing right at the top of the agenda.
Many thanks for this. In view of Gavin Drake’s abortive motion and subsequent resignation yesterday, I fear that if something seemed to crack, it certainly did not shatter. To this we might attribute a high degree of gamesmanship in the management of Synod by the executive, the large influence of the payroll vote who have a strong investment in the conservation of the status quo (under the guise of moderate/cosmetic ‘reform’), large doses of deference/gullibility and sheer institutional inertia.
I suspect that by the time adequate safeguarding measures are in place the Church will very largely have ceased to exist.
I asked Mr Drake to give me a call in the last week and He has refused to call.
He’s had a lot on his plate.
Mark, I am concerned to read that. You say that Mr Drake ‘refused’ to call you. Do I infer from the way your comment is worded that you left him a voicemail message asking him to call? Did you identify yourself (i.e. not just as ‘Mark’) and say why you wished to speak to him? As Janet Fife has commented, Gavin has had a lot on his plate this last week. It’s perhaps not the best time to seek to speak to him in the immediate aftermath of his experiences at General Synod and his decision to resign his membership.
I have asked to speak to him before about Safegarding Issues in the Diocese of Southwell and Nottingham by email via his website.
Froghole offers a helpful diagnosis and prognosis. If those who are currently running Archbishops Council, Synod, CHW, LamPal, NCIs and much else continue to do so, the CofE probably cannot recover from the damage that is still being caused. External intervention might save the church from itself – but that needs decisive regulatory action from Parliament and bodies such as the Charity Commission.
Excellent analysis, Stephen. The cracks in this governance are now irreparable. But the polity is not yet shattered. However, it has now lost trust and confidence and there is no way back from here. How long the leadership will take to realise that, and whether they care at all if they do, remains to be seen.
I’m reminded of Old Testament texts to the effect of: ‘Because the Lord wished to destroy them utterly, he hardened their hearts.’ I don’t think it’s God hardening the hearts of the archbishops and Archbishops’ Council – they’re capable of doing that themselves, aided by groupthink – but the effect may well be the utter destruction of the C of E.
I think we should consider seriously the possibility that the root cause is, literally, diabolical.
I think you’re right. I have felt very strongly the forces trying to silence, intimidate and control. None of this is of God and it has a power stronger than the individuals involved
A further challenge: Church Times “Archbishop Welby undermined me’ — Meg Munn quits as Church’s safeguarding chair” https://www.churchtimes.co.uk/articles/2023/14-july/news/uk/archbishop-welby-undermined-me-meg-munn-quits-as-church-s-safeguarding-chair
“THE acting chair of the Independent Safeguarding Board (ISB), Meg Munn, has accused the Archbishops’ Council of being “slow to listen” to experts — and the Archbishop of Canterbury of “undermining” her work — as she resigns all her safeguarding responsibilities within the Church.”
How/why does Ms Munn say that Archbishop Welby undermined her work? I don’t have a Church Times sub, and I suspect other readers won’t have either.
The story quotes her as saying “Unfortunately, despite warm words from [Archbishops’] Council members, over the three months that followed, they failed to support me as Chair in developing plans for phase 2 of the ISB, indeed the Archbishop of Canterbury actually undermined me.” in the context of the dispute between her and the existing members “The Archbishop of Canterbury intervened. He wrote to all three members of the ISB urging that we work co-operatively. However, rather than endorsing the reasons for my appointment and stating he expected professional behaviour from everyone, he indicated a desire ‘to move as swiftly as possible towards the appointment of a substantive new Chair’ — a statement that was no doubt taken as a signal by the two ISB members that they could continue their behaviour as they would soon be rid of me.”
In summary then, the ISB members would not do what she wanted and the ABC would not order them to do so.
Incidentally, the AC announcement at the time of her appointment made it clear that she was “Acting Chair” and that “the Board have been asked to develop proposals for a process to appoint a permanent independent Chair and additional Board members”. So ABC was re-iterating what she already knew on taking up the appointment.
Thank you. I don’t have much sympathy for her – she should have resigned when nearly 80 survivors protested her appointment, and many said they did not want her to have access to their data.
The other person who has just resigned is Mike Pilavachi: https://www.soulsurvivorwatford.co.uk/latestupdates
That’s all well and good but we must not make him an escape goat and where other abuse is taking place in church leadership for the Church of England to fail to act. There are abusers in church leadership still in active ministry and they must resign also.
Agreed. Did you think I was suggesting otherwise?
