This article was written jointly by some Members of General Synod with legal and regulatory expertise, Victims and Survivors of abuse, and those who have been further abused by the work of the National Safeguarding Team (NST) and the Archbishops’ Council, and its Secretariat.
A review commissioned by the Church, conducted by someone chosen by the Church, with a remit solely defined by the Church, and excluding events critical of the Church, won’t tell anything like the true story.
- Steve Reeves, former ISB member.
For me the most devastating consequence of the brutal abolition of the ISB without warning was yet another breach of trust by the Church of England: but this time it was not re-triggering existing trauma but instead a new and equally if not greater devastating trauma and betrayal.
- Testimony from Victim
We still have to live with the consequences of what happened but we shall never give up trying to expose the Archbishops and their friends reminding all people in the Church of England of the cruelty of their leaders. These people are so quick to pick on the weak and the vulnerable but they can never look at themselves let alone allow others to give an honest appraisal. It’s all to do with power: the Archbishops and their collaborators are so corrupt that they don’t realise the evil they are doing.
- Testimony from Victim
By any standards, the Review conducted by Sarah Wilkinson KC into the ISB scandal should send shockwaves through General Synod. There should be resignations from Archbishops’ Council. There should be calls in Parliament for intervention, and for the Archbishops’ Council to be placed in ‘special measures’, just as one would for a failing Health Authority. The Charity Commission should investigate this scandal – it represents a huge waste of charitable funds.
You have to read Wilkinson’s Review very carefully to understand how much of a shambles the Archbishops’ Council are. But before you do read it, can we remind you that the Archbishops’ Council set the Terms of Reference for the Wilkinson Review. In so doing, the Secretariat made sure that she could not consider any of the following issues:
- The immediate closure of the ISB, with just one hour’s notice, was a grossly irresponsible action in view of the Victims and Survivors who were working with the ISB.
- William Nye refusing to involve and countenance the involvement of an independent mediator between himself and the ISB, or to act on the Dispute Resolution Notice. Mr. Nye was urged to urged to bring in outside mediation, but he refused to do so
- Non-existent arrangements in professional care made for any of the Victims and Survivors under the ISB.
- The Archbishops’ Council and its failure to properly consult.
- Explicit public denials of all the above, also repeatedly made by the Archbishops’ Council.
Ms. Wilkinson was not allowed to look into these matters. Even so, resignations are now needed. The trademark of the Archbishops’ Council and its Secretariat is to manage their affairs with deliberate ambiguity and ambivalence, in order to avoid any accountability. Put bluntly, if there are no minutes of meetings, no notes or records of discussions, no record of votes at Archbishops’ Council, and the Audit Committee is repeatedly told to mind its own business, there can be no trust and confidence in the leadership of the trustees.
Having the Chair of the Audit Committee being part of the decision-making process is a grotesque distortion of what should be an entirely independent process. Yet even the Chair of the Audit Committee does not seem to grasp the way this weakens corporate governance We need resignations and some restructuring.
We already know that the Communications Department at Lambeth Palace will be briefing the media that “lessons will be learned”, “it was all very difficult”, “we were trying to manage a difficult breakdown in relationships”, and “we did our best, but unfortunately it unravelled, and nobody could see that coming”.
None of this is true. The ISB is a symptom of a colossal failure in governance at the very top of the Church of England, by the Archbishops’ Council and Secretariat. That is why we must now have resignations and a total re-set for the sake of fully proper, authentic transparency and accountability.
Before plunging into the Wilkinson Review, please allow us to guide what careful and savvy readers might be able to spot as they navigate their way through the paragraphs.
Omissions:
- There was no Risk Assessment undertaken in the setting up of the ISB, and in its work going forward. There was no Risk Assessment undertaken when the Archbishops’ Council decided, at a couple of hours’ notice, to close the ISB.
- It seems that victim-survivors don’t matter to the trustees and Secretariat. They only care about creating the impression of responsibility and professionalism. They demonstrated no care, thought or clue as to the consequences of their actions.
- If this was a Health Authority, the executive would be fired, and the Board resign. If our government had done no risk assessment for migrants, there could be criminal proceedings. But this being the Archbishops’ Council, their only risk is reputational. The vulnerable do not matter.
- Ms. Wilkinson could and should draw our attention to the lack of Conflicts of Interest policies in all Archbishops’ Council and NST work, and the lack of any Register of Interests for trustees and the Secretariat.
