by Ben Gibson
This is written with the assumption that you are familiar with the BBC article or radio documentary about Venessa (Vee) Pinto’s criminal abuse of Jay Hulme. Leicester Diocese put out a series of statements in response. Kat and Ben Gibson also put out a statement outlining the effect that the situation, and the way it was handled by Leicester Diocese, had on them, and the extent to which they see this as part of a much bigger problem in the Church of England nationally.
“Kat is normally very emotionally resilient and is able to function very well in the face of adversity and opposition, but this situation feels almost like it has been specifically designed on a spiritual level to target all of her vulnerabilities and do as much damage to her as possible. In our whole married life together I have never seen her under such stress, anxiety and physical and emotional pain. It has been traumatic for her.”
“…things can’t be allowed to continue on the way they have been; it’s abusive, deeply unhealthy, and not sustainable for anyone involved. I am also very concerned that [Vee] might start treating others at [our worshipping community] in similar ways to how she has treated Kat. Personally, as things are, I wouldn’t feel comfortable inviting anybody to come to [our worshipping community], as I’m worried about putting them at risk. I question whether it is safe for [Vee] to be in a position of pastoral responsibility for others. Beyond that, it is simply completely inappropriate for an abusive, bullying relationship to be at the heart of the leadership of a church project.”
These are quotes from an email I sent to Kat and Vee’s manager on 26/5/21, over a year before Vee’s license to minister was revoked. It had already been clear for a long time that Vee’s conduct was not suitable for somebody in a ministry role, but rather than treat it as a disciplinary or safeguarding matter, their manager chose to treat it as an interpersonal dispute. Kat was told that her options were either to raise a grievance against Vee, which would be a long, highly stressful process in which it would be Kat’s word against Vee’s while continuing to work closely together, to look for other work, or to persist and try to improve their working relationship.
We were supposed to be leading a worshipping community (essentially a fresh expression/church plant) with Vee, but we were actively avoiding inviting new people because we were worried that she might start treating others the same way she treated Kat. We strongly considered leaving, but felt certain of our calling to be there, and we felt it would be irresponsible to abandon the few people who were part of the community with Vee as their sole leader. We felt all we could do was try to be boundaried with Vee, try to support the people in the community, and trust that, with enough concerns raised, the Diocese would eventually take the situation seriously and intervene. If we had known how long they were going to take and how badly they were going to handle it, I suspect we would have left or spoken out publicly much earlier. We felt trapped and powerless, in a situation that was severely damaging to both of our mental health.
Can you imagine the level of cognitive dissonance we were living with at the time, attempting to continue leading a worshipping community with somebody while also repeatedly raising concerns about her abusive behaviour. On top of that, receiving undermining mixed signals from their manager in response – sometimes describing it as abusive, other times that it was just a petty interpersonal dispute and that Kat needed to grow a thicker skin. We were focused on surviving one day at a time, trying to trust that our concerns would eventually be acted on. To this day we are haunted with feelings of survivors’ guilt from this time – was there more we could have done? Did we enable some of Vee’s behaviours in some way? Should we have just left in 2020? In the Autumn of 2021 Vee asked Kat to write an endorsement for her as part of her application to be on general synod. Afraid of facing yet another barrage of verbal abuse if she didn’t do it, she agreed, and wrote a positive endorsement. Kat deeply regrets this, and apologises unreservedly to synod for this, and to anyone who perceived Vee as having more credibility as a result of her being on synod.
As time went on, the issues continued, even after their manager left to become a bishop. Several other people raised concerns about Vee with various members of staff at the Diocese. We learned that, for a long time, the Diocese treated each of these as separate issues without looking at the wider picture, so unless one standalone incident was severe and provable beyond all reasonable doubt, they seemed to feel that there was little they could do. It seems that some of the people who heard these concerns didn’t pass the information on, either because of incompetence or lack of clarity around procedure. We were later told that at one point information was deliberately withheld from a senior member of clergy, because they felt that making him aware of the wider picture would ‘muddy the waters’ as he made decisions about a specific incident involving Vee.
