by Martin Sewell
It is around this stage of the football season that some teams performances go into free fall and they plunge inexorably towards relegation; the paying customers stay at home, morale sinks, some players “want away”: no discernible plan is evident on the field of play, and rumours of dressing room dissension emerge. Spectators watch with dismay as the ball is routinely kicked aimlessly forwards, more in hope than expectation only for the pressure to mount from the more clued-up opposition teams which purposefully continue to run rings around the hapless, week after week,
At such times a hymn tune is re-purposed on the terraces reminding the players that not only are they “sub-optimal” – but they know they are.
Clubs can respond in one of two ways. Sometimes, like my own team Tottenham Hotspur, they bring in a new coach with fresh ideas whose clarity of thought creates a “bounce” and the team finds a new lease of life; sometimes they appoint someone from the existing staff who continues the old culture with predictable dispiriting results.
Just before the Archbishops’ Council met to consider their response to the Wilkinson Report I wrote to the members in the vague hope of introducing a few ideas to develop a different approach to get us out of the Safeguarding morass which the current leadership and culture have created. The underlying thought was simple enough. “If things don’t change things will remain exactly the same.
In order to signal a fresh start, I offered them a list of “Do’s and Don’ts”, a few tips about how to get back onto the front foot.
Here were some of my suggestions; in the comments section below you might like to suggest a few of your own
DO
Commission and announce an immediate safeguarding investigation into the allegations contained in the Glasgow Report which are supported by expert evidence.
Consider where suspensions may be appropriate in the light of the above – be consistent in applying the same criteria which would be applied in other allegations of serious safeguarding failure.
Consider what governance and managerial failures have been highlighted in the Wilkinson Report and what steps must be taken immediately to address these.
It is understood that external auditors have been appointed to fully investigate the Gilo complaint regarding false evidence. Request confirmation of the Terms of Reference of the investigation and of the anticipated reporting timescale. Require that the report be made available to all members of the AC and the AC Audit Committee immediately it is received.
Establish an unimpeachable, independent process to investigate all of the above. Recognise that any suggestion of taint or partiality will bring huge discredit on our Church.
Prepare for significant independent oversight during the transition period between the delivery of the Jay recommendations and their implementation; business as usual will not carry credibility.
Bring a clear commitment to Synod to accept the Jay recommendations without obstruction, even if these mean that control will be removed from Archbishops/ Bishops
Issue an immediate public apology to all the former ISB members for creating an under-resourced ill-conceived ISB project with disagreement ‘baked-in”.
Where appropriate tell Synod and the public where responsibility lies for the failings identified by the Review in matters including
Initial conceptualisation
Poor scrutiny
Legal ambiguity over what “Independence” means Resourcing
Data protection responsibilities
Poor minuting and record keeping.
The absence of and /or resistance to proper Audit
The “confusion” over the Terms of Reference for the ISB.
Issue a clear summary to General Synod of your responses to the Wilkinson Review;
DO NOT
Issue evasive press statements like the ones hitherto
Speak of “prioritising victims” until you have put specific radical measures in place
Attempt to limit the capacity of Synod to exercise its duty to hold all responsible parties to account.
Speak of “scapegoating” or “witch hunting”;
Speak of a fresh culture before there is hard evidence for it –“by their fruits ye shall know them”.
Advisory
Do urgently re-open consideration of the Mr X case. NOTHING absolutely NOTHING will say “ we are sorry and are changing the culture” better than treating the most harmed of victims properly. Forget “this will set a precedent” (it will not): forget “we have been advised that” – this is what Baroness Mone and the leaders of the Post Office and Fujitsu said to excuse their appalling conduct.
Instruct the Church lawyers to stop pressing victim Sophie Y for costs which she cannot afford, for simply seeking justice; she is a victim, and you should not replicate Post Office behaviour by using lawyers ultimately funded by congregations (even if this is via lost grant opportunities) to bully victims. There is genuine fury across the British public over the behaviour of a trusted institution. Once they have torn down one edifice, they may be hungry for another. We must not let it be our Church. You are trustees of a charity. Accept any loss and help close this down. Consider how to give justice to Sophie. Invite her to stay the current proceedings pending a proper independent investigation.
Most readers will have seen that my “ Postecoglou” approach was rejected. Instead of a few key principles clearly understood and consistently applied becoming the model for the future, we are to apply the same culture under the watchful eye of Bishop Joanne Grenfell, who will be simultaneously overseeing all the affairs of the Diocese of London during the Bishop Sarah Mullaly’s sabbatical leave.