- Repeated failures by the Secretariat and Archbishops’ Council to follow GDPR legal requirements, make “reasonable adjustments” for Victims and Survivors under the 2010 Equality Act, or basic employment law.
- The total absence of Nolan Committee principles for public bodies (1995) which set out standards for public life: The principles are Selflessness, Integrity, Objectivity, Accountability, Openness, Honesty and Leadership.
- Gross professional incompetence on the part of the NST and Lead Safeguarding Bishops, who cannot follow their own policies, and repeatedly obfuscate scandals and abuse they do not wish to address or be held accountable for.
Wilkinson’s work was not allowed to address these matters. The Archbishops’ Council set her homework, predetermined the method of marking, and the grading of it. You only have to see what Wilkinson was not allowed to assess to appreciate how deeply corrupt the Archbishops’ Council was, and still is. We must now have some resignations.
Perhaps the elected Members of the Archbishops’ Council from the General Synod could do the decent thing and resign so that they can offer themselves for re-election and be judged by their peers. This would be honourable, but is alas, highly unlikely.
Next Steps:
We undoubtedly need the Archbishops’ Council to be subject to comprehensive external regulation and audit. The amount of charitable funds wasted on this ill-conceived and badly-managed project was predictable, as there is no competent person on the Archbishops’ Council or the Secretariat to set such things up.
The recent hiring of Kevin Crompton (“Commissioner”) and Sir David Behan CBE (“provide independent strategic advice on safeguarding to the Archbishops’ Council”:) have both been undertaken without any consultation with Synod, advertisements for the posts, or any sign of accountability and transparency. No Victim or Survivor can or should trust such appointments. (See https://www.churchtimes.co.uk/articles/2023/1-december/news/uk/lambeth-palace-sets-out-safeguarding-action-plan).
With no Conflicts of Interest policies in place, it would be impossible to know what vested interests might lie at the heart of these appointments. Virtually every Review conducted by the Church of England into safeguarding malpractice lacks any basic standards of transparency, probity, integrity, independence and proper accountability.
No one is ever called to account. We are simply fobbed off with the bland assurance that ‘lessons will be learned’.
Ms. Wilkinson was made well aware of this. But as her Terms of Reference were set by the very body that is so patently culpable of such colossal failures in its governance, it is hardly surprising that her Review is relatively opaque about such details. It would have been helpful if Ms. Wilkinson could have been clearer on a number of ongoing matters:
- Repeated requests to the Archbishops for an account of why Mr. William Nye may have lied to – or misled – IICSA, and also to General Synod and other bodies on serious safeguarding scandals, are met with silence. Eventually, the Archbishops agree to an “external audit” of why there has been no reply. Nobody asked for this audit.
- What was required was an answer to the clear evidence of lying. But the Archbishops decided to answer a question they were not asked, in order to avoid answering the actual question that does need answering. This might be standard practice for squirming politicians during media interviews, (or latterly the Covid Inquiry) but is this really the standard of integrity and probity we want from our clergy?
- In the Percy ISB Review, Maggie Atkinson’s original Terms of Reference came from the Diocese of Oxford and Lambeth Palace, both of whom use Winckworth Sherwood as their lawyers. These are the same lawyers heavily implicated in “perpetrating the deliberate weaponizing of safeguarding against Dr. Percy”. Atkinson’s Terms of Reference precluded the lawyers and clergy involved in the weaponisation from any criticism. As does the current proposed Review led by Sir Mark Hedley. Both Archbishops claim such work would be “independent”. Jasvinder Sangheera and Steve Reeves were expressly prohibited from engaging in the Percy ISB Review.
- Bogus Risk Assessments concocted against Dr. Percy, signed off by Diocesan lawyers, senior clergy, the Diocesan Safeguarding Advisor and others, were re-narrated as ‘assessments of risk, which is different from Risk Assessments’. That is despite “Church of England Risk Assessment” heading each of the 19 pages. The Bishop of Oxford defended these documents. If his lawyers and senior clergy are allowed to fabricate Risk Assessments with the clear intention of causing harm to an individual and in order to generate false alarmism, is anyone in the Church of England safe? We think not.