Kat repeatedly raised the fact that she considered the situation to pose a safeguarding risk, but she was told that the process was to be held under HR, not safeguarding, as there was no evidence that any children or people in the legal category of vulnerable adult were at risk. When Kat later spoke to the NST, they appeared to agree that this was the correct decision, and that it was a disciplinary matter not a safeguarding one. At times Kat pushed back and said that this framing appears to contradict the C of E’s own safeguarding training which emphasises the fact that everyone can be vulnerable at times, but she was told that this is ‘safeguarding with a lowercase s’. We were shocked that the training appears to be so misleading. If the Church of England acknowledges the importance of ‘lowercase s safeguarding’, why do they seemingly not have any processes in place to deal with lowercase s safeguarding risks? Why are safeguarding, CDM and HR processes mutually exclusive from one another? If your diocese had kept someone in a position of leadership in your church for 5 months, without suspension, after becoming aware of allegations of stalking, harassment and graphic death threats, with substantial evidence, and they didn’t even warn you, you would think it was a safeguarding matter too.
Throughout the past five years, we have got the impression that it is virtually impossible to sack anyone for misconduct in the Church of England. This idea was taken to ludicrous extremes when the Diocese continued to keep Vee in paid employment (on leave) for four months after her license to minister was revoked, seemingly because they were concerned about possible legal repercussions if they dismissed her. During this period of time, at one point Kat happened to see Vee in the office and had a panic attack. Eventually the Diocese reached an agreement with Vee, which included a clause that neither party could speak ill of the other, and they put out a positive public statement about her leaving. We felt that this was an extraordinary betrayal of all of Vee’s victims, and that the Diocese was trying to cover up what had happened.
At every stage of the situation, the way it was handled significantly exacerbated the distress we experienced. We felt powerless and trapped inside an institution that had totally betrayed us. It is a sense of powerlessness and being trapped that turn a challenging situation into a traumatic one. The situation felt like an ongoing nightmare that didn’t end until 2025 when Kat was made redundant. We felt that, each step of the way, the Diocese took great caution in handling the situation in terms of protecting themselves from legal risk and protecting their reputation, but in doing so they inadvertently disregarded caution for Vee’s victims. There seemed to be a complete lack of understanding or empathy for the impact that each decision would have on us, or on others like Jay.
My intention in writing all of this is not to air my grievances against Leicester Diocese, but to highlight the extent to which this situation is just a small part of the picture in a crisis of accountability facing the Church of England nationally. I believe that most of the people who were involved in handling this situation were decent, well-intentioned people, trying to make the best of completely dysfunctional systems and processes in an unbelievably broken institution – but that they have been in the institution for so long that they have come to accept it all as normal. With the exception of Vee’s horrific criminal abuse of Jay, nearly everything about this situation is completely ordinary for the Church of England. I suspect many people reading this will feel as if I’ve described a situation that they have been through themselves.
The Anglican Church appears to be completely incapable of holding people to account for their actions. This entire situation may have been avoided if Bishop Anne Dyer hadn’t written a positive reference for Vee, despite being aware of the concerns that had been raised about her behaviour during her time in the Diocese of Aberdeen. Anne Dyer herself was appointed as bishop despite concerns being raised about her bullying behaviours in her previous role. Multiple serious accusations of bullying have been raised against her since her consecration, leading to her suspension in 2022. In October 2024 the Procurator looking into the allegations decided to end disciplinary proceedings on the grounds of “public interest”, bringing the suspension to an end. The fact that Anne Dyer has been allowed to continue in her role as bishop, despite the Procurator stating “I remain of the view that there is sufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction in respect of each allegation”, which included allegations of serious abuse, is like an absurdist parody of the Anglican Church. As is the fact that Vee was kept on general synod and the crown nominations commission for eight months after her license was revoked – apparently a process to remove people from synod simply doesn’t exist. I have little doubt that, had it not been for the extreme criminal behaviours against Jay, Vee would still be in ministry in the Church of England now.
We have spoken to so many people at every level of C of E structures who seem to recognise the severity of many of the problems we are raising, but feel powerless to do anything about them. So many people have been concerned and compassionate to our faces, but then failed to take adequate follow-up action to address the problems.
