PRESS RELEASE – FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
DATE: 14th May 2025
Survivors of Church Abuse Demand Action from the Archbishop of York
The ISB Survivors Group has today issued the attached open letter to the Archbishop of York.
We are survivors of abuse within the Church of England. We are the very individuals who were promised independent reviews by the Church, following the Independent Inquiry into child sexual abuse (IICSA). Many of us had already begun our reviews through the Independent Safeguarding Board (ISB) — until the Archbishops’ Council abruptly dismissed the ISB Board Members, halting the process and denying us the justice we were due.
Our group includes IICSA core participants, survivors of Bishop Peter Ball, and victims of John Smyth, amongst others. Some of us have been battling for our complaints — including those against senior bishops and Archbishops’ Council members — to be heard for over 30 Years.
It has now been almost two years since the dismissal of the ISB Board. No meaningful or credible alternatives for resuming our reviews have been proposed. While the Archbishop of York has agreed to meet with us, he continues to refuse discussion of the very issues we need to address.
For 23 months, we have been left without any independent support. The Church’s proposed
“independent” support included individuals closely connected to the National Safeguarding Team (NST) — a blatant conflict of interest. The “independent” advocate assigned to survivors worked directly for the Church of England. One other complication is that the Archbishop of York’s own behaviour would be subject to scrutiny in the very reviews that he is effectively preventing from progressing.
We are exhausted by the Church’s failure to act and by what we perceive as manipulative stalling from both the Archbishop of York and the deeply discredited National Safeguarding Team. The re-abuse and cruelty needs to stop.
Our lives have already been shattered by horrific, sadistic, and systemic abuse. We will not tolerate continued mistreatment from an institution that professes to follow Christ.
Media Contact:
Name: Marie-Louise Flanagan – independent press spokesperson
Email: marie-louise@step2mediation.com
Phone: 07498 847665
An Open letter to The Archbishop of York and Archbishops Council
Dear Archbishop Cottrell,
STRICTLY WITHOUT PREJUDICE
We are in receipt of your communication sent to Dame Jasvinder Sanghera in early February and after much consideration individually, as well having met as a group, are now ready to reply. All of us agreed that the best word to describe your letter was “abusive” and that consequently need to say that we find that it impossible to see Jesus in you.
Your abusive letter has made us realize that if we were to engage any further with you, even with the assistance of others, or to engage with your fellow members of the Archbishops’ Council, their agents (let alone your utterly discredited and menacing national safeguarding staff), that there is a substantial risk that it might be seen by others as a sign that it was perhaps safe for them to engage with you in any way. However, it is very clear to us, having read and deliberated upon the contents of your letter, that there is a very high risk that you potentially expose us to experiencing substantially worse further trauma that would cause us (already victims of sexual and spiritual abuse from your organization) irreparable and in some cases even mortal harm.
Archbishop Cottrell, we see you as a diabolical monster bent on causing us further harm and after receiving your letter we shall not communicate with you, your colleagues or agents any further: quite simply we do not believe it would be safe for us to do so. Consequently, we strongly advise any other vulnerable man, woman or child also to keep away from you and your discredited organization – one that seems to delight in its core business of causing everincreasing violence against those who are vulnerable.
You use the word “robust” to describe safeguarding in your church, however your often repeated use of this word merely means to us an escalation in the abuse that we continue to receive from you and your business organization. For many of us, we see in you an individual worse than Bishop Peter Ball or John Smyth – indeed some of us wonder whether your desire to harm us is based in a similar perversion of Jesus and His love.
Christians are supposed to show the Light of Christ but in you, Archbishop Cottrell, we see merely darkness – no doubt your insistence to meet with Dame Jasvinder Sanghera and Mr Reeves “on a private and confidential basis” would also be held by you in the dark – a refuge to which you are perhaps unseemingly more inclined than the Light of Jesus.
Finally, as for your “apologies to all survivors for the trauma they have experienced” and that you wish to “seek to find a way forward to minimize any further trauma to the group” (failing to mention seeking to address the substantial harm you, your colleagues and business agents have already caused), from our own experience we simply do not believe a word of it and never will – nor arguably should anyone else.