- Jasvinder and Steve worked very, very hard to build trust with victims and survivors. Due to the vested conflicts of interest, ambiguities and ambivalence that the ISB had been saddled with from the outset, their work took considerable time. However, their fierce independence and obvious integrity won through, and slowly but surely, the antagonism of many victims and survivors was overcome by their professionalism, and by their obvious compassion and care. We have no hesitation in commending them for their resilience, when they faced initial scepticism and hostility from victims and survivors, who could not in conscience place any trust or confidence in the ISB structures established by Archbishops’ Council, and former Chair, Maggie Atkinson.
- For the avoidance of doubt, survivors and victims’ do not blame Steve and Jasvinder for the ISB debacle. The catastrophic failure was entirely the making and responsibility of the Archbishops’ Council, who hoped that by dubbing a body “independent”, members of General Synod and the wider Church of England would be duped into believing that the ISB was genuinely independent. It never was, nor would it ever have allowed to be so. So when Steve and Jasvinder started to show signs of acting with genuine independence, the Secretariat pulled the plug on the operation with undue haste. The Archbishops’ Council betted on ambiguity and ambivalence being able to conceal all this.
- The governance of the Church of England is in deep crisis. Yet it is in denial about that. All the major National Church Institutions, the Archbishops’ Council and many Dioceses are a nest of conflicted and vested interests, but with no policies or oversight to manage them. The Secretariat at Lambeth Palace acts more like a medieval monarchical court than a function for serving trustees. Nationally, the Church of England is clueless about legal process in safeguarding, HR and financial control. They make it up as they go along. The Church of England desperately needs external regulation, and all safeguarding matters – policy, practice, regulation and appeal – must now be handed over to an entirely independent body that can call the Church of England and its powers to account.
One Victim/Survivor sums it up:
The Archbishops and their allies having given us this new body, supposedly independent and supposedly a vehicle of truth and reconciliation, we first had to deal with the serial mishandling of our data by the first Chair of the ISB, Maggie Atkinson. Despite this, the two remaining functioning members (Jasvinder Sanghera and Steve Reeves) worked hard to establish trust with us all and owing to their professionalism and probity they succeeded in their mission.
Then, without any warning whatsoever, we learnt from the media that they had been dismissed. At this time there were twelve people who had complaints being investigated by the ISB: some of that number were so distraught at the news of what the Archbishops and their Council had done that waves of suicidal ideation enveloped us. All of us however were devastated by the callous, contemptuous cruelty of these people.
The recent appointment of Ineqe to review Lambeth Palace and diocesan safeguarding, apparently by the Archbishops’ Council is another example of the Archbishops arranging to have their safe and compliant practices audited by a body that can be relied upon to tell the rest of the world that all is well. The previous reviewers were far too critical and independent. Ineqe work closely with Winkworth Sherwood, and have a poor record on data and disability compliance, currently subject to complaints laid before the Charity Commission and Information Commissioner’s Office.
We already know that the Redress Scheme will keep being delayed and delayed, whittled down, and then blame and costs shifted onto parishes and dioceses. This will be the strategy of the Archbishops’ Council. Their number one priority is to avoid reputational damage. All the Archbishops and Secretariat want to do is avoid liability, responsibility and accountability.
The Archbishops’ Council and its Secretariat are deeply corrupt. For Victims and Survivors, justice delayed is justice denied. As long as the Archbishops’ Council and its Secretariat continue to operate like this, above and beyond any external scrutiny, their delays and corruption will continue in perpetuity. There will be no justice for victims whilst these people continue to hold power and responsibility in safeguarding.
For these reasons, and many others, we now need some resignations. We are well past another “lessons learned review” whitewash. The Archbishops’ Council has shown itself to be utterly incompetent, unprofessional, and incapable of sorting out conflicts of interest. Its only response to its total incapacity is endless cover-ups and comms-led spin. We do not use ‘corrupt’ lightly of Archbishops’ Council. But it is entirely proper to do so.
Safeguarding is unsafe in the hands of the Archbishops’ Council and NST. They perpetrate abuse. The setting up of the ISB was done deploying duplicity and deceit, with General Synod, its Audit Committee and Victim-Survivors deliberately misled as to its nature and remit by the Archbishops’ Council. Yet again, Archbishops’ Council have perpetrated further abuses.
The Church now needs to be relieved of all responsibility for safeguarding, and of policy and practice. We need fully independent regulation, outside the control of the Archbishops’ Council, bishops or National Church Institutions. Only then can trust and confidence be eventually rebuilt. Until then, nothing that the Archbishops’ Council says or does is worthy of trust.