A common theme in the stories of survivors of abuse in the Church of England is the perception that the institution consistently prioritises protecting itself over protecting abuse victims. I suspect that the C of E has felt little incentive to improve its systems and processes around handling abuse, because they know that many of their clergy will not leave or speak out due to feeling held ransom by their sense of calling. This approach worked for them in the short term, but it is now causing severe damage to the institution’s reputation as more and more people speak out about their horrendous experiences. We hope and pray that the C of E faces its own #MeToo moment. This already seems to be happening privately, judging by the sheer number of people who have reached out to us to share their own similar experiences.
There are so many people who have been through much worse abuse than us, who have been sharing their stories and advocating for change for years. You can find many of their stories in the media, or on websites like Surviving Church and House of Survivors. To quote my email of complaint to the NST on 11/6/24:
“Please take urgent action to prevent others having to go through the suffering that Kat and I, and so many others, have been going through. If this process really does end up taking 10 to 15 years, then I sincerely hope that everybody involved will be held accountable for the harm they failed to prevent.”
The paragraph relating to Bishop Anne Dyer was updated on 10/09/2025 for greater clarity.
“PRIEST-Paedophile-Resident-In-Every-Small-Town.” I nearly fell off my chair 20 years ago when a friend and I were enjoying a beer. My student classmate had become utterly disillusioned by the scale of Roman Catholic child abuse cover ups emerging.
They had ceased an earlier life pattern of Sunday and Saint’s Day mass attendance. This is exactly what Anglicanism now faces. The excellent article, above, remembers unique features of the Venessa Pinto case. But it also reflects on how commonplace bullying and cover-up is. There is penetrating truth in the article above.
Anglicanism is awash will ill-treatment of adults. DARVO-KCJ-NDA is the unholy trinity underpinning a lot of it. Non-Disclosure Agreement is one tool. But Dioceses use other methods to silence witnesses and victims: no job, no reference etc…etc…
KJC (Kangaroo court justice) is blasphemous. Biblical principles shape UK law, but do not apparently carry the same weight in the Anglican Church. This is BLASPHEMY. Let’s call it what it is!
DARVO (Deny-Attack-Reverse-Victim-and-Offender) sees witnesses or victims routinely bad-mouthed, barred and evicted. Our Dioceses and Bishops are very experienced at nonchalantly covering up savagery, which would now rarely be tolerated outside the Church.
Ben, yours and Kat’s story is horribly familiar. My heart goes out to you. I hope that you are now in a more supportive environment.
Also-‘your labor in the Lord is not in vain’-v well done to Ben and Kat. Inspired to see your sacrifice and effort bearing fruit. ‘Making the invisible visible’ is how I have heard some charismatic-evangelicals describe ‘prophecy’.
‘Freedom to captives’ and ‘justice’ are central to the New Testament message. Alas, chains and bondage are what bullies or abusers, and cover-ups, deliver. Alex Solzhenitsyn loved an old Russian proverb: ‘A word of truth outweighs the whole world.’
Church bullies and abusers resent people who expose them. Would really commend Ian Elliott’s early 4 page chapter in ‘Letters to a Broken Church’ to Ben and Kat. Is there possibly a vast amount of savagery covered up in Anglicanism, and related para-Church groups (New Wine, Church Army)?
Kat and Ben are not alone! My 10.7.25 letter, in Leicestershire’s Hinckley Time,s red-flags attention to the crisis in the diocese run by Bishop Martyn Snow, and also a glaring crisis in the wider Anglican Church:-
‘Time for independent inquiry into bullying
Hinckley Times9 Jul 2025
A preacher asked me out. When i turned her down, the stalking began (BBC website 29.6.25) exposes alleged bullying cover-up in a Leicester Church of England parish. Should the current Bishop of Leicester
face a formal inquiry, or potentially even be asked to resign?
I am a retired medic and a parttime judge. I witnessed evidence of savage ill-treatment of ministry trainees in 2017. I reported this to bishops and archbishops. Eight years later there is no sign of any formal inquiry. Why did trainees on a ministry training course (overseen by the New Wine group and St John’s College Nottingham) face foul abuse?
