by Martin Sewell
Following the peremptory sacking of the independent members of the Independent Safeguarding Board of the Church of England, in June of this year, and the furore that followed, both amongst the Survivor community and members of the General Synod, an independent investigation was set up, with a senior barrister, Sarah Wilkinson working on an intensive basis to deliver an overview of the situation.
In contrast with other reviews commissioned by the Church of England Ms. Wilkinson has worked hard to deliver the required report on time, and duly delivered it on Friday last. It is not only in this regard that we see what can be achieved: survivors who have engaged with her have uniformly testified to her professionalism, empathy, and kindness, which they report contrast unfavourably with members of the church when interacting with them.
We do not know precisely what the review will be saying, but we hope that Professor Jay and her team are equally impressed with what can be achieved when highly competent outsiders get to grips with the problems of church safeguarding.
There will doubtless be debate and perhaps controversy about what conclusions are reached but this has more to do with matters outside of Ms. Wilkinson’s control than complaints about her methodology.
The Church is giving itself 11 days to digest and prepare a response to what may well be a Report with significant consequences. This in itself tells us something about how the church approaches these matters.
IICSA heard and upheld historic complaints that the church prioritised its own reputation over justice, mercy and the needs of those whom it has wronged. We are still in that same situation. It is partly for this reason that I write in advance of the publication because we need to put certain observations into the public domain so that significant commentary can begin, sooner rather than later, on matters that already arise from the way in which the church has structured the review. This is no criticism of the reviewer.
The government recently legislated to outlaw and criminalise abuse within domestic relationships. There is ample testimony to the emotional damage that can be occasioned to vulnerable spouses and partners at the hands of those of a controlling personality. People invest in a relationship and the more they do so, the more vulnerable they become to abuse when the other party prioritises their needs within the relationship.
When complaints are brought to the church, those making such representations are often those same people who most trusted the institution. They may be parishioners, children in church schools or associated organisations; sometimes they are members of staff or priests, and even those in senior positions and significant relationships with the institution can find themselves harmed and abused within the complaint process.
The initial grievance is compounded and exacerbated by the toxic church culture of control. One sees this even in the case of the Wilkinson review.
All the former members of the ISB had and have legitimate important interests. In having their conduct considered within such a review, it is not simply about knowing what happened in the past. It may have a significant ongoing impact on their future professional reputations. As far as I can ascertain, all those to whom we entrusted the ISB project have been anxious to be judged on a level playing field. I have heard nothing to suggest that each and everyone of them is concerned that the review shall report on” the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth”.
I suspect none of them ( and few of us ) will claim never to make mistakes; the ISB members may have been subject to unreasonable expectation, ambiguity in the definition of their roles, and the intense pressure that goes with working in such a difficult field. These were, and are, people of substance and stature; the least that the church ought properly to have afforded them is a scrupulously fair process. Yes, even in advance of the report we know that this did not happen. I will elaborate and re-emphasise that the reviewer can and will only work within the parameters permitted her under the terms of the review. In the old expression of computer programmers” Rubbish in – Rubbish out”.
Now, there will not be much rubbish sifted by Ms Wilkinson; there is a very significant written audit trail to be followed, but any review can only be as good as its terms of reference. Both at the outset and following receipt of the review, Church House and its Secretariat have unquestionably formulated the scope of the document, furthermore it will craft the initial presentation.
I have previously referenced in blog posts that the church has been very keen on those most affected having a fair degree of import into secular Inquiries. Those into the Hillsborough disaster and the Countess of Chester Hospital (Lucy Letby) both saw senior bishops asserting the importance of listening to those most affected within the commissioning process.
What is sauce for the secular goose is surely sauce for the ecclesiastical gander.
Let us not forget that Jasvinder Sanghera and Steve Reeves have both been honoured by the Crown for their outstanding contributions to safeguarding. It was accordingly by no means unreasonable that before they put their professional reputations and future work prospects into a process that could, potentially, be ruinous, these two servants of survivors should have confidence in the review process. There is a shocking contrast here.
It would be very easy to see these, and indeed the reputations of Meg Munn and Maggie Atkinson adversely affected by the review outcome. In contrast the one thing that we know from every other review case is that the church is institutionally obstructive towards holding its own leadership to account. I include within that cohort senior bishops, members of Archbishops’ Council, and the Secretariat. The latter is of course, significantly involved in the scoping of the review and it’s presentation.
Thus it has been that, unable to secure assurances that Ms Wilkinson would be permitted, under her terms of reference, to go and report upon whatsoever she felt appropriate within this sorry history, the two sacked members of the ISB decided that they could not engage with the review as Ms Wilkinson and many others would have wished them to do.