If there are any Terms of Reference or timescale for the new Working Party, nobody has seen them. A key criticism of the Wilkinson Report was the incoherence of the conceptualisation of the ISB project. This “plan” seems to have been designed by the same people who got us into the current mess, but it will will be overseen by a Chair who openly acknowledged when she was appointed that she had no experience or specific skills in the Safeguarding field.
She will however be supported and guided by the same management team that brought us the current “success” …. Oh Wait!
If they won’t listen to Martin, they won’t listen to anyone. But of course we’ve known this for a long time now.
That said there is something they will respond to, and that is the court of public opinion. Specifically, it would have to be a major TV drama, popularised (dare I say it) to draw out the emotional response of millions of people. I cite the case of “Mr Bates v the Post Office” (ITV)
Would this ever happen? Could it? Does anyone care enough about Church abuse victims. Obviously we do, but does Joe Public? For the vast majority of it, they don’t go anyway, and the regular flow of misdemeanours I and others tweet about, is mere confirmation of the rightness of their decision not to have anything to do with Church. I suspect it would be mighty difficult to obtain funding to produce such a televised drama, because the many potential writers know this.
The Church itself knows and shelters behind this indifference. The main focus of its publicity efforts are to maintain a veneer of respectability for those WITHIN the Church who prefer not to look any closer at the egregious wrongdoing going on.
Like an oil tanker heading towards the rocks, my personal opinion is that the Church is incapable of changing direction quickly to avoid its inevitable decline.
https://www.churchtimes.co.uk/articles/2024/26-january/news/uk/new-group-to-respond-to-jay-and-wilkinson-safeguarding-reviews?utm_campaign=Church%20Times%20RSS%20Daily%20bulletin%202.0%20%28ads%20in%20header%20and%20footer%29&utm_source=emailCampaign&utm_content=&utm_medium=email
An article in the Church Times today
Can you give us the gist of the article, for those of us who don’t have a subscription?
Janet
Apologies didn’t realise it couldn’t be viewed without subscription.
It said a group is being set up by the AC to respond to Prof Jay’s report and Sarah Wilkinson’s on ISB. It said the group would consider important lessons learnt. Prof Jay’s office said her report will be published next Month. The AC will decide on a response to the 2 reviews and put this forward for debate at general Synod. The outline of business of the next Synod on 23-27 February indicates safeguarding will be on the agenda on Sat 24th February am and pm. Some current and former members expressed misgivings about the AC to set up the group in an open memo to all Synod.
Thanks, Stephen. The AC are demonstrating zero ability to learn any lessons!
The surest way to understand the dynamics of what they’re doing, is to watch the iconic series: “Yes minister”. They know full well what they’re doing, it’s about delaying and obfuscating, casting a pall of smoke over the proceedings, and trusting that ordinary followers of the Church will think they are acting properly, and there’s nothing further to be done. The majority (although diminishing one) still believes in their overall goodness.
The silent majority maintains this belief, as I’ve tried to indicate above, because it doesn’t want to let go of its own belief system which is part of individual identity. Those of us who’ve had this substantially challenged know how painful it is to let go and replace it with a reality of How Things Really Are . I should add this reality is much more healthy, but there is still a sense of mourning over what is lost and the continuing misleading of the masses that cling hopelessly to the delusion.
As usual, I’d be delighted to be wrong.
This also in the same CT article.
On Monday, the National Safeguarding Team posted four videos on the C of E’s website to illustrate the C of E’s guidance document Responding Well to Victims and Survivors of Abuse.
Made in collaboration with survivors of church-based abuse, the videos advise survivors on reporting abuse and seeking support, and offer guidance to church members or officials on handling a disclosure of abuse.
https://www.churchofengland.org/safeguarding/safeguarding-e-manual/responding-well-victims-and-survivors-abuse
The NST are in no position to advise anyone on how to respond well to survivors.
In response to Steve Lewis and his reference to ‘Yes Minister’, when Jim Hacker said, with regard to some of our great institutions, that hardly anybody used them, Sir Humphrey said with exasperation, “Yes, but at least they know they are there!!”
Yes indeed they do but how insecure people would feel if suddenly the church as they think/imagine it is was no longer available.
I doubt the vast majority of people understand what is happening in the Church. I doubt even the people in the pews do. After all, I did not know what was happening until I supported Kenneth four years ago. I do think though that a Drama Documentary on the lines of the Post Office one would shock everyone into realising the truth.
They would realise the Church is not an honourable foundation of Truth and Honesty and is, “not there”. At that point they would welcome even radical change so their former belief and trust in the church might be restored. In so doing the Church would became once more the Christian institution it was intended to be, based on the teachings of Christ, with God very firmly at the Head. Having realised what they could have lost, people might take religion seriously and return to church.
