Final instalment in a series of five guest articles detailing the unhappy situation in the Church of England with regard to its failures in the management of Safeguarding.
By Anon & Friends
No. 5: Reaching Towards Truth and Justice
Trust and confidence in the Archbishops’ Council and National Safeguarding Team is broken beyond repair. The statements made on safeguarding and issued by both Archbishops, senior staff and Lead Bishops seem designed only mislead both church and public. Yet ordinary members of the church seem to be powerless in the face of the lack of accountability and competence over the ways in which safeguarding policy and practice is being operated.
Recently, the Archbishop of York was found to have deliberately lied to General Synod over progress on reviews and the closure of the ISB. Victims of abuse are now writing to their MPs and calling out the deceptions, incompetence and cover-ups. In a short series of five extracts of letters sent to Members of Parliament, the case for root and branch reform is set out.
These short extracts detail the deceptions fed to General Synod, the wider Church of England and general public. On the scales of justice, we find that statements from either of the Archbishops cannot be trusted and have little weight. Furthermore, little, if anything, that the Archbishops’ Council says to General Synod about safeguarding is likely to be true. The scales of justice can no longer be balanced, and victims are now calling upon Parliament to intervene as a matter of urgency.
In five brief extracts taken from letters to MPs, the issues now being put to Parliament are carefully set out, and the call for independent statutory regulation of church safeguarding is made. Victims of abuse and injustice have no confidence in the Church of England’s leadership being able or willing to address the abuses it continues to perpetrate. Only external legal independent intervention can right these wrongs, and finally put a complete stop to all of the continuing injustices that the Church of England’s safeguarding policies and practices perpetuate.
From: Archbishop Justin
To: Survivors Representative
July 2024
Thank you for your recent email dated 16 July 2024 and I am grateful for you taking the time to write to both myself and Archbishop Stephen. Stephen is currently away on holiday, but we didn’t want that to delay a response to you.
Following the termination of the contracts of the ISB members, the Archbishops’ Council have sought to ensure the survivors you reference are being cared for. As you know, it has not been a straightforward process to establish contact with all of them and understandably some have been hesitant to engage.
For several months support and advocacy has been available to these individuals through FearFree and I understand that many have made extensive use of this service. You may be aware that we now have the framework in place so that appropriate independent reviews of cases can be provided as was set out to the General Synod in GS Mis 1393. Whilst the survivors have requested their engagement is kept confidential, there are some who wish their review to take place, and these will shortly be commissioned. I hope these reviews will be part of a process which allows the individuals to be both heard and to bring a certain level of closure to the trauma and abuse they have suffered.
My hope is that others who to date have not had the confidence to engage in this work, will do so in the future. But of course, trust must be earnt, and this is something both Stephen and I, along with the Archbishops’ Council are acutely aware of.
I note the point in your penultimate paragraph around suicide ideation which is deeply distressing. As the names of those in the group are unknown to me, if you have concerns about any individuals, please can I ask you to report this to the appropriate statutory service if you haven’t done so already.
There is no room for complacency within our structures around safeguarding and as you will be aware, the General Synod mandated the group who authored The Future of Church Safeguarding, to report back in February 2025 with further analysis and recommendations which I look forward to engaging with.
I am very grateful for you taking the time to write. With best wishes, Justin
Again, very little, if anything above, is true, or bears any relation to reality. The “ISB-11” are unanimous that they have been left without independent support, and continue to be denied the reviews they were promised. More recent concerns and abuses have included:
- Members of Archbishops’ Council repeatedly lying to General Synod.
- Stephen Cottrell lying to Synod about the summary closure of the ISB.
- Stephen Cottrell lying about a promised independent review.
- The continued perpetuation of abuse and the re-abuse of victims.
- Constant delays in reviews.
- Cover-ups of corruption and incompetence.
- The total lack of transparency on legal expenditure.