Looking at this as a non-Anglican but with extensive experience of working within the Anglican Communion, it has brought the Church of England into disrepute. It constitutes an abandonment of the faithful, both clergy and laity. Are the hierarchy and managerial apparatus really Christian ?
“We need fully independent regulation, outside the control of the Archbishops’ Council, bishops or National Church Institutions.”
But who is to pay for this? If the Church Commissioners fund the regulator then the regulator risks being captured by those whom it purports to regulate, since the Commissioners are (to some extent) agents of Archbishops’ Council and have no meaningful accountability, whether to parliament or synod. Notoriously, regulators like Ofgem or Ofwat are financed by licence fees derived from the industries they regulate, which has made them highly vulnerable to capture (the recent record of Ofwat being famously dismal). There are many other examples of regulatory capture which defeat the whole purpose of regulation and help bring it into public disrepute.
The risk of regulatory capture will be lessened if the Commissioners are required by the government to disgorge a portion of their assets which would be put under separate management, perhaps by a government department which will have no interest in catering to the special pleading of the Church. An alternative would be to have a statutory regulator which would be responsible for safeguarding across other denominations and sectors, financed by levies on all the entities it regulates; as such, no one sector would be able to exert undue influence over the regulator, and the risk of capture ought to be diffused, at least to some extent. Or the regulator could simply be financed out of the consolidated fund, as per the parliamentary ombudsman since 1967.
The self-serving claims of the episcopate that the authority of the episcopate not be undermined by their loss of authority over safeguarding and discipline ought to be disregarded. It is the bishops, and their adjuncts who have brought this upon themselves through decades of their own folly.
However, with a government in Arthur Balfour/John Major territory the probability of anything being effected before 2025 is slight. Fortunately, it appears that the Labour party has such a thin prospective legislative agenda that it might well be possible to pass legislation to create such a regulator during the next parliament and, hopefully, in the first year or two of that parliament. Campaigners ought therefore to ignore the Church authorities (it is not worth wasting any more time with them) and the present government (also not really worth the bother) and concentrate their sights on leading Labour figures, with a leaven of support from all the main parties. Draft legislation should be prepared, perhaps with MOJ inputs, before the election so that it can be presented and sponsored as government business during the first session of the new parliament.
‘ Campaigners ought therefore to ignore the Church authorities (it is not worth wasting any more time with them)…’
Wise words Froghole. I too can see no mechanism by which these people can be changed expeditiously. Unlike the government.
As a requirement for clinical practice, I had to be registered with the appropriate body, and pay a significant fee each year to maintain this privilege. There was also a requirement for me to complete substantial continuing professional education (CPE) , some in mandatory subjects. There is absolutely no reason for clergy not doing the same. I was a hospital consultant, and I fail to see why bishops should not be required to do the same. All clergy should fund the body, AND satisfy its requirements, and be liable to be struck off if they fail in their duties, especially if people have been harmed. People in a position of trust should be removable from that position if they fail to be trustworthy.
This should be legislated by Parliament.
In an ideal world, I’d agree with you. But hospital consultants are paid more than clergy, especially parish clergy, many of whom might struggle to pay a ‘significant fee’. There’s also the point that many clergy are so hard pressed, trying to do the jobs done by anywhere from 3 to 10 people in the past, that they struggle to fit in much CPE. So I don’t think it’s true that ‘there’s absolutely no reason’ for clergy not to pay substantial amounts to a professional body, and spend a lot of their time on training courses. It’s simply impractical for many of them.
However, I’d support changes in working conditions that would make both these things possible.
Can you legislate for love ?
My feeling is the fundamental problem with the Church of England is that those at the top don’t show any love for the vulnerable, abused and those damaged by clerical abuse (emotional and sexual).
Take my case.
I was falsely accused of really horrible things by a priest. This tipped me into clinical depression for over a year and I had suicidal thoughts. The Vicar of our Parish completely ignored me even though several people had told him that I was in a very fragile mental state.
I have tried a CDM but that has basically got me nowhere and since I live in Germany I have no alternative Anglican Parish to turn to so I worship online at Newport Cathedral and recently made a real visit (which was wonderful).
Unlike you I have never been subject to a regulatory body.