I notice that the ISB website is still up and running as if it were still functioning.
As a matter of legal principle, Mike Palavachi is actually innocent, until proven guilty of whatever wrongdoing has been charged against him. That does need to be remembered, as several comments made elsewhere do seem to assume the opposite.
What makes it more difficult is the legal principle of ‘sub judice’. Should we actually be discussing or commenting on the case, or does this sort of enquiry differ from a court of law? I ask simply to improve my own understanding of the processes – I have limited legal knowledge, arising from my old work in motor tax, sufficient to kake me cautious about it all.
I’ve never been to Soul Survivor, and certainly hadn’t even heard of Mr P until this blew up, so I’ve no axe to grind in the case
Having said that, Matt Redmond’s recent remarks are concerning – I’m afraid they start to have an all too familiar ring to them, albeit over personal incidents at a much lower level.
What should have raised red flags around the Pilavachi enterprise, and its identical twin lookalikes everywhere, was firstly the lack of sound theology and its consumeristic whipping up of shallow emotions. My pals went to enterprises of that kind every summer and came back worse and worse every autumn. I told them so but they didn’t seem to think that helpful of me.
Secondly it’s not surprising he had (so it emerges) been irregularly employed by his parish / diocese and irregularly ordained (like the Smyth clan, the ex bishop of Winchester, and others).
I knew Zacharias was no good in 2011 from 90 seconds flicking through his books: non sequiturs regarding cricket and his being guilt tripped while in hospital at age 17. Was I supposed to inform the public in 2011 of things they could already read?
Why wait till a so called “fall from grace” gets unveiled? Have human beings not got sound criteria already? Is church about setting the leaders up? Is church about setting us all up?
Stephen’s comments about people receiving promotion whilst undergoing a CDM process is a particularly significant issue for me.
Those of you who recall the Kenneth Saga in previous blogs will not be too surprised to learn that it is still continuing. We plod on. It is now three years and four months since the allegation was first made and there still has been no investigation or scrutiny of evidence. We do though have a panicking Diocesan Safeguarding Adviser who, since early 2022, has been shrieking, “The case is closed! The case is closed!”
The latest progess for us is that we have filed a CDM against the senior church person who is on the Safeguarding Core Group. In 2020 she suppressed a vital piece of evidence which could have exonerated Kenneth and she still refuses to reveal it. Also, on the way she has ignored other evidences which could have proved his innocence.
Soon she is to leave her present post to take up promotion in an even more prestigious place of worship. This new post gives her increased responsibilities in Safeguarding. She will be in a senior role. She will be wholly in charge. I did ask and the Bishop who is receiving her is well aware that the CDM filed against her is for mismanaging safeguarding practices. However he is not going to let a little thing like that worry him. Nor is the Bishop she is leaving. He must have written a glowing reference for her to be accepted for such a post above all other candidates. Unless of course the take up was poor and she is the best of a bad job. That could well be the case in this present climate of safeguarding in the Church of England. After last weekend who would want such a job. Still, she will get the increased salary (presumably).
It seems to me that if anyone in the C/E wants promotion the first step is to have a CDM filed against them then promotion must surely follow.
I totally agree. I have received lots of abuse and everyone who has abused gets more responsibility, promotion and does it to others and the Diocese think highly of them and the victim has to watch until a fall from grace like Mike Pilovatchi and then people disassociate themselves with those in high power. They answer to God eventually.
Does anyone know about the new ISO reported in the Church Times?
https://www.churchtimes.co.uk/articles/2023/14-july/news/uk/new-church-safeguarding-regulator-appears-on-the-block-anonymously
I don’t understand how they can start that up in the Autumn without full synod approval and seemingly without ABC agreement. It would be so brilliant if they could but surely dioceses can just ignore them.
I need urgent help with our Diocese. Their safegarding processes are so poor it’s unreal.
I would like to be involved in the Independent Safeguarding Office but I don’t think they would let me, I would speak the truth.
Can you say which diocese?
Can you give the gist of the article for those of us who don’t get the Church Times?
It seems to be a private initiative, according to the press releas copied at https://www.thinkinganglicans.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/20230710-ISO-Press-Release-Independent-Safeguarding-Office.pdf
It was incorporated on 10 July as a company, number 14990612. Its sole director and majority shareholder is Keith Arrowsmith, a charity lawyer.