Martin Sewell said in another blog that discussions are beginning for such a drama/doc.
Let us at least give it a try.
Having grown up steeped in the Church, I recall watching the “Three (or was it Four?) Musketeers” as a boy and delighting in their antics defeating the evil cardinal Richelieu and his wicked servants. It never dawned on me that senior clerics could be like that now. That was all then wasn’t it?
When you run into difficulties in your local church, there’s a long journey between these experiences and the realisation of the ubiquity of senior corruption. It just goes under our radar.
But the moment you start to push against the institution, asking questions even, that’s when it starts. We’ve heard many concerning, disturbing stories here, and elsewhere of course, and these begin to coalesce into a clear picture.
The thing I’ve found very powerful is the shared courage of Survivor activists. The mutual support is often the only thing that keeps us going. Like the Post Office victims, it becomes much more encouraging and effective to work together, ably assisted by a precious few “Mr Banks”- like leaders, who deserve medals.
This morning’s radio 4 Sunday programme is well worth a listen. The Archbishop ‘s council were savaged by Graham Sawyer. In reply a member of the council admitted they had got everything wrong as regards safeguarding and that they were not qualified for the job and needed training. And having told survivors to put their trust in ISB before sacking them the council were inviting them now to put their trust in Mr Compton with no guarantee given that he would not be sacked. Also having pointed out that ISB was not truly independent he failed to explain how Mr Compton was any more independent then ISB. It was obvious that the Council failed to acknowledge the contribution of David Glasgow’s report when they received it but a very belated acknowledgement was given on air. It appeared that despite the Council ‘s admission that they had got safeguarding wrong and were not qualified to get it right the Council were still pushing forward.
Well worth a listen 20 mins 40s into the broadcast :
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m001vt8s
Dr Jamie Harrison spoke for the Archbishops’ Council. He had the nerve, after all that has gone on, and Prof Glasgow’s description of the harm done, to say the Church hopes to regain the trust of survivors. (I used to respect Jamie, but now…) Graham’s response: ‘It’s too late, mate.’ For some of us it was too late years ago.
Jamie Harrison is, or was, a GP. I was astonished to hear him say that he had only recently done trauma awareness training. I thought all GPs would have at least some trauma awareness. How can they help many of their patients without it?
I was given a card listing websites I could use to assist me with my mental health (some of it trauma affected) when I approached my GP. “It’s self refer now”, she said. She wasn’t interested. Incidentally, some of the sites weren’t extant either. So no help at all.
It’s fairly typical of the professions to enjoy the status of a title or rank, and assume it confers competence in other areas too. It doesn’t. I regard it as shameful a doctor to know so little, but to be the lead spokesperson on the national broadcast.
I know GPs are under enormous pressure, but you can’t treat people’s physical problems without knowing something about psychological make up and the effects of stress. Mind, heart, and body are closely intertwined.
Spot on. I can confirm this was taught at medical school in the 1980s. Perhaps it’s gone out of fashion
That is worrying. But Jamie Harrison is somewhere near the end of his medical career – I presume he must have been taught it in the past?
When we were being prepared for finals, we were told “if you hurt the patient (in the physical exams, long and short case) you’ll be failed”.
Some doctors seem to have lost sight of why they went in to medicine. The idea was to help people. But in any profession a key principle is to be aware of what you are not an expert in and refer to others that do know. If you take on a new area, then at least prepare yourself for what you may encounter?
Complex PTSD for example is not a new concept, first having been discussed by Judith Herman in 1992 I gather. Even if you don’t accept this or know much about it, the impact of a sudden closure of the ISB was reasonably foreseeable not just to a medical professional but to anyone with common sense?
Yes, especially as the AC had been specifically warned by Steve Reeves that there was a risk of significant harm to the survivors whose cases were being dealt with if they proceeded with disbanding the ISB without preparation or warning.
To quote Sir Humphrey Appleby: ‘If you must do this damn stupid thing, don’t do it in this damn stupid way!’
Many thanks, although my impression of the segment was perhaps even worse than yours. I heard the interview with Dr Harrison en route from Kent to Northamptonshire yesterday. What I found especially troubling about Dr Harrison’s wriggling on the hook was that he did not seem to be giving a straight answer about whether a risk assessment had been undertaken prior to the sacking of the ISB members. He equivocated, then said that some sort of assessment had been done, and that a victim had been consulted. It sounded very much to me like the ‘assessment’ might have just amounted to a short exchange with one victim, and that basically nothing had been done. Maybe I am being cynical and/or unfair. In any event, the effect (on me as a common listener) was somewhat slimy, and it was accompanied by the usual platitudinous apologies, presumably intended to cover the sheer evasiveness of the answers provided. I could not help feeling that the truth had not been told.
