Whenever I speak to another person about safeguarding in a church context, I am aware of an enormous number of variables which affect the way I understand and present the topic. The other person may be a victim/survivor and, if that is the case, I may find myself brought face to face with the issue of trust and how an abusive experience may have undermined the ability to feel safe within a church. A safeguarding conversation with someone who is a church employee will likely be different. It may be important in our exchange to consider the issues around reputational damage. I might enquire, for example, whether the steps taken to manage an abuse or harm episode have done something to mitigate the threat to the church’s reputation? Conversations that consider this whole area of institutional damage are probably extremely common. but I usually only hear about them second-hand.
My present situation as a retired clergyman looking at the institution from the outside, for the most part, means that for me the first type of conversation is more typical. People are regularly contacting me about their individual experiences of abuse. Many sufferers also want to talk about their prolonged and frequently unsuccessful attempts to achieve any degree of closure from church authorities. Nevertheless, it is often possible to have a measure of sympathy for the individuals who have some authority in this situation, since they are often themselves victims of an unwieldy and unresponsive system. A bishop with a substantial in-tray of incidents of safeguarding failure must feel sometimes close to despair when he realises that few of the pastoral, legal and financial demands of a survivor can be met. Those officials who have safeguarding responsibilities within the institution, have an unenviable and well-nigh impossible duty to support all victims of abuse. At the same time their position within the church structure requires them to defend the institution from the accusations of inadequate or incompetent pastoral care. I am in fact quite relieved to be in a place that does not require me to justify or defend the church institution whenever, in my judgement, it has failed in some way.
Every victim of a safeguarding catastrophe is looking for some kind of resolution or solution to their suffering. Often all that is required is sympathetic emotional support provided by pastoral listening. Close attention by a sensitive listener to what is being shared of abuse or bullying, is vital to help the sufferer in knowing, perhaps for the first time, that their pain is being heard. The conversation with a survivor may need to go up a gear and offer practical help in pursuing the complaints process that the Church of England has made available. This is not a level of support that I offer, but sometimes I can suggest names of people to talk to. One option that I do have is to invite the survivor to write up their story and publish it on this blog suitably disguised. The stories that have appeared from time to time on Surviving Church have allowed my readers to support the anonymous survivor, at the same time gaining insight into the enormous range of scenarios that are present in the word safeguarding.
The sheer range of stories and episodes that are covered by the word safeguarding is important for us to embrace. As I have already indicated, much will depend on who is using the word and what perspective they have, either as a sufferer or as a manager. Another way of thinking about the meaning of the word is to suggest that it is a notion that operates along a continuum. In using the word at one end of the continuum, I may be speaking about the support of someone experiencing abusive behaviour. At the other end of the continuum, the word is describing something less personal and more formal. While the word ‘safe’ normally refers to the needs of a vulnerable individual, it could also suggest the instinctive response of institutions to defend themselves from accusations of incompetence or worse. Communication will be impossible if, for example, one side in a conversation is talking about safeguarding in terms of the pain of victimhood while the other side is aware only of the word in the setting of legal process or schemes of training.
The ability to move quickly up and down the spectrum or continuum of the different meanings of safeguarding is perhaps one of the most important skills we would ask of anyone working professionally in this area. The skill of deep empathy is required alongside the ability to enable the formal legal processes to operate smoothly. This is particularly important for the newly minted category of church employees known as Diocesan Safeguarding Officers (DSO). In the space of the past fifteen or twenty years we have seen this creation of a totally new church profession. Every Diocesan bishop in England has appointed an individual to operate a local structure. This is concerned simultaneously for the welfare of abused individuals and preserving the reputation of the institution. Part of the task of these officers is to provide safeguarding training for clergy and church officials as well as administer core groups to manage suspected transgressors in the area of sexual and physical abuse. None of these DSOs is known to me personally, but I think it is safe for me to observe from conversations I have had, that the quality and competence of these individuals is varied. The best dioceses for safeguarding seem to be those where the bishop has taken a personal interest in safeguarding and takes care to ensure that pastoral support is offered to both the individuals known to be the victims of abuse as well as the accused perpetrator. The atmosphere in dioceses where senior clergy are less willing to get involved in the complexity of safeguarding can be chilly in the extreme. Clergy may feel exposed and vulnerable if they sense that their bishop is indifferent to their plight when they are abused or accused of a misdemeanour. The same thing goes for a lay person who fails to get a proper hearing or the opportunity to raise a complaint.