Trish, My understanding that it is an entirely independent initiative, intended to show what can and should be done, albeit that to be effective it needs ‘buy in’ by the C of E and other churches etc willing to submit to its ‘jurisdiction’. Therefore, it doesn’t need Synod approval or ABC agreement. My understanding (though I’m not privy to the details) is that the ISO will be a charitable incorporated organisation, but the details are yet to be revealed. Clearly, though, this initiative puts (or should put) pressure on the C of E following the disbanding of the ISB and the débâcle at General Synod last Sunday afternoon.
My understanding is that Martyn Percy is behind it. Not sure how it will get the trust of survivors or the CofE.
I don’t know if Prof Percy is behind this initiative or not. If he is, that will not recommend it to the C of E, but will not be a problem to most survivors.
Southwell and Nottingham. I have never met such bizarre behaviour like I have in the last few years. How can priests diagnose people with complex PTSD for example when they are not clergy? Asking to assess my needs then never have, said I should have pastoral support then never offer it, ask to speak to my friends, family and health care professionals even coming to GP appointments with me. Very strange.
Only a mental health professional can diagnose complex PTSD. It’s nice of the priest to go with you to see your doctor – if you asked them to. Otherwise, it’s out of order.
Sadly, they forced it upon me to want to go with me, I said no, they would not accept no for an answer, I reinforced boundaries and they continued to cause alarm, upset and distress, raised a safegarding concerns and then they have got revenge at me since. I said I have capacity, I do not consent to what they were doing and a doctor will not tell them my life’s history circumstances and events. The church thinks it can do as they like at times, they cannot.
Similarly, I had a Bishop who refused to believe the professional who said I did not need professional help! So asking me to heal before he could help me (!!!) was impossible anyway. It’s like asking me to stop wife beating!
The church cannot diagnose any conditions, they often their behaviour causes anxiety and depression so they say a person has mental health issues when they do not, a cycle hard to break once it starts. They can ask to pray but that’s the line unless a parishioner wants them to go to clinically appointments. However that should not trigger safeguarding is this is out of their remitbif saying hello on Sunday and asking for your money’s .
The ISO is still at the conceptual stage, though I gather on good authority it will be seeking to act in the safeguarding field in the same sort of way that other regulators and watchdogs operate. There are no plans to make the ISO statutory, which would require the assent and direction of Parliament.
To be honest, it does not matter whether the CofE tries to ignore the ISO. That would be like a major advertiser ignoring the Advertising Standards Authority. Consumers would still be made aware that complaints have been made and upheld, and the ASA publication of findings is usually highly detrimental to the business of those companies that breach ASA codes. Will anyone want to go to a church in a diocese, or support a diocese, that exhibits failings and low standards, and keeps abusing power? Dioceses, bishops and churches will find it a lot easier to comply with a watchdog-regulator.
Does Synod or the Archbishops’ Council need to agree to any of this? No. They weren’t consulted on the setting up of and the powers of the Charity Commission or the Information Commissioners Office. Nor the ASA (as above) which recently ruled that the Archbishops Council had breached ASA codes by placing a misleading recruitment advert for the ISB. The advert was ruled to be misleading, and the advertiser – the Archbishops Council – was told not to repeat false or misleading claims.
The ISO will take awhile to commence work. But the CofE will never initiate this, despite saying it is committed to independent oversight. They don’t mean what they say. With all trust and confidence broken in the CofEs safeguarding, the ISO cannot come soon enough.
I regret to say that this ISO project is most unlikely to succeed (whatever “success” means in this context). As a purely private initiative, a charitable company can have at most the legal powers of a private person. It cannot grant itself the power to compel the production of documents or the attendance and testimony of witnesses; it cannot legally even acquire and hold private personal information without the permission of the subjects; it cannot enforce its decisions, issue orders to anyone or penalise them for non-compliance. Even in the unlikely event that the Church of England (or rather, the numerous legally separate entities and data holders) were to agree to be bound by its instructions and decisions, it’s very unlikely that any other parties would choose to do so.
The examples cited are not comparable. The ASA is indeed a private body — formed by agreement between a range of organisations within the advertising and media industry (originally against the impending threat of a statutory regulator). They agree to fund it and to be bound by its decisions. It can not and did not order the AC, or anyone else for that matter, not to advertise in a certain way (in fact, I cannot find details of any decision involving them — was the reference in fact to the 2012 case involving “Archbishop Cranmer”?): it can instruct advertising agencies and media not to accept non-compliant advertisements (and has other soft sanctions). The other regulators such as ICO or the CC are statutory bodies with legal, and legally enforceable, powers, and with regulations which they can enforce in the courts.