We suggest that you appoint a TRULY Independent Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) to move things forward URGENTLY.
Yours sincerely,
The ISB SURVIVORS GROUP
AUTOCRACY sees countless Anglican victims silenced and shunned. I reported savage New Wine ministry trainee bullying to an Archbishop. But the Archbishop passed this to a bishop, who in turn passed the complaint to a New Wine leader. A matter which screamed out for a formal and independent inquiry was brushed under the carpet. Clay-footed leadership incompetence is collapsing the Anglican Church. Lots of people’s patience has been tested to the point where they simply leave, or else stay but minimise their commitment of time or money.
The cruelty must stop. For far too long, the Church of England has been more concerned with protecting its reputation than with caring for the victims of abuse — many of whom have been re-traumatised not just by the original harm, but by the Church’s failure to respond with compassion, accountability, and justice.
It is deeply troubling that an institution founded on principles of love, care, and humility has, in too many cases, become a shield for abusers and a wall against the cries of the wounded. Survivors have repeatedly come forward, only to be met with silence, denial, or legal stonewalling. This is not just negligence — it is spiritual betrayal.
Isn’t the Church called to “tend the flock”? Didn’t Jesus himself speak of leaving the ninety-nine sheep to find the one who was lost, injured, or vulnerable? Where is that urgency now, when the flock includes those broken by abuse within the Church’s own walls?
It’s time for the Church to stop hiding behind tradition, hierarchy, and public image. The focus must shift from institutional self-preservation to genuine repentance and radical care for survivors. Justice delayed is justice denied — and healing can only begin with truth.
This is not an attack on faith. It’s a demand that the Church live up to the faith it preaches. That means listening to survivors, compensating the harmed, holding abusers and enablers accountable, and reforming the structures that allowed this suffering to happen.
Anything less is not only un-Christian — it’s inhuman.
The reader will o doubt sense the passion and feeling contained in this anonymous post. I did hesitate before publishing but felt that the existence of strong feelings about the actions of the C/E hierarchy is matter of record and should be given space in the public domain.
I am however pleased to publish a calmer account of these events to give different but complementary perspective on all that has taken place since the sudden closing of the ISB. I am grateful that both accounts can be read together to provide insight and understanding on some serious issues about the future of safeguarding.
ADDENDUM by Anon
When the CofE sacked the ISB there were a number of survivor reviews in various stages of preparation.
The Church promised that the Reviews would be brought to fruition. 2 years later, none have been completed.
A number of survivors were known to the dismissed ISB members and to their credit they continued to offer ongoing pastoral support with those with whom they had build trusting relationships which survived the Church’s catastrophic decision.
This group became known as the ISB 11.
Attempts were made to facilitate the Church to fulfil its promises without success. According to survivors the key problems were the continuing disinclination of the Church to work collaboratively with the survivors to deliver the reviews on mutually acceptable terms. The victims insisted upon three measures of independence.
1) Consultation on the identity of the Reviewer, who should not be imposed by the Church
2) Agreed terms of reference so that all relevant issues should be comprehensively addressed.
3) The “Maxwellisation” of the report should be in the hands of the independent reviewer and/or their lawyers, not the Church.
The ongoing impasse saw a worsening of the relationship between the Church and the survivors after General Synod rejected the recommendations for independent Safeguarding as set out by the Jay Report.
The Former ISB members sought to arrange a meeting between the ISB 11 and the Archbishop of York but were dismayed that he indicated that he would not be able to discuss the issues raised in the Wilkinson Report; these were the very issues that the ISB 11 felt they needed to discuss and there was accordingly an impasse.
As a consequence a number of survivors – some of the ISB 11 others not, concluded that further engagement with the Church Authorities was fruitless. After two years without progress on their cases, they decided to pursue their grievances elsewhere, politically and in the media.
Many came to a conclusion that their time as the ISB 11 had built their internal relationships and confidence to a point of empowerment.
Jasvinder Sanghera and Steve Reeves had given their time freely for two years which was appreciated and acknowledged but they could not reasonably be expected to continue this role indefinitely.
The ISB 11 has now morphed into the ISB Survivors Group. They
have overlapping membership but it is not identical.