In writing these comments about safeguarding, I want to repeat the suggestion that everyone involved in its implementation should recognise that the word always has at least two meanings. At one end of our imaginary safeguarding continuum, we find one form of its implementation that focusses on compassionate protection and care. In other words, the safeguarding that is being practised here is an expression of what Christians call love. Christian safeguarding is, or should be, an expression of the same quality of care that that Jesus commended to his disciples as they seek to serve and care for one another. While this love, expressed in compassionate safeguarding, exists at one end of the continuum or spectrum, there is another use of the same word which, at the opposite end, aligns itself to the notion of justice. Safeguarding can be seen, not only in the story of the Good Samaritan but also in the story of the unjust judge who was pestered by the widow demanding to be heard. This latter story is the typical narrative of many safeguarding sagas. What a story of this kind tells us is there was initially a failure of justice and fair dealing. What is needed to resolve and complete such a narrative is a successful appeal to the institutions of justice. We want to see vindication and justice provided for the complainant. In this case safeguarding involves the pursuit of truth, transparency and honesty.
Safeguarding, if it is done correctly and properly, will respond to these two Christian imperatives -the call to love and the call to provide justice for the discouraged and down-pressed. At any one moment the task of safeguarding will necessarily prioritise one of these, but both will always need to be present in any proper display of safeguarding within the Church. When either love or justice is taken from the safeguarding process, what remains is something hollow and empty. The church as a whole must ensure that a one-dimensional safeguarding is never allowed to reign supreme and that both ends of the safeguarding continuum are permitted to have equal emphasis in making our church safe for all its members.
Spare a thought for the children in Nottingham, victims of Ruben recently jailed for his crimes:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c0k14ldxd11o?app-referrer=search
Stathern Lodge was used as a Christian summer camp for them, and Ruben was the safeguarding lead.
Safeguarding, as a word has truly lost any useful meaning. Preventing and detection of crimes against children, for example, would be a better place to start.
All the perpetrators discussed on this blog are Christians. All are trusted and respected.
The Bishop of Southwell and Nottingham commented as follows: ‘I am profoundly shocked by the terrible abuse of children admitted by Jon Ruben. First and foremost, our thoughts are with the children and families affected by these appalling crimes. The abuse of trust and harm to the vulnerable is horrific in any setting, but it is especially shocking when it happens in a context that should have been safe and nurturing. Jon Ruben was a member of the PCC at St Peter’s Ruddington and also a volunteer working with young people in the church. Safeguarding of children and young people are our highest priority across all our churches. If you have been affected in any way by the news reports and need to speak with someone, please contact our Diocesan Safeguarding Team. My prayers at this time are with all those affected by these terrible crimes and for all at St Peter’s.’
The scale of mess defies words! ‘Safe Guarding’ could be another name. A great mass of collection plate income goes on salaries-pensions-housing or other clergy benefits. To compensate and treat BAH (bullying-abuse-harassment) victims fairly, must inevitably mean clergy facing a painful conflict of interest. NDA use or dismissal of victims comes at a dreadful longer term cost. Transparency on abuse financial costs would be really helpful. Why should a Church member, perhaps sticking £5-£10-£20 a week on the plate (or the yearly electronic equivalent) be treated like a mushroom and kept in the dark? We should see the cost of diocesan safeguarding personnel and services, plus compensation settlement and yearly legal costs, on charity account yearly spreadsheets.
I agree that a tab for “money paid out to people we abused so they can have therapy” would be sobering in the Church AGM.
It’s a clear marker of the fruitfulness of the ministry of the Church.
If large sums are being paid out, that should shape the way the ministry is developed in the future. It’s a stark indication that a change of method and direction is needed.
Thank you Stephen for such a clear explanation of current safeguarding processes. It was illuminating to learn that Diocesan Safeguarding Officers, (previously called Advisers) were only created fifteen or twenty years ago.
This might account for the variable standards of this group with some being professional about their cases and others not. Stephen does not know any DSOs but I do, one in particular; the one in the case I have been supporting for six years. There may be others like her but there should not be any of such a low standard. She stands alone as a figure of gross injustice, fabrications and coverups both of herself and others in the diocese.
For such a responsible position it is surprising that there is no requirement for the DSO to have specific legal qualifications. An example of this is that our DSO’s mantra has always been,’ the child should be believed and any evidence to the contrary is inadmissible’. So, as many readers may remember, for six years she has refused to give information from a document, the choral registers, which might have exonerated my friend. For the DSO to say (as she does in an e-mail to the Bishop) that examining the registers would not be “a reasonable and proportionate inquiry” is irrational nonsense. Her concern about the impact “this further step might have on the victim”, emphasises that she does not understand how she should carry out her role.