The Lead Bishop for Church of England Safeguarding has no relevant professional qualifications or externally validated training in the field. Nor does her work fall under any independent or statutory regulation body. Her role is to be a spokesperson for the Archbishops’ Council, who in turn continue to perpetrate the main abuse. Most people inside the Church of England and at General Synod will be under the impression she has accountability and some recognised training. She has none. Given that nobody could ever teach in a school, practice medically or in law, the claim to be the “Lead Bishop…” of anything is a likely deception, and especially in safeguarding.
Under the circumstances, with no regulation, training, accountability, transparency, professional standards or any other safety mechanism one would expect from a public body, we ask for the following. That all responsibility for safeguarding is stripped from the Church of England forthwith, and transferred to an independent, regulated body, who will be funded by the churches and other stakeholders (as in other industries). This will enable:
- Minimum standards of compliance be applied to the Church of England with immediate effect in data compliance, employment rights, financial oversight, charity regulation, etc.
- Minimum standards of trustee compliance are made mandatory and statutory in every sphere of Church of England governance, especially in relation to conflicts of interest policies and registers of interest.
- Law firms and auditors engaged by dioceses, National Church Institutions, Lambeth Palace and Archbishops’ Council must be changed regularly, and the contract open to properly regulated competition.
- The Church of England complies with the Human Rights Act and the European Convention on Human Rights, especially the right to a fair trial. At present, like the Post Office, clergy and others can be taken to court by one person who will be, simultaneously, the complainant, investigator, prosecutor, judge, jury, bishop and pastor. This is not justice. This is Orwellian – the Church of England being “a law unto itself”. Clergy have committed suicide facing this (see: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-57780729).
We are writing to you as our Member of Parliament, since the cost of all of this is now increasingly falling on the taxpayer in any case, as victims of abuse cannot secure reparation, justice and closure as a result of the continued actions of the Church of England.
The NHS and mental health services are under severe threat, and social services are hugely overstretched. Yet the Church of England’s opacity of operation and dishonest dealings with victims of abuse is only adding to the burdens that the UK taxpayer is being asked to carry.
Furthermore, it is unconscionable that Bishops – unelected, and only from one home nation – should be privileged with seats in the legislature (House of Lords) and able to claim expenses and other ‘perks’, when they themselves are under no form of mandatory, statutory or professional regulation, and exempt from laws that bind others.
We are firmly of the belief that these matters now need statutory intervention, and the Church of England – with a £10 billion endowment, and in receipt of millions of pounds of Gift Aid tax revenues every year – must comply with the law like any other public body. If it will not do so, then the government should consider withdrawing its privileged, charitable and established status forthwith.
Truth and Justice are no longer to be found within the Church of England hierarchy. Its leadership have opted to speak from a post-truth PR platform, and operate outside any normative standards of justice, and sits aloof from any accountability and transparency. We believe it is not safe practice or good stewardship to donate to any charity that is run like this. Such an operation should not be funded or supported by donors. Weighed and found wanting on the scales of justice, only externally imposed reform can save the Church of England from itself. And doing even more damage to so many others. These ongoing abuses must be stopped at once, and for all.
Thanks for this. Totally agree. It’s time for the C of E to lose it’s massive unearned privileges, and be disestablished. Starting with removing the bishops from the house of lords. It doesn’t follow the basic rules of the land. And Welby needs to resign.
‘AI’ does not exist with Church Safeguarding, in spite of however many protocol layers or procedures and committees are created! Real intelligence of senior people is what we need. Where senior people have repeatedly behaved stupidly, or cynically covered up serial and savage abuse, they should be fired: end of story. ‘Letters to a Broken Church’ reminds us how Catholicism in Ireland cleaned up its act by evicting those wanting to play the same old tune. I think there is an argument for Justin Welby to resign. The scale of hidden abuse is atrocious. Ministry trainees are an especially vulnerable group.
Whilst completely agreeing with the sentiment of this article that the church desperately needs independently led safeguarding I think it falls down in being contadictory. The Archbishop states that the support group Fearfree has been used extensively by some of the 11 yet there is also unanimous agreement from the 11 that the support has not been independent. Why then is that support being used extensively?
Also as the Archbishop correctly states the actual number of peolple engaging with the reviews is confidential and therefore 11 people from that cohort may be in the majority or in the minority it is simply unknown.