Kangaroo court justice and DARVO [Deny-Attack-Reverse-Victim & Offender] sees countless Anglican Church bullying victims dismissed as “troublemakers”. The need for fully independent bullying inquiry processes-not overseen by our bishops or dioceses-is plain to all: except perhaps for our Bishops and Archbishops!
James Hardy by email’
I echo your comments Janet, thank you. These stories need to be heard and I commend Ben and Kat’s strength of character in the face of pain.
Thanks so much for your supportive comments, James, Janet and Pilgrim, we really appreciate them. We are doing much better now and feel that we are entering into a new, more hopeful season.
While listening to the BBC coverage and reading the above letter, it seems there is a coyness about revealing the nature of Pinto’s offensive behaviour? Doesn’t this allow for episcopal and diocesan obscurantism?
‘Where there’s a will, there’s a way’. Indeed! Very easy for the Church of England to fix an independent investigation, judge or barrister led, to follow up Jay Hulme, Kat Gibson, Ben Gibson and an alleged 30 other witnesses in Leicester. And, also, why not document the witness evidence from Aberdeen Diocese as well if victim(s) are ready to come forward? ‘Where there’s a will, there’s a way’. But will this ever happen under Archbishop Cottrell?
“DARVO-KCJ-NDA and delay is the Anglican way”.
You can find online plenty of details of Ms Pinto’s offending behaviour against Jay Hulme. That evidence was heard in court, and it makes grim reading. There may be more need for circumspection in Kat’s case, because less of it is in the public domain.
Given the evidence in Jay Hulme’s case, much of which was backed up, I don’t think there’s any excuse for episcopal obscurantism. Clearly Venessa Pinto is a very nasty piece of work.
Would proof of criminal harassment, and of an exceptionally serious type in this instance, in most other settings or organisations see an inquiry convened to rapidly identify other victims or witnesses? Why not have a barrister (or judge) independently take statements from all the victims or witnesses? Jay Hulme, Kat Gibson, Ben Gibson, and others reporting concern in Leicester, plus anyone ready to testify in Aberdeen Diocese, could quickly have an opportunity to present their observations.
But DARVO, KCJ, NDA and delay is the traditional Anglican way!
A rapid and concise ‘lessons learnt review’ could be pieced together very rapidly in this instance, if our denomination was pro-active and ready to pay a suitably qualified legal investigator. But will Leicester/Aberdeen Diocese prefer to either do nothing, or to fix up a slow motion, and ‘sham or scam lessons learnt review’ with a focus on diocesan bureaucracy?
Odd when the **1* hits the fan how little experts like Primate Strange, Primate Cottrell and Bishop Snow have to say. Why, in heaven’s name, is there no public statement from the very top, and an immediate commitment to a rapid collection of witness/victim testimony, to facilitate some sort of meaningful risk assessment relating to people and systems?
Hi Janet
‘Recent’ section of ‘House of Survivors’ has a July 4 2025 post: ‘Stalker in the Church’. The eye is drawn to ten items posted. But top right, above these, is a link to a statement by Kat and Ben Gibson. I am unsure on what you say about the need for ‘circumspection’. The savage way Jay Hulme was treated is horrible. But at one level is the situation with Kat and Ben Gibson even worse, if there were 30 potential complainants. Why such secrecy from Leicester Diocese and Bishop Martyn Snow? Why not strike when the iron is hot, secure victim or witness testimony via a legal professional, and make an honest public statement? By paying for counselling, did the Diocese or Bishop effectively confess liability in real terms?
Hi Angusian, thanks for your comment. I haven’t gone into much detail about Vee’s abusive behaviours because I wanted to focus on the wider institutional problems. The main thing was that she would frequently misinterpret random things people said as personal attacks against her, stew on it for days, weeks or months, then have an explosive outburst of anger against them and demand an apology. If they didn’t apologise and placate her she would accuse them of racism or other horrible things. More generally, lots of shouting, accusations, spreading malicious rumours, claiming credit for other people’s work, controlling and manipulative behaviours, silent treatment, oscillating between idealising and devaluing others, etc. Much of this was in private, completely different to her public persona.