Since December 2024 the local MP has taken over our case in order to seek truth and justice. The DSO has refused, on several occasions to meet with her and answer her very perceptive questions. She eventually gave written answers to the questions posed by the MP four of which were provable fabrications. The MP then asked a further four questions arising from those answers which were never responded to. Instead the DSO closed the case. She had been saying this since May 2021 but this time she was aided and abetted by a senior clergy member who said the Diocese would not reopen the case. The MP said she had done everything an MP could do and she too closed the case. She advised engaging a lawyer which for us would be unaffordable.
From Subject Access Request we learn that the DSO has over the last six years given many and varied excuses for refusing the information from the registers. Even to the Bishop, Dean, Registrar, and Chancellor, all of whom said said there was no reason not to give this information. She still refused.
So the DSO reigns supreme. She is accountable to no-one. She can say and do as she wishes. No person has any authority over her. She is all powerful. This begs the question ‘What is it that makes senior clergy so afraid of her?’ Can it be that she is protecting the Diocese from victims’ demands for justice?
I fully endorse Stephen’s final paragraph.
Deceit is endemic in the Church. As well as covering up a multitude of abuse scandals, which it continues to do to try to maintain its reputation, it didn’t take its operatives long to work out how to weaponise the flip side of abuse: malicious wrongful and false accusations. Our host has clearly illustrated this principle, as Susan reminds us via her support for a friend, at frequent intervals on these pages.
What’s the allure of deceit? How do operatives skilled in it get so far? You only have to look at our national life to see further and graphic illustrations of deceit being promoted to high office. When some of the truth eventually comes out, everyone connected scurries around trying to distance themselves from their recruitment choices.
One reason people engage deceivers so readily is that these operatives are willing to engage in dirty work that they themselves are unwilling to do. To some extent all organisations do this, engaging people to tell lies, for example, because they are squeamish about doing so, or not very adept at it.
We’ve been watching “Traitors Ireland” on iPlayer. I admit I find this genre addictive, partly because it enables close observation of the actual name of the game: deceit. In each series there are swathes of trusting people wanting to believe in the most successfully deceitful people. They are charming and manipulative and skilled liars. The prize for them is loot and public recognition. There seems to be no such thing as bad publicity.
It is no surprise that a whole “profession” has built up around safeguarding. Those of us who comment on these matters and otherwise contribute, must be very careful of our own motivations and what “reward” we might be hoping for. In reality however, even those who have written well, published books, or been interviewed publicly, are likely to see very little financial benefit or general public interest. Abuse, in its main forms, is not something people want to think about.
For me, the most value from these discussions comes from connections with others and a relentless combined effort to get the truth out. I doubt this work will ever be finished.
I have seriously wondered if the safeguarding professionals in the C of E should pick a side. Get a job with Richard Scorer, David Greenwood etc or with Clyde and Co.
Then they wouldn’t be trying to act as judge, jury, barrister for the defence, barrister for the prosecution all at the same time.
Full disclosure would have to be made and both sides would have a team acting only in their interests.
Gill’s right. There’s a substantive conflict of interest
Design-Decalogue-Deity, as revealed in Creation-Conscience-Christ, is the best antidote to diocesan cover ups of BAH bullying-abuse-harassment, and framing of innocent people like victims-witnesses-whistleblowers.
A mysterious providence is seen-far more often than we ever imagine-where the Epstein (or Mandelson) types think they have got away with it, but some single issue nails them: ‘Better is a dry morsel with quietness than a house full of sacrifices with strife’.
The Anglican Church in Ireland successfully covered up child abuse by the late Rev Canon Dr William George Neely for almost half a century. A 2022-2023 court settlement saw Down and Dromore Diocese pay off one terminally ill victim, and also fix an NDA.
But the NDA possibly now becomes an ever greater embarrassment! The media have located the grave of the abuser, close to the wall of the Irish national Primate’s Armagh Cathedral seat. It ends PRIEST SHEPHERD FRIEND.
The media have run this image of it: https://share.google/yYRbZN3xCtqJMo51m
Keep active, hopeful and optimistic. God is good!
Having just listened to the direction of travel for safeguarding debate at synod and which is worth a listen, from 2pm Wednesday afternoon, I have mixed feelings about it.
Undoubtedly a lot of work has gone into it, with genuinne expertise from Dame Christine but there remains, in me as a survivor, a dis-satisfaction. There will be independence at a high level but as one contributor said not at ombudsman for complaints level. DSA’s/DSO’s will not be transferred across and as Susan rightly say there are no needs for certain external qualifictaions for them which hold them not only accountable to the church but an external accrediting body.