The proposed private ISO has none of these things, and and indeed if the ISB were ever to come into existence, it would need to have at the very least legal Measures passed by Synod, and probably primary (statute) legislation in Parliament as well. It would also be extremely expensive.
Incidentally these things were clear at the time of initiation of the ill-fated ISB project by the AC (dateable to Gavin Brown’s paper in February 2021) and yet it would appear that AC chose not to see them.
I wonder when the power of the bishops will be curbed by actually becoming accountable. They will only make abusers fully accountable when they are themselves.
Announced by the Church of England today:
“The Archbishops of Canterbury and York have welcomed the announcement today that Professor Alexis Jay, the former chair of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse, IICSA, has agreed to develop proposals for a fully independent structure to provide scrutiny of safeguarding in the Church of England. She will be supported by the former secretary to IICSA , John O’Brien.”
https://www.thinkinganglicans.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/COFEJAY2.pdf
Thanks, Rowland, that is very good news. Now a lot will depend on the terms of reference she is given.
From Professor Jay’s personal statement below, I think it’s pretty clear that she will call the shots, so there is, indeed, the prospect of an entirely new broom in C of E safeguarding.
A further, more detailed, statement from Professor Jay:
https://www.thinkinganglicans.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/PressReleaseAlexisJay-4.pdf
This is good. I trust that her work will include other forms of abuse, such as bullying.
I believe that threats and verbal abuse, humiliation, blaming, controlling, pressuring and co-ercion, intimidation and causing fear, ignoring the person, not giving the person a chance to express their views, and making someone feel worthless are all listed as abusive actions in a Church of England factsheet “Abuse” a best practice reference document for use with those who have a role with children, young people and adults.
Oh yes, it is. But Jay’s speciality is child sex abuse.
I hope the independent safeguarding body she sets up will deal with adult complainants, not children only. Otherwise, where will the Soul Survivor victims go? Not to mention other adult survivors. If the independent body handles only cases of alleged child abuse the job will be only half done.
Apologies for the length of this, but it’s so important if people might miss reading Professor Jay’s statement. In it she says:
“When I was Chair of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse, I heard at first hand of the devasting effects of abuse within the Church of England, and of the failures, often repeated, to prevent it from occurring. I was very clear in my recommendations that safeguarding in the Church would require genuine independence in order to be fully effective. I have been just as clear with the Archbishop of Canterbury and with the Archbishop of York that this programme of work must be entirely independent of the Church too for it to succeed.
“I would like to assure everyone that I mean what I say. My team will not include anyone employed by the church, nor will we hold meetings or conduct any business on church premises. I have explained that if I detect any attempt to interfere with or to hinder my work, I will withdraw from this programme of work immediately.
“I also wish to make clear that my work will be fair, impartial, objective and rigorous. One of my first tasks will be to hear the views of victims and survivors of church abuse, and to listen to those involved in safeguarding at all levels of the church across England. I look forward to hearing their experiences and using this process to inform the recommendations I will make to the Archbishops of Canterbury and York.”
So when exactly did Jay accept the appointment. Are we to believe that her name was raised at the Council on Monday and by Thursday it was a done deal for her and her colleague. That seems extremely unlikely. Was it her acceptance that was the catalyst for the sacking of the ISB and will she or they be transparent about this, will the review that was promised at synod answer this. Will there be transparency, an attribute she doesn’t mention in her speech.
Feeling underwhelmed by this appointment.
Quoting from a comment (by someone far better qualified than I) on ‘Thinking Anglicans’:
“There are only two outcomes I can see here. The CofE agrees to a fully independent regulatory body with teeth and clout. Or, they don’t, and Baroness Jay and others then call on the government to intervene and enforce statutory regulation. That is far worse, and the AC will be advised of that.”
Statutory regulation was (as I recall) the IICSA’s recommendation in its final report, but the C of E in its response engaged in some special pleading to be treated differently. It was noted and commented on at the time.
I know nothing of the background to this appointment, but it seemed to me that Professor Jay’s IICSA background makes her position a very strong one.