Could a professional standards body regulate for Christian love and sensitive pastoral care ? This is a genuine question, you will know better.
All I wanted was care and love and I didn’t receive it and so now I can’t trust any of the 3 priests in my parish. But I don’t feel a quasi legal process would have been a solution for me. I needed Christian love and pastoral care. The last thing I wanted was punishment and retribution. I just wanted someone to listen.
I’m so sorry, David. I can’t understand how the Church has become so inhumane.
But there are those of us who will listen if you want to talk.
This blogs makes it sound as though all victims and survivors hold these views. The Wilkinson report recognises that an inflammatory tone in corresponding can exacerbate a situation and yet, and with no particular evidence from the report this blog refers to the AC as ‘deeply corrupt’. The report highlights the many failures of the AC through lack of skill and competence but does not state it is deeply corrupt. For the Synod members who hold the legal expertise I am surprised they do not find this bordering on libellous.
As a survivor this post has dictated to me, by this group of anonymous people, telling me whom I should and should not trust, and has made it sound as though my views coincide with theirs. Certainly speak for yourselves but please allow me the autonomy to make my own judgements and have my own voice in not doing that this post is anything but trauma informed.
Unknown, I understand your points. I was not part of this article – and initially, I felt a distance from some of what I read. However, as strong as survivors and their supporters’ words can be, they do not come close to the damage inflicted – over many years, by the seemingly quiet, polite higher structure of the Church.
IMO it is understandable for some to label the overall intent of actions used against them in their cases to seek justice, accountability and peace, as corrupt.
I have heard a number of disgusting examples of treatment against survivors, but will speak for my own case here – and my conclusion – of many years fight, is that the combined actions against me have been corrupt. Misuse of power, misuse of charitable funds, relentless deployment of measures to ensure they keep their power and their reputation, at the expense of my life. And at the moment, it still continues.
I too agree, as a survivor and Anglican priest, that the Church in its upper levels is extensively corrupt. That is my experience both in trying to gain justice for myself and other survivors, and in what I have observed over the last 30+ years of how it operates in matters not related to sexual abuse.
The Wilkinson Review may not explicitly name the C of E as corrupt, but the collective weight of all the various reviews would tend to support the conclusion. At the very least, they reveal a level of incompetence and harm to survivors that would lead to a bishop/archbishop of integrity resigning. But they never do resign.
This not to say that all diocesan and safeguarding personnel are corrupt. Many are honest and try to do good work, but are foiled by the system.
I known, I hope you don’t regard my comment as forcing a view on you. It’s an expression of my opinion, as the blog above is an expression of the opinions of those that wrote it (I’m not one of them). You are perfectly entitled to have a different opinion, and I’m glad that your own experience is not of Church corruption.
Unknown, do not think for a moment that this description has been a comfortable one to engage with, but just list what has happened.
The struggle – huge struggle to get the Makin Review with obstruction and obfuscation at every step of the way,poor project management, cover up by dozens of clergy: 1500 days late.
The Matt Ineson story with nobody held to account.
Poor Neil Todd and Fr Alan Griffin – nobody held to account
MrX of the SpindlerReview – clear recommendations – all ignored by AC left in desperate need
The Elliott Review advising “ Do not leave vulnerable victims unsupported” – addressed inter alia to theSecretary General- who then knowingly leaves victims unsupported as se sacks the ISB
Christ Church – enough said
The ISS failing many
The Redress Scheme greatly delayed
No Reviews engage with victims properly whilst Bishops lecture secular organisations on the importance of listening to Survivor Victims and the importance of answering their questions.
Survivors are bullied ignored and demeaned yet nobody responsible ever – ever – takes responsibility.
There comes a point when the line has been crossed by the institution: those who could have effected change have failed to do so despite all the hand wringing.
“ Lessons learned “ have not translated into “ change effected”.
The heart of the institution needs to be characterised by humility and repentance not pride and control. They are features of a corruption having entered the Church. It explains why nobody ever has the integrity to resign
I always admired former Education Secretary EstelleMorris who famously resigned declaring herself “ not up to the job”.
Such integrity.
If only one senior figure read the Wilkinson Review and took an honourable decision we might begin to head back on the road to decency, and survivors would have a reason to believe that the CofE is worth saving.