The ISB survivors group have written an open letter to the Church leadership. It has been published on the Church Abuse blog of Gavin Drake and can be read here https://churchabuse.uk
The letter employs some ugly language and judges the Archbishop of York harshly. It would be tempting and easy for the Church to breath a sigh of relief and to dismiss it and walk away.
That would be a grave error.
A church that proclaims the ways of Jesus must look beyond the rejection. The letter comes from a place of anger, disappointment, rejection and frustration. The better response would be to listen to these complainants and to take what they say seriously. The Church leadership at all levels ought to ask themselves “ what does this letter legitimately tell us about ourselves”
This will not be a comfortable exercise but it is a necessary one
With respect to “ADDENDUM by Anon”: the writer is very much out of touch with the truth and uses language that is misleading to the reader.
As a member of the ISB11 I can instead say truthfully that nine of us left (not “morphed”) to form the ISB Survivors Group (one other was invited repeatedly but did not reply and the other person was already no longer part of our group as she took paid remuneration as a collaborator with the Church of England meaning that her position posed a significant conflict of interest and loss of trust).
The Archbishop of York was not “judged harshly” as the anonymous writer states: we unanimously agreed the text and if anything toned it down.
The statement by the anonymous writer that “As a consequence a number of survivors – some of the ISB 11 others not, concluded that further engagement with the Church Authorities was fruitless” is also misleading – it only involved members of the ISB11.
We spoke plainly as a group of nine of what had originally been eleven and then some months ago became ten.
The author of “ADDENDUM by Anon” reminds me of what was once said about King James 1 viz. that he was “the wisest fool in Christendom”.
Can I make clear that this Graham is NOT Graham Jones, the Smyth victim. I tweet as Graham1Munro. Graham Jones is NOT part of the ISB grouping, new or old. I will not be commenting on the press release and letter: they are nothing to do with me. I do not want to get drawn into this debate
KANGAROO COURT JUSTICE reigns across the Anglican Church in the UK and Ireland, and this is facilitated by Bishops (and Archbishops) having an inflated sense of their own absolute authority. The Church of Ireland General Synod was addressed recently by Archbishop John McDowell, the All-Ireland Primate.
A transcript of his Synod address is available online. ‘Presidential Address Focuses on Leadership, Reconciliation and Solidarity’ is a 9 May 2025 Church of Ireland website article. The Archbishop claims: ‘But always there needs to be a co–ordinating mind, a focus of unity and a Shepherd’s hand; and in the Anglican understanding of authority and leadership that lies with the diocesan Bishop.’
So what happens in a diocese where concealed child abuse, rape, embezzlement of money or abuse of the laity emerges? Indeed, what happens if there is a combination of these issues being covered up by a single diocese within an embarrassingly short time frame? Also, what happens if sadistic bullying of junior clergy or ministry trainees is discovered on a massive scale?
The Church of England and Church of Ireland are awash with horrific stories of bullying and abuse. A bishop, or an archbishop, if holding absolute authority, is highly unlikely to commission an independent inquiry into their own clay-footed leadership incompetence or sadism.
Is Archbishop McDowell’s medieval sounding concept of bishops holding absolute authority both dangerous and absurd? I was commissioned as an evangelist by the Church of Ireland in 2017. But I feel ashamed and insulted by what our Primate is saying.
The Primate needs to stop monkeying around. There are very major concerns about abuse cover up and a breakdown of discipline in the Down and Dromore Diocese. Evidence exists of contempt for national law, church rules and biblical principles of natural justice.
Anglicans urgently need assurance that savage bullying and abuse will always be properly investigated, and all the more so if senior clerics are implicated in abuses of power. A simple question exists for Archbishop McDowell: why have you not convened an independent inquiry into savage bullying and abuse within the Down and Dromore Diocese?
Maybe you are afraid, Archbishop McDowell, that the Bishop of Down and Dromore, David McClay, would be forced to resign if an independent inquiry took statements from victims and professional witnesses. Lots of innocent people have vanished. The stench of bullying and abuse within this diocese is foul.