I’m not trying to diagnose anything, but we found this article really helpful for understanding Vee’s treatment of Kat and the effect it had on her:
https://www.talkspace.com/mental-health/conditions/articles/narcissistic-abuse/
One question that keeps begging for my attention, and that is how did such an obviously aggressive and damaged person get into that kind of position? Are there no vetting procedures or such like the dbs system for those working with children or vulnerable people? Secondly, and I expect here is where things get incredibly vague, fuzzy and opaque indeed, what was the management doing? Where is the responsibility, the accountability and the open process to raise a flag so to speak when someone, whoever they are and whatever level of the institution they are at, starts bullying others or otherwise starts to manifest regular and persistent toxic and offensive behaviour?
I guess the whole problem really boils down to no one taking responsibility, and leaders not calling out bad behaviour and no real or specific accountability of any kind.
Hi Timbo, very good questions! As far as I know Vee didn’t have any criminal convictions before this situation, so it may be that nothing showed up on Vee’s DBS. Vee’s previous employers in the Diocese of Aberdeen gave her a ‘blank reference’ which is a major red flag. Leicester Diocese had a conversation with Bishop Anne Dyer about this – from what we’ve been told she spoke very positively about Vee and essentially said that the blank reference was just because of an interpersonal dispute that wasn’t very serious. This reference then seemed to trump any concerns Leicester Diocese had about Vee. Bishop Anne was then suspended over several bullying allegations, but then bizarrely was allowed to return to her role a couple of years later despite her hearing essentially concluding that the allegations were almost certainly true. The Sunday Times recently published a story on her role in all this.
As for your question about what the management were doing and where the mechanisms for accountability are, that’s what we’ve been asking for several years! We repeatedly raised serious concerns with Kat’s manager over the course of 2 years, and he sometimes treated it as a petty interpersonal dispute, and at other times described it as abusive but then didn’t appear to do anything to follow up. He was then made a bishop, and nobody in the C of E has shown any interest in accountability for his part in it all – and a representative of the national safeguarding team even told Kat he couldn’t be held accountable for actions before he was made a bishop. It became increasingly clear with time that it wasn’t just a Leicester Diocese problem, it was a national C of E problem, which is a big part of why we decided to speak out. It has been shocking to hear from so many people who have been through similar experiences to us.
Thank you for the reply Ben. I hope that everyone gets justice in this case but like most people seeing these things, I won’t hold my breath. Sometimes I think all we have left is prayer and the power of a merciful God.
The Scottish Episcopal/Church of England connections in the evidence trail scream out for an independent investigator to be brought in! Do neither the Scottish Primate nor the English Primate have full jurisdiction over a meaningful inquiry into Venessa Pinto? A meaningful inquiry (and risk assessment) needs to be in neither Primate’s hands. But for the bravery of Jay Hulme, and the decisive action of police/courts, would yet another Anglican bullying scandal have been covered up?
Vanessa Pinto attended New Life Derby and was supported by the then leader Kevin Shaw into evangeliam ministry so you may wish to speak to them about any relevant information that could have led to her appointment being successful in Leicester.
Hasn’t the CofE and particularly those at the top and in positions of power simply become the modern day version of the Pharisees?
I cannot see how an organisation, tied to wealth and power and the state and royalty etc, can truly ever be seen as following Jesus Christ. It’s obvious to me that if we want a Christian revival in the UK it has to come from the grassroots and people, churches and communities that truly follow Christ like the mining communities of Soutb Wales around 100 years ago. What is happening to Christian faith in the UK and the US is a grotesque parody of what Christian faith should be.
As after each Elvis concert many years ago, the commentator would announce “Elvis has left the building, can we say that with much that passes for mainstream so-called Christian faith, Jesus has left the building?
It’s hard to rock the boat and painful to do the right thing especially when it’s much clearer only with hindsight. People have employment rights and that’s why being prepared to put in a grievance would have been the best way for this to be handled. That’s the same with any professional workplace. The Gibsons were best placed to do this but instead ducked responsibility. Understandably as it’s hard. But blaming everyone else but themselves and wanting sympathy. Not only that but endorsing the perp. despite knowing that they were part of a lie.