There is much of the case which can be carefully reconstructed by Ms Wilkinson because so much is already in the public domain, not least in the Synod statements which I and many Synod colleagues insisted they should be entitled to give. That was a creditable revolt against the management of the Synod processes by the powers that be, which initially denied them that voice. Let us hope this does not escape Ms Wilkinson’s careful eye; I do not discount that possibility.
The Church should not have constrained the Review in this way. Everything that might have been relevant should have been placed within her purview. It is not what the people in the wider Church and indeed beyond wanted. I do not suggest that the Review will be without importance significance or consequences but any good outcome will be in spite of its management not because of it and that is tragic.
Will we have got to the bottom of how we got into this unholy mess? Will anyone resign? These are matters we will need to consider as we read what is likely to be a very detailed and lengthy document published just as the Christmas season arrives with all its distractions. The Church insiders are already working on their responses. The people in the pews ( who actually paid for it) will have to wait a few more days.
I would like to emphasise a couple of points in Martin Sewell’s perceptive analysis, without of course breaching confidentiality constraints of the Wilkinson Review.
In seven years of ‘dealing with’ the entire Church of England hierarchy in the context of whistleblowing, victim and survivor of Church-related abuse involving at least one current Diocesan, the following have documentary evidence re my whistleblowing:
both Archbishops, 4 out of the 5 most senior Bishops, the Secretary General, umpteen ‘Bishops of Lambeth and ABC Chiefs of Staff & Chaplains’, more than 30 current & former bishops, the vast majority of them Diocesans, the majority of the Archbishops Council and multiple iterations of the NST,
the only Church people who have treated me with anything approaching either respect, or even a token acknowledgment of all the safeguarding training they go on & appear to bin immediately afterwards, have been:
Peter Hancock, Emily Denne when she worked for Peter, and one other ‘Senior’ (in the technical sense) Clergy person, who prefers, very understandably, to remain anonymous.
So it has been a relative joy to engage with Sarah (just as it was with Jasvinder, and for the very same reason) simply because I met a person with humanity, something that has been completely absent from > 95% of those senior clergy that I have ‘identified’ above.
The one regret I have is that the Church, deliberately IMHO, deprived Sarah of resources and time with the aim of diluting her investigation of the impact it could otherwise have had.
However I am sure that Sarah was diligent and professional given the meagre time & resources she was permitted.
Unlike the C of E which was alerted to my whistleblowing involving at least one Diocesan Bishop on 2 February 2017 and has done precisely nothing (that it has shared with me) in the almost seven years since.
In October 2023, just before General Synod, I was finally told that Justin would be contacting me.
Since then, nothing concrete whatsoever, despite numerous reminders from me.
I therefore assume, consistent with the behaviour of the Church leadership over the last almost 7 years, it was nothing more than a cynical attempt to ‘buy my silence’ ahead of General Synod.
Sorry to hear all your efforts have so far proved fruitless. I thought you may be interested in a reply I received today from the National Director of Safeguarding. I asked him to take appropriate action in regard to processes not being followed. The Director replied, “There is an expectation that processes will be followed”. Perhaps, like me you don’t find that very enlightening. So I have asked who is doing the expecting, as presumably they will be the ones taking action when their expectations are not met. I did ask the Director who would take action if he did not. If anyone ever finds a satisfactory answer please post here. In the meantime waiting in Advent has a new level of meaning for all those waiting for justice from the Church.
With the final Hillsborough Report about to be published, there is a recommendation for a new law that would require public officials to speak with candour, honesty and openness. We know South Yorkshire Police covered up their negligence and failings for decades, and did so in a way that amounted to insidious institutional corruption. Now it is time for Archbishops’ Council, Bishops and Dioceses to be brought into line. We’re all fed up with the corruption in public office we witness too regularly from leadership in the CofE. Dreadful bullying, coverups led by lawyers, insurers and comms – we must be rid of this culture. We must have some resignations from the Archbishops’ Council once Wilkinson’s Review is published. It will reveal, for sure, deceit, incompetence and gross misconduct at the highest levels.
David.
Our local Diocese Safeguarding Advisors refuse to speak to me about their safeguarding issues about me, they still refuse to pick up the phone or have a zoom meeting.
Whats going on?
Mark, my guess is they’re clueless, and afraid of being backed into a corner and exposed on multiple fronts. Viz, their:
1. Lack of professional expertise.
2. Lack of adequate definitions and boundaries.
3. Lack of legal knowledge.
4. Lack of resources – though God help us if they had more, as they’d just do more damage.
5. Lack of awareness and intelligence on context, risk management etc.
6. Lack of consistency.
7. Lack of power, authority and proportionality.
8. Lack of confidence, respect and trust from any of those they deal with.
You’ll simply not meet an intelligent DSA who stays long in post. The entire safeguarding culture – policy, practice etc – is rubbish. The people at the very top are clueless. Alex (NST Director), Joanne Grenfell (Lead Bishop) spend all their time on the run, ignoring emails and crises, and making sure they are always unavailable.
