There is one well-known popular expression which is often trotted out when some policy decision relating to a large organisation fails to gain much traction or support from those who work for it. Too many people within the organisation stand to lose something if the policy is implemented. People declare that to vote for the proposal would be like ‘turkeys voting for Christmas’. For an organisation like a company or a school, new policies often involve the loss of jobs and the slashing of budgets. It is not difficult to persuade a substantial group to vote to attempt to see off the threatening proposal. To pass a proposal that in any way challenges the existing power and privilege of the status quo is seen to work against the apparent interests of all in the organisation. The turkeys being fattened for Christmas have no say in their inevitable fate but, if they did, they would not permit something so obviously contrary to their interests to take place. The recent survey taken by the Response Group that is trying to find a way forward after the Wilkinson and Jay reports for the Church of England has found, unsurprisingly, that the Jay report is unpopular with many senior church officials and the newly created profession of safeguarding ‘experts’ within the Church. Jay’s conclusion is that the entire safeguarding enterprise should be handed over to two new safeguarding charities, entirely independent of the church structures. This radical proposal was never going to win prizes for popularity. I dare also to suggest that the level of acceptance would be the lowest among those who have spent the least time reading and studying it.
The Church of England should have counted itself as extremely fortunate to gain the services of the most qualified expert in Britain (the world?) on safeguarding to advise it. Jay was asked by the Archbishops’ Council, in the aftermath of the ISB debacle, to show the Church ‘how to form an independent and scrutiny body for the C/E’. Now that the Church has received her report and has had its first opportunity to read the conclusions, it is showing strong indications of cold feet. Clearly for many the independence that is pointed to, as an important ingredient of future safeguarding, would have substantial implications. These would challenge the total independence of the 42 dioceses and the vested interests of those with power in the national church. Organisations always stand to lose something when any power at the centre is devolved to groups on the edge. The common-sense interpretation of independence will indicate that, unless it is truly detached, as Steve Reeves pointed out in his memorable speech at General Synod, it will not fulfil the criterion of proper independence or be worthy of that description. Those with the most power to lose, the bishops and those employed to be diocesan safeguarding officers across England will be among those likely to resist a radical understanding of independence. The proposed new structures would continue, according to the proposals, to work with existing employees. Clearly there would have to be changes in areas like professional accreditation and oversight and this would, no doubt. be seen to challenge existing patterns of power and control. The fact that Jay has identified serious examples of failing and dysfunctional process in the course of her numerous interviews with individuals involved at every level of the safeguarding process, is quietly overlooked by those anxious to oppose her recommended reforms. Whenever power in an institution is threatened, those who stand to lose power will always be found manning the barricades. That is what we see. Broadly speaking the survivors’ groups and their supporters are most supportive of Jay, while the individuals with the most to lose take a stand that, with honourable exceptions, wants to resist any move in the direction of an outside body taking independent responsibility for the implementation of all safeguarding activity.
In writing this piece, I was guided by the videos prepared by Martin Sewell and Clive Billenness entitled the Jay Report. I do not intend to repeat all their points but one particularly useful statement, defining ‘independence’ located by Clive, would help the Church if it became part of the of the Church’s thinking.
Independence of mind is the state of mind that permits a member to perform a service without being affected by interests that affect professional judgement, thereby allowing an individual to act with integrity and express objectivity and professional scepticism.
The reason for Jay recommending two new totally independent bodies managing and overseeing safeguarding in the Church came from her observation that the existing functioning of safeguarding protocols in the Church was highly variable in quality. An individual could be in a position where life-changing decisions about their future could be taken by individuals ‘with little safeguarding knowledge or experience.’ Jay interviewed at depth dozens of individuals and received written submissions from hundreds more. Safeguarding in the C/E, even from my limited experiences of listening to the stories of those who have gone down the rabbit hole of seeking justice and accountability, is a postcode lottery. In some places, to back up what was said above about ‘life-changing decisions’, rulings and decisions are made with no possibility of any appeal. Core groups sometimes seem intoxicated by an access to a power over peoples’ lives when at their most vulnerable. They seem sometimes to ignore common sense and the right of everyone to a fair hearing. The European Court of Human Rights speaks about the right of everyone to a fair trial. The two words used are independent and impartial. Also, the importance of being free from conflicts of interest is a basic principle of justice. If church institutions ever think that they can offer justice without the counterbalance of separate structures providing checks and balances, they are likely deceiving themselves. Jay’s gathering of evidence to add to the material that she had already heard and read in the 7-year ICSA hearings, has given her the status of knowing more about the implementation of safeguarding than anyone else in Britain. Her concluding recommendation for two properly independent bodies to manage safeguarding on behalf of the C/E is not just an idea sketched out on the back of an envelope; it is a compellingly argued position that has the ability to convince, like a well-presented case in a court of law.