I have been told again today I cannot worship at church until I have spoken to the Diocese Safeguarding Advisor, He asked others to ask me to speak to him, and He speaks to others about me but never engages when I make contact with him, this cycle has now been going on for many years and I have said now that I will not discuss any matters prior to the 9th July 2023 at 5pm but they insist I meet with them at the Diocese Head office, I have said no, I have said that I feel uncomfortable with the Diocese Chief Executive and Diocese Safeguarding Advisors behaviour towards me and now I refuse to speak to them, they keep saying they want to speak to me, I have said no, and no means no, I have said who I am prepared to speak to and how they should communicate with me but they play games, they cannot make reasonable adjustments for people with disabilities, I have asked the National Safeguarding Director to refer these two individuals to the Disclosure and Barring Service but refuses to do so. The Diocese Safeguarding Advisor has no automatic or statutory right to speak to me, if I say no, no means no. If He is having an adverse affect on my physical and mental health I should be able to say no and speak to someone I do feel comfortable with surely? This sense of entitlement and refusing to respect others boundaries is a total and utter disgrace. If they cannot meet me where I am in a way I feel comfortable and do not present any safeguarding issues in a timely manner then I should be able to draw a line and attend church. Are they unable to forgive and draw a line?
If Jay and O’Brien were in IICSA, and IICSA cherry picked to showcase a choice selection of villainous organisations, will cases now be cherry picked / gerrymandered by their new organisation?
The C of E, in the person of Archbishop Justin Welby, asked to be included, and I think he also asked for it to be prioritised by IICSA.
RCC (but not only RCC) cases were very choosily sampled to be paraded (excluding many obvious ones). Will Prof Jay’s new organisation depend on who volunteers for the damage they caused to be scrutinised?
Hi Mark, I am sorry you are going through this, as you rightly say you should not have to talk to people that make you feel uncomfortable. I have also had problems with diocesan staff pushing a completely wrong mental health diagnosis on me without any reference to my doctor. They then kept insisting they talk to CMHT, making me the problem and not their shabby safeguarding. I think any mental health diagnosis is used as a way to dismiss people and not deal with problems.
Just letting you know you are not alone.
Trish. Thank you. I have given the parish priest 1 week. Copied MASH and National Safeguarding Team in. 1. The Diocese Safeguarding Team test a time to speak on the telephone, zoom or in a public place. 2. The priest asked them their issues and I answer their questions. 3. I meet with the priest and diocese Safeguarding Team. I refuse to meet at the head office, with the CEO and Safegarding advisor, no emails, post and put strict boundaries in place. If they carry on I will report the Diocese Safeguarding Advisor to the police. They are bullying me. To be told I cannot worship in church because of health issues is disgraceful. What would they do if I walk into church exactly and I do not cause a disruption?
They cannot bar you from church it is your legal right to attend a public building. The DSA in my diocese threatened me with a restraining order amongst other bogus tactics. It was all just bullying. The equality act does not allow you to be discriminated against your right to worship.
Thank you Steven. I have told our Diocese Safeguarding Advisor I will put a stalking prevention and restraining order against him as the Diocese Safeguarding Advisor. I have asked him to remove himself from this matter and to stop talking to others about me but refuses to do so. They are just bullies who should be on automatic barring lists and not let loose near vulnerable adults and children. I will just attend church now and see what they do when I am doing nothing wrong.
Yep. My then bishop in my case.
We are not stoic enough by their “gospel”. I get told to find a church that is a better match (there aren’t any these days) or to “join an NHS group”.
Good grief, this all sounds dreadful but kind of comforting that I am not the only one. Have you done a subject access request Mark to see what they are saying behind your back? Mine said I was dangerous because I self harm. How ignorant can you get and these are supposed to be the experts! My right to attend a service was also questioned and personal data leaked to churchwardens etc.
I was also told to consider an NHS group, they make mental health sound like something out of the Victorian era it does absolutely nothing for equality or inclusion. I also think this kind of bullying and pig ignorance is fairly low on the list of abuse rating, probably not worthy even of redress but to me it has had the most impact on my health out of all the other types of abuse I have suffered.
Hi Trish. I asked the DSA for everything, he did not engage, I asked twice and said manifestly unfounded and refused to give it me.
They have shared my info to 3 diocese without my permission or consent.
I have contacted the National Stalking Helpline again today to look at a Stalking Prevention Order against him.
I think some DSA needs mental health support.
The more we call them out eventually they will be sacked.
If you send them a Subject Access Request, they are legally obliged to give you the information they hold on you. They will redact other people’s names and personal information, but you can still find out a lot. You can probably find a SAR template online.