Why anyone should want to be on Archbishops’ Council, if membership means being being required to ‘front’ such misgovernment and to carry the can for decisions perhaps made elsewhere, is beyond me.
Well said Janet!
Surely it’s time for some State sackings, After all it is the State Church. We’ve just seen Badenoch ensure the departure of the PO chairman by “mutual consent” wasn’t it? And here, at the top of the Church of England we have some deliberate harm being done again, as has been so clearly demonstrated. At best it was breathtaking incompetence. Someone needs to take action to stop the rot.
Yes indeed Steve. I have spent the weekend reading through some of the stories of survivors and would wholeheartedly agree with ‘deliberate harm being done’.
My suggestion is that we wait until the Professor Jay report is published and see what happens about that and events at Synod. If nothing radically changes then we make our plans for the July Synod at York.
There are enough of us to meet in the public gallery there and perhaps make our voices heard in some way. Not necessarily to be ejected or arrested. Anyway we can discuss nearer the time. Perhaps the Drama/documentary will be well on its way by then. Who knows?
Just listened to the radio interview, very revealing.
What is the purpose/role of the Archbishops Council in safeguarding/pastoral issues? How does one get selected to be on it? Are the roles paid? Is there a criteria? Is the criteria a determination to protect the churches image over protecting traumatised individuals? Do they have any training?
This is the official C of E answer to your question:
https://www.churchofengland.org/about/leadership-and-governance/archbishops-council
Scroll down to the details of the current Archbishops’ Council Members which explains the appointments. Below that you will also find current staff details.
When it is a matter of importance to Synod members they have shown themselves capable of acting and making their views known. At the time of writing 130 members have signed a letter in regard, I think, to same sex blessings. Many of us applauded the reaction of members to the Archbishop Council’s giving a one sided report on the sacking of ISB members at the last Synod. We remain grateful that as a result Steve and Jasvinder were then given the opportunity to speak. I ask members to give careful consideration to items that those supporting abuse survivors are preparing for the next Synod. Survivors need you to make your voices heard once again and for you to show your displeasure at Church attempts to cover up and do nothing. We have seen, thankfully, that when the nation condemned the actions of the Post Office, the needs of innocent victims were suddenly of more interest to the government, although there is still foot dragging as regarded their redress. Synod members, I ask you not to wait for calls from the nation to make the needs of church abuse survivors central, but instead to give a lead. We are your responsibility. Give us hope. Give us redress. Give us justice. And vitally, act now so that those currently being abused, will not have to battle the heartless, uncaring and ruthless beaurocracy calling itself safeguarding in vain. Act now to ensure safeguarding once more means safeguarding vulnerable worshippers. Thank you.
Mary a very powerful piece which all Synod members should read.
I shall endorse this, giving you the credit, in emails to Synod members in Kenneth’s Diocese. I did write at this time before last year’s Synod but obviously to no avail. What you have written is forceful and may have more effect.
Perhaps other readers could do the same?
Mary, please note I am writing this February 9th.
Yesterday, February 8th I sent an excerpt from your comment above (giving you full credit), to all General Synod members in Kennth’s Diocese. I strongly urged them to read it and to acknowledge recipt of the email so I could be sure they had the information. One person has already replied.
I know how much time it must have taken you to write it and wanted you to know it is being used. Well worth your effort. It may even go further. I hope other people will send it out to GS members they may have the names and addresses for.
Comparitively easy to do as a cut and paste, although I added a little more to make it specifically relevant to the diocese with a shameful record of abusive sfeguarding practices.
Thank you again Mary
Susan, sorry for not replying earlier but I have been away. I’m glad you were able to make use of it, as I know how much you yourself have persevered in your complaint. I hope many have written to their Synod members before the next General Synod. There has been a push from several quarters so let’s hope the conscience of Synod members is moved to action and that members fulfil their responsibility to survivors. It is high time for Synod members to stop rubber stamping the callous, ruthless and vindictive reabuse of survivors and to ensure independent reviews are just that. We really need to put an end to the endless review of reviews where lessons are never learned in order to prioritise reputations. Not only is this damaging to present survivors but it enables a blind eye to be turned towards those being newly abused and allows the vicious cycle of the abuse, blaming and retraumatizing of victims to continue long after the situation has been brought to light. Now that the general public has led the way in denouncing the injustice and further victimisation of innocent citizens caught up in Rev Vennells’ post office scandal we can only hope Synod members will follow suit.