It’s certainly hard to rock the boat if you’re a ‘little person’ and don’t have wealth or connections. If you do you will be set against powerful forces that will try to silence, distort or otherwise taint whatever you have to say regardless of the wrong done and no matter how just just your cause.
As someone said in the movie Copland “Being right does not make you invulnerable.” Powerful forces will protect themselves whatever the case. It is the way of the world.
Yes I suppose that’s the difference here. Management didn’t appear to act when reported and they had to get on with working with an apparent toxic nightmare who had the backing of very senior players. Must have been unbearable. I have never raised a grievance against a colleague but have known them raised by others. I’ve only known them apparently dealt with fairly and reasonably.
No. That’s possibly less than fair.
There may be much more to all this. Anglican victims and witnesses often hit a wall with bishops and their teams. The stiff resistance they face can mean they wilt.
A professor and a senior teacher witnessed a grown man (a New Wine/St John’s Nottingham/ Down and Dromore Diocese trainee) cry his eyes out in my living room. He alleged how he felt accused of adultery in foul language-“Any of us might fancy a change of breasts”-by a course tutor.
2 of the 3 shocked and perplexed witnesses, within just weeks, also felt accused of sexual misconduct by the same tutor in unpleasant language. An Archbishop passed the matter to a Bishop. The Bishop passed the matter to an Archdeacon, who was a regional New Wine leader.
No formal inquiry resulted, and the man who displayed such incredible trauma appeared to by cynically disbelieved by the Archdeacon. The Archdeacon appeared to feel- “Any of us might fancy a change of breasts”-was a figment of the victim’s imagination. Violent abuse victims often have stunningly accurate recollection of what happened.
Did Kay and Ben Gibson have any prospect of a fair hearing? Read up the Jay Hulme vs. Venessa Pinto case. If criminal harassment was poorly met by Bishop Martyn Snow and team, what chance did the Gibson couple have of a fair hearing? Also, were there an alleged 30 reports of concern by various people, so that neither the Gibsons nor Jay Hulme were actually alone? Yet the Diocesan response was very poor.
James, can you please clarify. Are you saying that a woman accused a man of sexist behaviour which actually wasn’t true? It was a malicious lie against him?
Timbo
Two out of five 2015-2016 Down and Dromore Diocese students-both on a New Wine/St John’s Notts overseen course-complained that a tutor called each of them to meetings and savagely ill-treated them.
Both felt unfairly accused of extramarital or immoral sex, in foul or crude language. Neither student felt given any fair opportunity to fully understand the exact charges against them, and where (or from whom) any evidence against them came. Neither victim felt given a fair chance to defend their reputation, or that of others who felt unfairly soiled or accused.
One victim reported the tutor as saying-“Any of us might fancy a change of breasts”-as the student victim felt unfairly accused of adultery. The other student reported being unfairly accused of “living in sin”, and being told their presence would “defile a pulpit”. These matters remain unaddressed by any formal or independent Anglican inquiry after 8 years.
I reported concern to an Archbishop in 2017. My complaint was allegedly passed to a Bishop. The Bishop, perhaps somewhat naively if one considers conflict of interest, appears to have asked a senior local New Wine chief (a close colleague and likely confidante of the abusive tutor) to address the complaint.
Victims and witnesses felt there was utter contempt for fair play. A very distinguished senior church leader was aghast at the way the students were maltreated. The senior cleric described bullying and unlawful harassment.
The senior cleric advised the victims to escape from Down and Dromore Diocese, to avoid further risk of bullying, harassment or coercion.
An Anglican Archdeacon (now a Bishop) offered to marry one of the male students (a celibate). But the student’s female partner (a professor) felt insulted by an attitude that she felt trivialised marriage. She felt this cleric’s approach was coercive, and made her feel soiled.
Why was a plain statement of celibacy (as a result of health issues) not respected and accepted? Evangelical Anglicans (like some of those covering up the bullying I reference) seek potential schism on account of disrespect for the terms of Lambeth 1:10 (b): ‘…believes that abstinence is right for those who are not called to marriage’.
Yet did these same evangelical leaders, in this case show wanton contempt for national law or biblical principles of natural justice, and hold the plain terms of Lambeth 1:10 (b) in contempt?