Hi Janet, I will ask them again, however what they have done is block my emails when I started to do a SAR, and, then, they think its acceptable to ask for my address to send recorded delivery, to then share my address with others in the Church of England outside of the Diocese.
You can ask for the SAR verbally Mark and they shouldn’t ignore it but sadly they do have the right to ask for your address in order to identify you as well as some form of photo identification (driving licence, passport etc.) However if they know who you are you could just try sending a letter like this and see what they do, you could also try ringing the ICO (Monday-Friday) as I find the advisers quite helpful. This is from a template but I have learnt to refine it so they don’t have much wriggle room.
The church needs to wake up to disability and mental health, I find it exasperating that they operate in the dark ages.
[Your contact number]
[Your email address]
[The date]
Dear Sir or Madam
Data subject access request
[Include your full name and other relevant details to help identify you].
Please supply the personal data you hold about me, which I am entitled to receive under data protection law, held in:
• Any information that the diocese has recorded about me, this includes notes made from phone calls.
If you need any more information, please let me know as soon as possible.
I would like this information sent to me by email in a readable format.
It may be helpful for you to know that data protection law requires you to respond to a request for personal data within one calendar month.
If you do not normally deal with these requests, please pass this letter to your data protection officer or relevant staff member.
If you need advice on dealing with this request, the Information Commissioner’s Office can assist you. Its website is ico.org.uk, or it can be contacted on 0303 123 1113.
Yours faithfully
[Signature]
Thank you Trish. I will ask again.
To be told I am not welcome to attend church is disgraceful, and, we should have better clergy discipline measures in place for those who turn people away.
No matter who you are, what you have done, all are welcome in church.
I’m not sure it’s true that churches can’t turn people away. Convicted or suspected abusers may have a behaviour protocol in place where they are restricted from attending e.g. family services. There are also a few rare cases where a persistent troublemaker may have to be placed under a restraining order preventing them from disrupting services or stalking someone who attends. I’m sure someone who reads this will be able to give chapter and verse on the legalities.
More common, sadly, are churches where members of the congregation or clergy simply make someone unwelcome. There’s no excuse for this.
I think this is sound advice and correct, whilst acknowledging that I have no experience of such scenarios. The right to attend (C of E) services, with limitations, exists at common law.
From the C of E ‘Parish Safeguarding Handbook’ (2018):
56. An individual has a right to attend acts of worship at the church of the parish within which they reside.
“It should be remembered that it is not possible to prevent a parishioner from attending divine service [56], unless this is a condition included in a court order …”
That would include a restraining order.
(The words “it is not possible to prevent a parishioner from attending divine service” are emphasised in bold type which I cannot reproduce here.)
Thanks, Rowland, that’s helpful.
Years ago our diocesan secretary told a group of us that it is a criminal offence to attempt to prevent a clergy person from conducting a service of worship, or to obstruct them on their way to take such a service. The churchwardens used to have legal powers to eject a person disrupting a service; I’m not sure if that’s still the case.
Yes, that’s broadly correct. Indeed police constables and church wardens have a power of arrest. I think wardens would be entitled – and might need! – to call for police assistance.
But the relevant law is the Ecclesiastical Courts Jurisdiction Act 1860, still in force and updated, which can be read online at legislation.gov.uk (click on current version): Section 2 the offence and penalties; section 3 the power of arrest.
So, in summary:
everyone has the right to attend their local parish church, unless
1) they are subject to a restraining order
2) they are subject to a Safeguarding Agreement which forbids them to, or
3) they have disrupted or attempted to disrupt worship, or obstructed the person conducting it.
There are no other grounds on which a person can be barred from church.
Is that correct? And does it make a difference whether the person is in the actual parish church, or in some other venue used for worship (e.g. the church hall or school)?
If they’re blocking your emails, send a hard copy by post. Use recorded delivery if you want to be sure of giving them no wriggle room.
As for sharing your address with others outside the diocese, you might try complaining to the Data Commissioner.
Dear Trish, My heart goes out to you for all you have suffered. Given its impact on you this type of abuse is as offensive and serious as other types.
Mary, It is disgusting what they can get away with, and, what others find acceptable, some should be on barring lists, and, disqualified from working with vulnerable adults and children, and safeguarding professionals who abuse should be welcome to attend church, put on a safeguarding contract, safeguarding core group and a new DSA appointment to manage them.
Thanks Mary, we have all suffered and I wish we could all find justice.
Thanks Stephen for this space I sometimes feel survivors not on twitter can get forgotten.