The current hesitancy, shown on the part of many church leaders and safeguarding professionals in the survey recently conducted by Church’s Jay/Wilkinson Response group, should not surprise us. For such a surrender of institutional power to be a reality, there has, in addition, to be an honest recognition by the Church that the past thirty years have frequently been a disaster area in this arena of safeguarding. A system which allows the top layer of management to be the chief pastoral figure while expecting them to be judge and jury with regard to suspected miscreants, is never going to operate well. There are still hundreds of damaged survivors and victims who seek healing and justice from harmful episodes in the past. Some trust, against all the evidence, that the Church is an institution able to provide balm for the wounds she has inflicted on them in the past. The history of safeguarding has not been a story of binding up wounds and providing compassionate care for the afflicted. Rather it has revealed itself to be, for those of us who scratch below the surface, an institution that consistently puts organisational reputation ahead of pastoral integrity.
The provision of safeguarding services to all, providing love and healing to all who have been wronged or harmed by the institution is perhaps an achievable task. It will however not be achieved in any system where reputation and a illusion of goodness are upheld to the exclusion of honesty and integrity. There is a verse in the Bible which comes to mind, but in a parody form. ‘What gain is it for a Church like the C/E to gain wealth, status, privilege and power, if it is obtained at the cost of honesty, integrity and truth.’ The answer to the question in the title of this piece may very well determine the future of the Church over the next fifty years. Jay is calling the Church to honesty and truth. A failure to respond to the values of our founder can only end in emptiness and tears. I hope the General Synod are fully aware of their responsibilities when they come to discuss this matter in July.
Kangaroo Court Justice! Let’s be entirely honest about the stink from Anglican Dioceses.
I worked as a GP in the early part of my career. The Harold Shipman serial killings forced an immensely radical reform of UK death reporting. Older GPs joked how a call to a solicitor documenting deaths could have an answerphone message: “bronchopneumonia never bounces”.
Distance, formality and independence are also essential, if Church Safeguarding is to be effective. Past times, not that distant actually, saw hospital doctors try to informally resolve client complains. But now complaint handling is more formalised, and it’s fairer. Change needed to come, and it did come in the NHS. But even the Pilavachi massage farce has not woken up our Bishops.
They simply do not want to be woken up. Words are-“precious cups of meaning”-Church Safeguarding covers everyone, or it covers no one. An industry, around protecting children and adults (but only with the adjective ‘vulnerable’), would not have made an iota of difference to the Pilavachi victims.
Do present diocesan safeguarding officers do a great deal beyond managing registers? Do they do many investigations per year, or is it just-‘dial up the police’-if there is a serious concern?
The Down and Dromore Diocese (centred on Belfast) has had successive GAFCON Bishops. But the Diocese is in the news with the Canon Billy Neely case finally getting exposed. Will Bishop David McClay finally name Neely publicly, and name the deceased victim who exposed a massive Church cover up? Why no inquiry into the sad Neely saga?
SEARCH Church of Ireland Journal (summer 2024 edition) discusses falling Sunday attendances, rapidly declining congregations, low vocations and poor clerical morale. Does the cover up of people being ill-treated drive Church members away?
There’s a question for Bishop David McClay to answer! He failed to fix any formal inquiry into savage and sadistic ill-treatment of two ministry trainees in my year group. I felt disgusted by contempt for the law, Church rules and biblical principles of natural justice.
My partner and I strongly felt manipulated. It felt as if there was what we might call marriage coercion. Two out of five students commissioned in my year group left the local diocese.
A senior teacher, plus a university professor, left the Down and Dromore Diocese in disgust at the ill-treatment of the two students. Bishop David McClay has a current GROW series posted online. Growth and leadership etc…..
But survival-not growth-is perhaps the name of the game for the Anglican Church in Ireland. Stopping the abuse of innocent people, punishing offenders and sacking Bishops who cover up bullying-harassment, might actually be a great step to help the Church of Ireland grow.