It all sounds awful but not in any way surprising. Thank you for explaining this case to me. What is happening to the mainstream church is happening in society too, a dearth of compassion, justice and fairplay and a culture of almost sadomasochism on the lower orders. Some one called the extreme nature of politics here sado populism. These things sadly and inevitably are not lots of isolated cases but they are part of the systemic elitism and moral degradation of society. I believe for change to happen the wealthy and powerful need to be held to account as everyone else is.
Hi Jamie, thanks for your comment. I can totally understand your perspective, and if Kat had been working for an organisation with adequate HR and structures for accountability I’d agree with you.
It was very clear that raising a grievance wasn’t a good option and would have been highly unlikely to have any kind of positive outcome. Kat’s manager even said words to that effect and discouraged her from doing it. He suggested (and was almost certainly right) that, if Kat did it, Vee would likely raise a grievance herself against Kat with a load of accusations, and it would have been Kat’s word against Vee’s. You know how things later turned out when the Diocese felt it was Jay’s word against Vee’s, and that was over much more severe, criminal abuse with substantial evidence. It was also suggested that the most likely outcome of a grievance would be that Vee would have continued in ministry and Kat would have been moved to a different role so they didn’t have to work together (this is very typical in the C of E). Kat actually did later engage in a formal grievance process with the Diocese and it was a complete waste of time that caused lots of stress for everyone involved over the course of several months. As I mentioned in the article, we frequently agonise over what we might have done differently in hindsight, but in this case hindsight has made it even more clear that raising a grievance would have caused more harm than good. It wasn’t fear that stopped us doing it (though we were afraid that the accusations and abusive behaviours from Vee would increase significantly), it was the fact that we felt confident that it wouldn’t achieve anything and our efforts would be better spent trying to get the Diocese to deal with the situation in other ways. In particular, trying to get them to see that it wasn’t just an interpersonal dispute to be resolved through a grievance process, it was a safeguarding concern. We were desperate for a solution and would have jumped at the chance to raise a grievance if we had thought there was any benefit whatsoever to doing so. We felt trapped in a horrible situation, in which all the options available to us to navigate it were terrible.
Given that we repeatedly raised serious, urgent concerns with several senior members of staff and clergy at the Diocese over the course of 5 years, entered a formal grievance process about the diocese’s handling of the situation, raised concerns with the national safeguarding team and the bishop who oversees safeguarding nationlly, raised a formal complaint with the national safeguarding team, triggered the commissioning of a lessons learned review, and ultimately spoke out to the BBC, it seems really disingenuous to suggest that we were ducking responsibility or afraid to rock the boat.
The point of this article isn’t trying to gain anyone’s sympathy. I was asked to consider writing a reflection on what this situation reveals about wider institutional problems in the C of E. One of them being the fact that abuse is often treated as an interpersonal dispute, and the responsibility is placed on victims to try to hold abusers to account by themselves through systems that are at best ineffective and at worst rigged against them.
Many thanks to Ben and Jamie for sharing their thoughts. A snippet from a famous script comes to mind as I reflect on Anglican Church misdemeanours:
“But Christ’s lore and his apostles twelve,
He taught and first he followed it himself.”
Geoffrey Chaucer, The Canterbury Tales
The story in countless cases of Anglican Church BAH (bullying-abuse-harassment) is a failure of our bishops to follow the immortal advice of Chaucer. Bishops want others to obey the bible. But bishops need to lead by example on obeying the bible. The bible directs us to let the witness evidence of ‘2 or 3’ determine matters. By serially failing to follow this biblical principle, our bishops have allowed KCJ-DARVO-NDA to define the way Anglicanism malfunctions. Bullies and abusers establish themselves as mafia ‘untouchables’. Victims are silenced and cast aside. Convinced Christians seek a different denomination, join an informal network or fellowship, or become Non-Subscribing Anglicans (accept the validity of the 2 sacraments and partake as communicants, but offer token or minimal financial contributions). People outside the Church still largely have a psyche shaped by Church values. But when UK bishops cover up BAH, then the average agnostic-atheist thanks He-He-It-They-Them-whatever there is to thank or just the ether, for their good fortune in not being connected to the Anglican Church.