Locals have expressed concern and directed me to alarm about vanishing ex-ministry trainees, who had completed a New Wine course. A 12 mins Youtube film by Olive Tree Media was posted 30 January 2022: ‘Karl Faase interviews Joe Turner for Jesus the Game Changer Season 2’. Why have so many former trainees (like the one in this film) mysteriously vanished, and is David McClay covering up savage ill–treatment of people on an epic scale?
Let it be clear that many survivors have waited very patiently a very long time for their reviews. They were promised them many years before IICSA. We were told to wait for IICSA- we waited. We were told to wait for the IICSA reports to come out- we waited. We were told to wait for the ISB to be formed- we waited. We were told to wait whilst the data breaches were sorted- we waited. We were told to wait after the ISB Board Members were sacked.
We have been very very patient. After over 20 years of waiting. Would you not be angry and frustrated? In my case it involves the cover up of the most serious abuse by senior Bishops. Meantime they continue without sanction. We are left without support or hope of justice or having our voices heard. Gagged and silenced just like we were when children.
The man on the Clapham omnibus may well conclude the Archbishops Council don’t want the reviews into their behavior to go ahead.
“A Survivor”, 6.17 a.m, 18 th May:
“The man on the Clapham omnibus may well conclude the Archbishops Council don’t want the reviews into their behavior to go ahead.”
Are the staffing (officialdom) and the specially recruited membership, of the Archbishops’ Council, the real pillars of the C of E? Is this why the argument from fait accompli accords Jesus fond approval for failing abysmally but endearingly to be proper C of E (typical of His class at the time, he didn’t know how, then)?
Do the officials and members of the Council have an external foundation in Holy Scripture outside their own hermeneutic? Were its statute, and its headhunting procedures, based in honest politics starting in Carey’s time? During my several sojourns among Anglican congregations in his time and since, the Council wasn’t overtly mentioned as a basis for faith. Did Rowan Williams scare the Council?
I note Queen Anne set up a personal and permanent bounty for poor parishes. According to articles I read (somewhere), this has been stolen by the Church Commissioners and by the arrangements imposed, completely away from poor parishes.
Given the peristaltic curlicues of “mind” among both eminent institutions, will this improve or further worsen, once the officials and members of the Council swallow up the Commissioners as proposed? I have noticed already however, the effect on doctrine (opinions on what we should be told about Jesus and about conduct).
God is a God of justice and one day there will be justice for you. I understand how you feel when you say “we are left without support or hope of justice or having our voices heard. Gagged and silenced just like we were when we were children.” I will be praying for you and all fellow survivors to heal from the deepest inner wounds you have carried for so long. I’m praying for your inner freedom. God has come to heal you and set you free from this injustice, inner torment and turmoil. He has come to set you free indeed. I am so sorry you had endure such suffering over so many years but trust that your best days are ahead
Whilst I hear, understand and respect the sense of frustration in the open letter and comments there is, as with most things another dynamic to this. Some people (me being one of them) have chosen to progress their ISB reviews. It is not possible to say if any of the reviews have been completed because publication will only take place with the agreement of the survivor.
The process has taken an inordinate amount of time because the interim commissioner, a very senior social worker, has held the church and its solicitors to account at every turn. The outcome of that has been data sharing agreements and privacy notices that are groundbreaking for the church and aligned to statutory service reviews. Getting these in place was a long and arduous process and because of there ‘nowhere to hide’ execution there has inevitably been an unwillingness by some sectors of the church to fully engage with this. Both the interim commissioner and the original memebers of the ISB are/were employed by the Archbishops Council so the level of independence of their employment is the same.
I have great respect for the former members of the ISB, who were treated appallingly but because their remit was so wide and tangled they could not have easily achieved the paperwork that the interim commissioner has. However they should be very proud of what they gave foundation to and I personally thank them, even though I have never been a member of any group, for providing me with this opportunity, not only to find a sense of justice but to hopefully makes things more professional for others in the future.
The Archbishops Council may happily dismiss the open letter but it won’t be able to dismiss the exit review of the interim commissioner and independent reviewers so easily and I am sure that will not be favourable.
To those ISB survivors who have chosen to take the brave step of progressing their reviews I wish you peace and courage.