I completely agree with the desired outcome of the article but am concerned that writing from a place of not knowing all the facts, due to the need for confidentiality, may have a negative impact, particularly when some of the reviews are published, as it will blur the edges of what is a very important plea, that independent safeguarding is urgently needed and needs government intervention to achieve that.
Ashley,
One should also remember that Justin has made many pronouncements on safeguarding over the last 10+ years.
A very large number of these have turned out not to be true.
And that’s before we go anywhere near Stephen’s many instances of ‘being economical with the actualite’
https://houseofsurvivors.org/ has a ‘RECENT’ section with thirteen reports on Blackburn Cathedral and an NDA case. Should both Archbishops’ heads roll in view of the NDA?
Ashley, with respect, this article is written by a collection of individuals who DO know the facts. They are survivor side – survivors and their supporters. You assume that there is contradiction because you assume truth is spoken in the wrong place. I am one of the ISB11 – who meet regularly and have been disgusted *and damaged* by the misleading outputs from the CofE.
I think it is important to realise that the abuser in these cases are the Archbishops’ Council, NST and other CofE safeguarding bodies. Victims are understandably reluctant to receive support from any specific provider nominated by the abuser. Just think of the hue and cry there would be in an alleged perpetrator of sexual abuse or a sexual assault were to be permitted to specify how their victim received support, and from whom. All hell would break loose. So why does the CofE choose who helps victims of their of own abuse? How is that ever ‘independent’?
The CofE cannot, de facto, act as an independent body when it is the actual subject of the claims of abuse. Nor should it be allowed to select a third-party that it prefers to clean up the abuse it perpetuates. Welby presides over the harm and abuse, and he cannot assume responsibility for the care of victims who want nothing further to do with the CofE anymore. Until that reality is faced, we will continue with the absurdity of the Archbishops’ Council, NST and CofE safeguarding bodies creating new abuses, but just saying sorry every time it happens. And then trying to provide some TLC or ‘pastoral care’ to victims. This is worthless, harmful, and a further abuse.
This has to stop. The CofE causes harm to victims. It will continue to do so. If these were medics or doctors, they’d be struck off and not allowed to practice. The CofE carries on in the vain hope that they might eventualy get something right. They won’t. The CofE has no independently verified expertise or qualifications in the field, and is unregulated in all it does. It is unsafe to be part of an organisation that has no accountability to any kind of professional regulating body.
James is right. NDAs are in regular use in Blackburn, and they are recent too. Once again, Welby makes a statement – a moral claim over his abhorrence of NDAs and pontificating “not on my watch” – and yet it turns out to be untrue. Are there any honest bishops in the CofE, anywhere? That is a genuine and serious question. Which bishop could be trusted to tell the truth and not lie about safeguarding? That number is zero.
Timidly, and completely seriously, I offer a tentative suggestion of a single Diocesan, but that makes 1 out of 108 (approx) who is likely to be honest about safeguarding?
Thank you for these comments. As a survivor of many years experience I am not denying that what any of you are saying is true my point is that if one is writing to MP’s, who as many of us will have seen in our SAR’s are often best buddies with Bishops and usually report back to them, then one cannot leave room for any loopholes.
Welby’s letter if included with correspondence to MPs, and it is not clear if it is, allows the MP to say, ‘well they moan on about lack of independence in the support they are given but use it extensively and there are only 11 of them, so I will just file that in the bin.’
Your first comment in the responses Anon is bang on, says it all, no loopholes and is to my mind far more powerful without Welby’s letter.
I agree that ensuring what is written is factually accurate is necessary so as not to undermine the important message that CofE safeguarding needs independent regulation. Some of what Justin wrote is accurate in part, so it would be better not to contradict that unnecessarily.
The important message of the need for independence is what matters, and the truth stands for itself.
The power of these recent five blogs is that they are posted within a few days of each other. This makes each of them them easily understandable before the next one is posted. They lay bare frankly the parlous state of the Church of England with the dishonesty of its safeguarding.
How any of the hierarchy downwards can preach in church whilst destroying the lives of so many victims and survivors for so many years is beyond belief.