In a nutshell, they’ll ignore you because they’re afraid of being caught out, and they know the chances of that are close to 100%. So they hide, just as the NST Director and Lead Bishop do. They’re fearful of the naked truth being exposed. They’re afraid of the corrupt, incompetent and double standards all being exposed. They know all about these which is why they just hide behind fig leaves.
Mark under GDPR regulations the diocese has to share whatever information they have about you or else they are in contravention of the act. You will need to do a subject data request, template here:
https://www.mind.org.uk/media/8421/template-for-subject-access-request-letter-or-email-2021-pdf-download.pdf
Allow them the alloted time to respond then do a follow up letter and if they don’t respond to that bring a formal complaint to the Inforamtion Commissioner’s Office.
https://ico.org.uk/
They can’t share third party information unless they have permission to do so but you have a legal right to know what information they hold on you and why they have made the decisions that they have.
All the best
I read your post with increasing frustration, Stephen. It must feel like you’re banging your head against a brick wall. I speak from experience, that many safeguarding practices in C of E churches are worse than useless and/or focus on the wrong issues, whilst serious abuse goes unchecked. One reason I quit attending a small country church I had served at for many years. A father attended the church with his adult son aged about thirty, who was severely autistic. The son was non-verbal most of the time and loved attending the church and humming along to hymns. He had a habit of bringing a small soft toy rabbit along to services, as a comfort item. Our church had a female vicar and the autistic man named his soft toy after her and seemed to have developed a harmless infatuation with her. He was quiet and did nothing else apart from carry this toy everywhere. There was no other inappropriate behaviour from him, and his father kept a close eye on him. I was dismayed to find out that our vicar reported this autistic man to the safeguarding officer. His father received a stern email warning him that his son was to cease immediately “bringing any offending soft toys to church which threaten the reputation of our clergy.”
That a church can ban a soft toy and upset a vulnerable disabled person, but it can’t face up to years of scandal that have been covered up.
I was done after that.
Mark, under GDPR regulations you are entitled to know what information the diocese hold on you and why they have made the decisions they have or else they are acting in contravention of the act.
Do a data subjest request, template here:
https://www.mind.org.uk/media/8421/template-for-subject-access-request-letter-or-email-2021-pdf-download.pdf
If they don’t respond after the allotted time do a follow up letter and then bring a formal complaint to the ICO.
https://ico.org.uk/
That’s appalling! And stupid, too. Imagine if the press had got hold of that story – you could write the headlines now.
That should have been a reply to Mary Kell’s comment.
Mary, so sorry to hear this. But it’s also typical. DSAs strain the gnat and swallow the camel. When Fr. Aidan Griffin committed suicide after years of gaslighting, the NST did nothing, and all the diocese of London managed was an insipid ‘lessons learned review’. Serious perpetrators and those falsely accusing get away with huge abuse. But the tiny speck in the eye is fussed over at the expense of the huge log. The lesson we all eventually learn is yours. Leave.
How can the NHS refer patients for support and say a patient is not a risk to themselves or others and it’s not safeguarding but a Diocese Safeguarding Advisor says it’s safeguarding when there are none in statutory services?
Mark, it is good advice to make a Subject Access Request. I have done it twice with excellent results. I have, in both cases, been deeply shocked by what I have found had been happening in secret that they never thought would be revealed.
The first time was on behalf of our Learning Disabilities daughter (we have Lasting Power of Attorney) when we had serious problems with Social Services. The information from SAR closed the case in our favour.
The second time was my advice to Kenneth to request this which he did twice in three years. When it came 90 pages had been redacted and much else besides. However, there was still sufficient information from emails, transcripts of telephone calls and minutes of meetings to show collusion of untruths and a general ineptness of process. This information formed the documented, indisputable evidence for the CDM we filed against the Canon Pastor (Surviving Church November 2nd 2023). Although it was denied by the CP supported by the Dean and Bishop, they have the shame and humiliation of knowing that we know they are telling gross untruths.
Go for it Mark and we wish you well.
Slightly off topic but just heard on the radio that Ofsted have accepted that the requirement for confidentiality in regard to their school investigations is inhumane. This came out during a discussion of the tragic suicide of a Headteacher after the downgrading of her school. It calls into question the requirement for confidentiality in regard to cdms, and the routine way many complainants are threatened with legal action. Perhaps a lawyer can tell us if the Church has a legal right to the confidentiality it claims to have. It goes against the way our judicial system works and permits cover ups to take place by the threat of legal action should a complainant disclose something that calls the process into question. It appears that, as Susan has said, if you have documentary evidence and complain, the Church is reluctant to test their theory of confidentiality in the courts. Can anyone help with this.
The Wilkinson Report has been published.
https://www.thinkinganglicans.org.uk/isb-phase-1-wilkinson-report-published/