Corruption is correct, Martin. The CofE, its bishops and the Archbishops’ Council willdo anything they can to avoid scrutiny, acocuntability, transparency and equality. This means integrity and probity get thrown under the bus every time. Victim-Survivors all know there is nothing worthy or any trust or confidence in Archbishops’ Council. They should resign immediately. Not one promise they make on safeguarding ever comes true. I’d call that all corruption, frankly. The list above is a damming litany of deliberate delays to avoid judgment.
Thank you for your comments and which I respect as being your own views. Personally as sensational and dramatic as the word corrupt is I feel it gives the AC far too much credit because corruption is an act of intent and as the Wilkinson report indicates time and time again there was failure of awareness, lack of training or incentive to learn, and general incompetence.
Corruption can be rooted out and made better, incompetence means safeguarding needs to be handed over to those who know better. End of.
Tony I wish you well, my life along with many other survivors, has also been irreparably damaged and continues to be by the rulings of the church.
Survivors want the recommendations of their reviews to be taken into account and as being aware of language used on social media is one of the recommendations from the Wilkinson review I feel it only fair that it should be respected. Similarly these are my personal views and I ask you to respect them even if you dont agree with them.
Of course, the terms of reference of the Wilkinson Review, set by the Archbishops Council without consultation with other stakeholders, pretty well guaranteed that she would not be able to identify any corruption. Which to my mind is in itself evidence of corruption.
I think corruption and incompetence both require that top personnel resign, and safeguarding given to a completely independent body. So we are agreed about that, I think.
Exactly so, Janet. Wilkinson can’t report on corruption if it is outside her remit. I can confirm she was sent incontrovertible evidence of this in writing, with emails and transcripts demonstrating clear corruption perpetrated by senior church officers and clergy. She was unable to say anything about it because the very same people set her Terms of Reference. Corruption is what it is.
David G I intuit from your various comments on this blog and Thinking Anglicans that you are a professional bound by an ethical code of conduct and are therefore required to report the corruption you allege to the proper authority in order to prevent harm to others. Blaming the remit of the Wilkinson report for failing to unearth this corruption does not exonerate you of that duty.
Forgive me if my intuition has failed me.
This for starters…
“692. The absence of any mechanism or agreed process for ISB case reviews recommendations to be implemented has caused significant distress to Mr X and has impeded agreement over the successor case review procedures”
All successor case review subjects are also impacted by a) the abrupt stop on their cases – and b) potentially rendering their previously approved case subject to a new assessment/eligibility process.
To my knowledge this effects at least 12 (previously abused and vulnerable) people.
Who is the proper authority, when the established Church consistently fails at the highest levels?
Corruption certainly but also even more important an almost total lack of Christian love.
Every bishop was asked this at their consecration.
“WILL you shew yourself gentle, and be merciful for Christ’s sake to poor and needy people, and to all strangers destitute of help?”
Answer.I will so shew myself, by God’s help.
It is very clear that neither Archbishop are obeying their consecration oaths.
“In the Name of God, Go”.
I wonder how many Bishops will read the entirety of this and how many of those will actually admit to having read it all. Will any dare to comment themselves?
I do agree with the numerous problems outlined. In my safeguarding case, I was falsely accused, a seriously corrupt process was followed, and at least three official church officers including a bishop ignored all I had to say and failed to follow any of the diocesan rules. The bishop also disobeyed canon law. Only an outside regulator can deal with such matters. Otherwise the C of E will continue to do everything that people have complained of. I have three family members involved in church leadership, so I know much of what they are concerned with.
There are no consequences for those at the top. There will thus be no resignations. Position is all important to them.
Conversely there is every incentive to stay on for bishops, as all their legal expenses will be met by the dioceses, whereas (I gather) this benefit would be lost, if they cease to serve. Doubtless this assertion can be corrected if my understanding is incorrect.
Indeed Steve, venturing outside of the purple circle is a dangerous strategy – then the rest are happy to throw you under the bus.
Unknown – if you’d like to suggest a body to which the corruption of CofE bishops, Archbishops’ Council, senior church officers and LamPal in their safeguarding work can be referred to, please let us know who to approach.
We’ve sent exhaustive evidence to both Archbishops, the Archbishops’ Council, and complained to HR. It is always either ignored or given the usual ‘internal inquiry shows nothing to see here’ treatment.