I totally agree. But the opponents have really set the cat among the pigeons. The time is ripe for the Anglican safeguarding scandal to be given a public airing along the lines of the post office scandal. Perhaps the BBC would oblige? I have a complaint over the emotional abuse I have suffered from a bishop and two other church officials. I am just one of many who could make their stories known. The Church of England does not deserve its title. It is seriously corrupt and does not know the meaning of truth, let alone “independence”!
Exactly! The PO story feels like a mirror image in some regards: a large organisation had a deeply entrenched tradition of hiding abuses of power. The word “victim” was replaced with “troublemaker”.
One of two parts.
This perceptive blog makes it quite clear what we have all known for some time, that there are two completely different reactions to Professor Jay’s report.
On the one hand there is the reaction of AC and Bishops and on the other hand that of the survivors. The Bishops and hierarchy in the church have a vested interest in preserving their power and status and fear what a totally independent investigation might uncover. The survivors group want justice, truth and honesty.
Those of you who are regular readers of this blog will be familiar with the Kenneth Saga and my support of him for more than four years. This is an account of safeguarding I was able to share with Professor Jay when I was interviewed by her. Throughout my support of Kenneth I have always hoped that one day he would be a testcase for other people wrongly accused. I wonder now if that time has come although I would not know how to proceed. We have four years of substantial evidence, including a document based solely on Subject Access Request information.
No less than four Bishops have been involved in his case with two saying they cannot intervene in safeguarding decisions and must accept the decisions made by the Diocesan Safeguarding Officer. One of these met us and saw the documented evidence mentioned in the above paragraph and yet accepted the obvious untruths of the DSO. A third Bishop promoted a Canon to his cathedral whilst under a CDM investigation in our case and the fourth is a newly involved Bishop. We wrote telling her of the case and that the Risk Assessment was built on fabricated and false information sending her the proof of this.
This was closely followed by a visit by a senior church person who claimed it was at the intervention of a newly appointed pastoral canon to Kenneth. The new Canon had spoken to Kenneth some weeks previously whereas the visit was made soon after contact with the fourth Bishop.
A particular paragraph in the blog which resonates is:
‘The provision of safeguarding services to all providing love and healing to all who have been wronged or harmed by the institution is perhaps an achievable task.
It will however not be achieved in any system where reputation and a illusion of goodness are upheld to the exclusion of honesty and integrity’.
Kenneth’s case now has reached a new stage, that of an illusion of goodness.
to be continued.
Part two
‘The illusion of goodness’
When the senior church person visited Kenneth he rescinded most of the restrictions on his going to the church in question. Most but not all. The judgement of his being ‘High Risk’ still remains despite no investigation and the suppression of evidence which might well have exonerated him.
The Senior Church person is going to seek advice from the Diocesan Safeguarding Officer on the matter of this continuing judgement after four years. There is no indication when such a decision will be given. The Senior Church Person said these new arrangements will be reviewed in three months time. Why will they be reviewed? Other church members are not reviewed to decide if they are suitable to be members of the congregation. In any case will that include Kenneth being told what level of risk he is still deemed as being? Does he have to wait a further three months?
Remember there has been no investigation or scrutiny of evidence only a struggle to try and prove him guilty which, by the way, included the DSO saying there was no CCTV in the church so he must be guilty. How does lack of CCTV make Kenneth High Risk?
If there had been an independent body such as Professor Jay advocates it could have been sorted three years ago. That is, if an appeal could have been made as soon as the problem arose. As Martin Sewell said, “we need independence operationally at the sharp end of problem…”
So, for Kenneth, still no closure or hope of one. No real honesty or integrity, the DSO continues to reign supreme.
As a survivor very much in favour of independence in all safeguarding I was disappointed by the Jay report. My daughter, an integration and acquisition specialist with an in depth knowledge of TUPE law said most of it would be extremely hard to manage legally and impossible if the current employers of safeguarding staff were not willing.
I am aware from my own interview with Jay’s team, and from her report, that Archbishops, senior clergy and safeguarding staff (I won’t call them safeguarding professionals as many have no formal qualifications in that area) were all interviewed. I am therefore puzzled as to why, if at interview, her ideas met with the resistance that the survey shows, she went ahead regardless knowing there was practically no hope of her ideas ever being achieved? Was this the real reason for the lengthy delay in which survivors and their advocates pleas for proper updates were ignored?