I would like to thank Fin and endorse everything they have written here. The diligence of the interim commissioner has not only meant some reviews could be progressed, it’s also laid a strong foundation for future independent reviews and complaints, and should inform the work of the Redress Scheme too.
I also understand and respect the frustration of the writers of the open letter and their decision not to engage with the independent commissioner. As before I hope the AC will finally listen and sit down to negotiate a way forward that all are satisfied with
I’m also grateful to the former ISB members and other allies who helped matters to progress this far.
I can only echo your wish Fin for peace and courage to you and all survivors pursuing justice and accountability in their chosen way
There remains significant problems Jane for “independent” reviews to make place in an acceptable way. These centre around terms of reference, maxwellisation, and control of data. Without sorting the very basics there is no confidence. These are not new problems. Matt Inneson refused to participate in his review as similar ridiculous terms were forced on him. The current stance is against CofE owns policies. If survivors went ahead under these conditions they would be very disappointed at justice denied. For those of us with complaints against members of the Archbishops Council it seems they are hellbent to prevent fair and independent reviews, with them setting the terms and scope, they are dictating reviewers and data control and they controlling maxwellisation. Hardly independent.
Absolutely each survivor needs to agree with the way forward for their case.
Just to clarify for readers, in relation to any reviews offered by the independent commissioner. As with the former ISB, the independent reviewer is agreed between the survivor and the independent commissioner. The terms of reference will be agreed with the survivor, the independent reviewer and the commissioner. The fact-checking process will happen in the standard way with any independent review, so is about the accuracy of facts, not conclusions. The church cannot censor the reviewer. Whether or not the review is published is up to the survivor, not the church.
I’m glad this way forward is working for some survivors, and appreciate it is not what everyone wants.
My desire remains that all survivors get a way forward that works for them and I hope the group continues to progress too, and will continue to advocate for that where I can.
The Church is awash with theologians, lawyers, civil servants, ex-Etonians, insurers, management consultants, secret society members—even decency, somewhere in its ranks. Surely, by now, it should have the resources and moral clarity to address the mess it has created.
Instead, the entire circus appears deliberately designed to kick matters into the long grass—hoping people will get the message and simply go away. +York holds little real power to effect change, and one has to wonder why anyone would willingly sit at a table where the cards are so clearly stacked in the Church’s favour.
Remarkably, the ISB Survivors Group has achieved more in three weeks than has been accomplished in the past two years. Credit must go to its chair, who has effectively highlighted the bizarre and dysfunctional nature of the Church’s processes—processes that often inflict further anguish and suffering on those who have already sought help.
At this point, the focus shouldn’t be on how many people one can rally to its team or the frantic justifications offered. The real question is: regardless of which ‘team’ one is on, what is the Church of England actually going to do—practically, spiritually, and ethically—to bring these matters to a compassionate and professional conclusion?
Q. Where is JC (Jesus Christ) in the process?
Q. Why is the concept of professional mediation so difficult for the church?
I’m glad to read there’s been progress at last Julian. Professional mediation, or conflict resolution, has been called for for so long and I’ve never understood why the church has not engaged with this more. I sincerely hope matters are resolved for everyone with compassion and justice soon.
Has Anglicanism got its own version of papal infallibility? Catholicism has rarely ever had more than just one pope at a time. But Anglicanism has unaccountable popes all over the place. This is what underlies the cover up of so much bullying and abuse in dioceses where the bishop is kingpin. This is what very clearly underlies our grotesque problems in a nutshell. Until bishops are stripped of responsibility for examining abuse and bullying there can be no real change. The content of this ISB Survivors Group article causes me zero shock. Is anyone remotely surprised by the content? For years I have tried to highlight concealed ill-treatment of New Wine ministry trainees in the Down and Dromore Diocese. What witnesses saw was grotesque and very clearly suggestive of savage bullying. But Archbishop John McDowell, the Church of Ireland Primate, seems more interested in vestments and Bo-Peep sticks. Have a good time at the Vatican Archbishop, when you go to see the new pope get installed. Catholicism wisely has just one pope, who is only deemed infallible on official statements of a certain type. Within Anglicanism does every bishop covering up violent ill-treatment of people get the infallibility benefit of the doubt?