Corruption in public office is an extremely serious matter. But without transparency, accountability, regulation and external scrutiny in the CofE, survivors and victims can only resort to media and social media to complain, or take legal action. Writing to the powers that be gets no response. The legal avenue is very expensive, and even if one scraped together the money, victims and survivors are up against top lawyers funded by the CofE to the tune of millions of pounds.
There are no external regulators or scrutinisers for the CofE and it’s iniquitous Star Chamber of Safeguarding. As Fr. Aidan Griffin’s suicide demonstrably shows, there are no consequences at all for those who caused his death, despite the Coroner reporting that senior church officers and clergy were directly responsible for the gaslighting that led to him taking his life.
We don’t have a better word for all of this other than ‘corrupt’.
David G as a professional who alleges deep corruption in a charity which has caused vulnerable people to be abused, in the first instance you should inform the police on 101. You should then follow that up with a professional report on your allegations to the Charity Commission. These are the external scrutinisers for the C of E.
It is the case that victims and survivors often have to resort to social media to make their complaints but as a professional you will be bound by the HCPC code of conduct, or similar, which states that social media must be used responsibly. My interpretation of that is the professional should not say anything which is inflammatory and could incite verbal or physical violence against anyone.
Unknown, the Charity Commission just ask the Secretariat of Archbishops’ Council if they’re complying with their responsibilities as trustees. The Secretariat says they are. That’s enough for the Charity Commission. Hardly any corruption is criminal. Lying, deceit, coverups, etc. The police have no case to investigate. Consequently, there is no means of bringing an unaccountable church leadership to account. Short of murder, the leadership can get away with anything and everything. They answer to nobody. If they did, media and social media campaigns would not be needed. At present, there’s nothing else. General Synod is controlled by the Secretariat. Therefore, with literally zero accountability, the Archbishops’ Council reaps what it sows.
A relevant quotation from Baroness Nuala O’Lean, the Chair of the Inquiry into the police handling of the murder of Daniel Morgan:
“We believe that concealing or denying failings for the sake of an organisation’s public image is dishonesty on the part of the organisation for reputational benefit. This constitutes a form of institutional corruption.”
Until such time Archbishops’ Council can operate with truth, transparency and accountability, and submit to independent external regulation and scrutiny, the media and social media pressure will need to continue.
David G thank you for your comments but like the church you are deflecting my concerns about whether you are acting within your professional guidelines. You have made serious allegations on social media seemingly without reporting them to the relevant authorities, as advised by Gov.uk, first. You have co-authored an article that casts aspersions on the appointment of another health professional, Mr. Crompton, and when I as a survivor comment with a slightly different point of view you do not respect that but seek to reinforce your own opinion.
Professional guidelines exist to protect the vulnerable. I thank you for engaging but now feel my concerns are better dealt with off line.
As stated previously, there are no ‘authorities’ to take these complaints to. As for Mr. Crompton, the manner of his appointment has been correctly criticised. He’s not been personally or professionally criticised in anything to the best of our knowledge. Survivor-victims were not consumed about his appointment/imposition as the new ‘Commissioner’ as there were none previous.
You are welcome to hold different points of view on these matters. But calls to impose some kind of binding protocol that social media won’t be used to criticise a corrupt institution and individuals who are otherwise wholly unaccountable, and do as they please with Survivor-victims (mostly nothing), is proper, fair and necessary.
If safeguarding in the CofE had robust and fully independent regulation, and full independence in Poli it making and practice, social media campaigns would probably be rendered redundant. You need to ask the Archbishops’ Council and its secretariat why we don’t have this. Especially as they claim to be fully committed to it.
Typos corrected!
As stated previously, there are no ‘authorities’ to take these complaints to. As for Mr. Crompton, the manner of his appointment has been correctly criticised. He’s not been personally or professionally criticised in any social media to the best of our knowledge. Survivor-victims were not consulted about his appointment/imposition as the new ‘Commissioner’ as there were none previous to him.
You are welcome to hold different points of view on these matters. But calls to impose some kind of binding protocol that social media won’t be used to criticise a corrupt institution and individuals who are otherwise wholly unaccountable, and do as they please with Survivor-victims (mostly nothing), is proper, fair and necessary.
If safeguarding in the CofE had robust and fully independent regulation, and full independence in policy-making and practice, social media campaigns would probably be rendered redundant. You need to ask the Archbishops’ Council and its secretariat why we don’t have this. Especially as they claim to be fully committed to it.