My interview was about rubber stamping her ideas and when I said they would never be agreed I was simply told ‘we think they will.’ As soon as the report was published she and her team disappeared and answered no emails from disappointed survivors and advocates.
Coming so soon after the highly professional Wilkinson report the Jay report feels suboptimal at best and is unlikely to ever be implemented as she suggests and that is simply another level of disappointment that survivors have to deal with.
I am sorry to read about your experience of your interview with Professor Jay because mine was altogether different.
I found she listened sympathetically to the appalling experience of injustice suffered in my support of my friend Kenneth. She asked relevant questions where necessary to clarify points I had made and eventually in her report certain critical statements she made seemed relevant to our case.
You say ‘….most of it would be extremely hard to manage legally and impossible if the current employers of safeguarding staff were not willing’.
Of course the C/E hierarchy are unwilling to accept the report in its entirety. They are thinking that if they did accept the report in full there would be a loss of power which they are reluctant to relinquish. There is no Christian love or compassion for the victims, just a clinging to maintain their reputations in the public eye; yet they do not maintain their reputations because we all see the dishonesty and hypocrisy of what they are doing.
The Revd Peter Mullen in his obituary to his friend Father Alan Griffin who committed suicide in an unfounded allegation of abuse, speaks of ‘the nonchalant cruelty of the officials who destroyed his life’ Yes, that is exactly what it is, ‘nonchalant cruelty’.
Those of us who experience this cruelty and lack of compassion are frustrated that it goes on and on. The Smyth victims for years and years and the constant postponing of the Makin Review. I refer you to the link:
https://www.thinkinganglicans.org.uk/update-john-smyth-review/
The only way change can come about is through Synod. In July any Synod member not voting for the Jay report to be implemented in its entirety must be considered to be part of this pernicious safeguarding process. There is no other way. Look to your conscience each one of you.
I realise that before Synod there are many papers to read but in this case there is no need to read a report. Martin Sewell and Clive Billiness have made it easy for you. They have made three short videos explaining the Jay report. So, make a cup of coffee, relax and watch them; they are to be found on ‘The Jay Files Thinking Anglicans’.
Not to do so is to make yourselves part of this malevolent process for which each one of you, separately, will be accountable.
Without getting into details, or commenting on the extent to which I agree with Trish or not, I would like to echo one particular comment she made:
‘Coming so soon after the highly professional Wilkinson report the Jay report feels suboptimal at best’.
Having interacted with over both Archbishops, over 35 Bishops, the majority of the AC, legions of NST members and Lambeth & Bishopthorpe staff & the Jay Review, over the 7 1/2 years since we raised my case of historic abuse with the C of E (and which the Church has completely refused to investigate throughout that time, presumably out of fear of what would be uncovered about 2 Current Diocesans in the Southern province?), the single truly competent and caring person I met was Sarah Wilkinson.
For completeness I would offer honourable mentions to:
– Peter Hancock & Emily Denne who were undoubtedly caring but unable to progress matters in the face of determined opposition from Lambeth, NST, AC etc.
– one senior cleric who prefers to remain anonymous.
Unfortunately everyone else failed to meet what I would regard (I hope & believe dispassionately) as any bare minimum acceptable level of care & competence.
My favourite quote remains:
‘Watching a C of E Bishop deal with Safeguarding is like watching your plumber attempt brain surgery:
You just know it’s certain to end badly’.
I should have written:
Watching a C of E Bishop attempting to deal with cases of historic abuse is like watching your lumber ….
I have frequently made the point publicly that there is much great CURRENT safeguarding work going on in many (including my own) Dioceses, though certainly not all.
One of the main complaints is that treatment of survivors is so postcode/Diocese specific, effectively at the whim of the Diocese/Bishop.
On CURRENT cases, some are great, many are adequate, some aren’t.
However on historic cases I have dealt with many scores of Bishops, as well as the NST, Lambeth, Bishopthorpe, majority of AC etc etc and only Peter Hancock would I rate adequate or better (and definitely better in his case).
As I have made clear many times previously other shining exceptions include Dame (hurray, richly deserved) Jasvinder, Sarah Wilkinson & Emily Denne but, significantly, none of them are part of the Church hierarchy.
We can easily sink into complexity on bullying-coercion-abuse. The Deuteronomy idea (repeated in the NT) about ‘X2-3’ witnesses needs to be remembered. Did over X100 witnesses report to the Canon Mike Pilavachi MBE inquiry?