Anyone with a disability should not have to have Safeguarding agreement in place, if a person had significant criminal convictions that is different however the church should welcome everyone. Any behaviour contract around a disability is voluntary, only statutory services can make a mandatory agreement so if one does not sign anything then there are no safegarding issues, so if one says text contact, no emails, no post, just verbal face to face on zoom, in person or on the telephone we can deny conversations took place, different in writing so I now say they cannot put things in writing so no safegarding issues.
Mark I’m so sorry for what you are going through. Others here have given good advice. I don’t really have anything helpful to add, other than I hope you have success with your SAR and they provide you with someone to communicate with that you feel safe with.
Have you got an advocate to support you?
I agree with Tricia that the church are rubbish at dealing with mental health issues. Even those who should know better! I recently raised with a safeguarding professional the impact on my mental health of a decision they have made, and they told me that this wasn’t their concern and why don’t I speak to the NHS!
That is disgraceful. I despair of the C of E.
I know Janet, right? This was given as one reason why my support had been withdrawn, because mental health support isn’t their job! Although emotional support is…I pointed out that it was partly the stopping of support that was damaging my mental health!
Friends I’ve been reading but not posting as busy with Synod as you will have seen! So grateful for the discussions that happen here.
I just wanted to add to this, that 4.5 weeks after the ISB disbanded, still nothing in place for Mr X or the 10 survivors with reviews/complaints. This is causing those I know about serious harm.
That they have pulled Prof Jay out of the hat like a rabbit, but done nothing for survivors in urgent need, adds insult to injury. Plus yet again someone is imposed on us with no involvement in the appointment or terms of reference.
I’m calling on Jay & O’Brien, and all survivors, not to engage in any work on future independence until Mr X’s recommendations are implemented and all 10 survivors have support and satisfactory arrangements to complete their reviews & ensure implementation.
Some of us are also starting work on a survivor charter or code of conduct that we want NST and ABC to agree before we engage any further. We welcome thoughts of all survivors about this and all contributions. You can contact me via Stephen or email connect(at)survivorsvoices.org
Jane, I did see your contributions in Synod! I’ve been thinking about you and praying for you. Keep strong!
Thank you 🙏
I’m continuing to pursue this and fortunate to have other survivors & allies with me.
Jane, in order not to impose a charter on survivors in the same way that Munn, Jay and O’Brien have been imposed on them perhaps it would be a good idea to see how many wanted it and consider what would happen to those that didn’t before starting work on it, which rather suggests it will happen regardless. Obviously imposing a charter or any other directive on people that don’t want to follow them creates a power dynamic that could be experienced as re-abusive.
Responding well must always be about respecting individual choices and not imposing them. I have also been adversely affected by the disbanding of the ISB but I do not consider it is my right to ask people to act in a certain way because of it and only ask that people do what is right for them.
Hello Trish, yes absolutely, sorry I wasn’t very clear, we’re asking what other people think of the idea as a first step. Obviously nothing should be imposed on anyone.
My call to action is in the same way an invitation to support survivors in a way that some of us feel is right for us, a withdrawal of ‘labour’ as it were.
Others may not feel able to support that, or may feel it’s not the right way, I support everyone to do what they feel is best. None of us can speak for all survivors & of course we’ll have diverse views and experiences.
Still keen to hear people’s thoughts, whichever way.
Jane. If a person is not obstructing a clergy conducting a service or not causing disruption during a service they cannot refuse entry. I never have. In my case they are in the wrong.
Mark, is this comment addressed to me? If so, I’ll say that I did not intend to imply that you had obstructed clergy or caused a disruption. Rowland and I have merely been trying to clarify what the legal situation is re whether people can be barred from attending services. As you see, the answer is no, apart from a very few exceptions in extreme circumstances.
Perhaps I should say that I am also disabled, and I would not want to attend a church where I did not feel welcome.
For some reason I cannot reply directly to Janet’s questions above so this has to be a separate comment. Firstly, I have no knowledge of Safeguarding Agreements and for that reason simply don’t know whether they can include an enforceable provision not to attend services.
Although the language is archaic, this is the relevant statutory law at today’s date:
“2 Penalty on persons found guilty of making a disturbance in churches, chapels, churchyards, or burial grounds.
“Any person who shall be guilty of riotous, violent, or indecent behaviour in England or Ireland in any cathedral church, parish or district church or chapel of the Church of England, or in any chapel of any religious denomination, or in England in any places of religious worship duly certified under the provisions of the Places of Worship Registration Act 1855, whether during the celebration of divine service or at any other time, or in any churchyard or burial ground, or who shall molest, let, disturb, vex, or trouble, or by any other unlawful means disquiet or misuse any preacher duly authorized to preach therein, or any clergyman in holy orders ministering or celebrating any sacrament, or any divine service, rite, or office, in any cathedral, church, or chapel, or in any churchyard or burial ground, shall, on conviction thereof by a magistrates’ court, be liable to a fine not exceeding level 1 on the standard scale or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two months.”
As to halls, etc., being used for services, I simply don’t know all the answers! But any such place certified under the Places of Worship Registration Act should qualify. Incidentally, note that the law extends to other religious denominations.
Thanks, Rowland. I couldn’t reply to yours directly, either!
When I was vicar of a tough parish we did occasionally have to eject young people who thought it was funny to disrupt the service. However, we never banned anyone from coming again. There was always a chance their behaviour might improve.
Dr Percy, was, of course, banned from Christ Church Cathedral, but I don’t know what the legal basis was for that. I also know of one or two other people who have been banned from churches, but again I don’t know whether the ban is lawful or not. It does seem to me that churches shouldn’t bar anyone from attending, unless for the protection of others who attend.
The situation of Martyn Percy, as Dean of Christ Church, was quite extraordinary. Uniquely for a cathedral, Christ Church is a ‘peculiar’ outside the direct jurisdiction of the Bishop of Oxford and the Archbishop of Canterbury. Only after these events, in the context of their submissions and proposals to the Christ Church internal governance review, did the Diocese of Oxford state publicly that the Dean was, and is, the Ordinary of the Cathedral. At every other C of E cathedral the bishop is both the Ordinary and the Visitor. At Christ Church he is neither. Whether there will ever be a review to establish all of the facts and, as you say, importantly whether they were lawful, remains to be seen. One’s impression is that with all the other recent happenings, this has gone on the back burner.
Not the least of the many challenges facing the Archbishops’ Council is to understand its own operation and implement it correctly. If it is to continue collective responsibility, and operate in accordance with the Charity Commission guidelines CC27 for trustee conduct (and AC is constituted as a charitable trust among other things) then “once a decision has been made, trustees must support and carry out that decision” and “Once a decision has been made following the proper procedures, however, even if the trustees do not all agree, they must all abide by that decision.”
That means, in particular, that members do not undermine its decisions in public, via social media or synod speech, by declaring that they disagree with those decisions. It was improper for ABC to do so, and it was and is improper for Dr Ian Paul to do so. The correct course of action for a trustee who cannot conscientiously support a collective decision is to resign. To dissent in public and disclaim responsibility while remaining a responsible trustee is inconsistent and pusillanimous.
In one instance we have heard that although ABC dissented from a decision in public, he voted for it in private. But the reason we know this is that Church House issued a statement telling us so. This is grossly improper. If votes are confidential, they should remain so, and whoever authorised the publication of that statement is, in my view, guilty of gross misconduct. It is rather clear that the leak was designed to undercut and rebuke ABC and that is a further gross impropriety. William Nye, as Secretary-General of AC, needs to consider his position: whether or not he directly authorised the leak, he is responsible for the actions of the secretariat in general. I do not see how he can remain in office after this.
There is, incidentally, a problem with constituting a trust where trustees serve ex officio. Such a member can hardly resign trusteeship without also resigning the associated office, and that leads to conflict of interest. (Similar issues no doubt contributed to the failure of governance and consequential mismanagement of the charitable funds at Christ Church Oxford.) The AC cannot really work effectively until this issue is resolved.
I thought Ian Paul had been strongly defending the AC decision. What have I missed?
Dr Paul says that he has been arguing that the “ISB Two” should be sacked since at least the point that he supported the Billenness request for an audit into the ISB: “I and others on the council felt we could see this coming — and so have been advocating this path for more than six months,” (3 July) On his blog, at https://www.psephizo.com/life-ministry/fractures-and-fractiousness-at-general-synod/#comment-429424 he comments “I thought we should have pulled the plug eight months ago, and said so in meetings. I was outvoted.” (14 July 6:40pm)
I regard that sort of retrospective self-exculpation as pusillanimous.
Yes, I agree. I did tweet Ian Paul to ask if the Archbishops’ Council had given any thought at all to the care of survivors the ISB were dealing with. I got no reply. That was telling, since he’s usually very quick with a comeback.