Robert Thompson’s ammendment to consider, if not implement, making DSA’s also part of the independent structure was rejected (no surprise there) but for me it would have made me feel more sure that the direction of travel was the right one.
I hope I am proved wrong, people with far more experience than me are making independence happen but to me, in some way, it still falls short.
“Direction of travel” is a telling phrase, like “pilgrimage” in some other milieux.
Their whole game just lacks integrity for me. How much do abuse legal fees cost any specific diocese? How much is their spend on abuse compensation? Is there an approximation of time-money-energy on public relations/media efforts related to managing diocesan abuse? Do the ‘safeguarder’ diocesan employees register with any professional body, or have legal degrees? Does the safeguard team have the bottle, and the independence, to confront bishops or other diocesan employees? Do we still have a sordid game being played, where only VA’s and children get covered? Can a bishop theoretically bash a non-vulnerable church adult over the head with a baseball bat, walk away, and it’s never a safeguarding incident! Would the average church member be better protected, if we had 10% of the current safeguard team numbers across various dioceses, but they were double qualified in terms of trauma-therapy and law? I have referred to it before, but the post-Harold Shipman rationalization of UK death reporting brought efficiency and rationality. Anglicanism maybe needs something similar with child-VA-adult protection. BAH is the alternative……..
Patricia, thank you for referring to my comment but I said there is a need to have external [legal] qualifications not ‘no need’ as in your comment.
Susan and Patricia make wise comment about legal credentials or qualifications.
You can be quite a good 2nd XV junior schoolboy rugby player. But when a game for ‘The First XV’ comes your way the pace and physicality are far too much. There is no space to run into, and you just get knocked backwards on most contacts.
Since leaving NHS clinical work I have done some part-time tribunals for a few years. The contact with barristers is interesting. Their intellectual pace is one thing, but also their firm determination not to be manipulated or fooled.
UK death reporting (post-Shipman, and also courtesy of him!) now has a distant, fully independent and unhurried (or manipulated) senior legal professional ‘doing the books’.
Has any abuse victim ever seen an Anglican diocesan team safeguarding professional confront a bishop or archbishop on their behalf? I cannot ever remember seeing cases where this happened.
The best current shortcut, if reporting BAH, might be to feed it via an archbishop, to ensure someone with power-authority-responsibility-intellect (plus some hint of independence from a diocese) gets informed for future reference.
An independent and accountable legal professional, with a separate strand of documentation-reporting, could be the real game changer in Anglicanism.
The call for love and justice in response to abuse in the church as you say Stephen, must be seen and heard. Thank you Stephen for a very clear account of the church’s safeguarding process.
I wonder if there was a call for love and justice at the synod? Truth will prevail surely!
Apologies Susan I was agreeing with you but wrote it wrongly.
Yes I thought so but wanted to make sure. Thanks again Patricia.
Can a parish or diocesan appointees ever independently assess BAH allegations? This is not rocket science! Do we have Church systems akin to, or resembling, a malfunctioning GP surgery? The clients are a pest, and the practice clinical staff need shielded: “phone again next week for an appointment. None free today, once again”. Anything other than independent BAH assessment is loaded with bias, and potential for errors. Suppose granny is wrongly prescribed Warfarin after an OPD visit. Do the NHS get you to complain to the OPD admin team, the nursing team leader or the consultant physician overseer? Well no, there’s an independent local NHS hospital complaints team. Why should the Church remain different? To protect bishops and dioceses!
This is a bit of tangent, but the government has published a 10-year cross-government (i.e. involving different government departments working together) strategy to reduce violence against women and girls by half. There is good news for men and boys also. You can find it here: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/freedom-from-violence-and-abuse-a-cross-government-strategy
Stephen Kuhrt’s book: “Safeguarding the institution” is well worth a read. If you’re not much of reader, Sam Howson’s recent interview with him, gives a refreshing taster of Stephen’s approach to corruption at the top in the Church:
https://youtu.be/lOTPLAB7eHM?si=qQg9ngaCAObE7bRk
Sam is producing a steady series of films exploring the abuse he and his friends received at the hands of Soul Survivor.
A very good interview. The unavoidable need, for independent protection of every church member (A/VA/child), is plainly made.
BBC posted this 7 November 2012 report: ‘Willi Stewart, Loddon vicar, resigns after ‘campaign focused on his past’. This one is quite an eyeopener! Who got safeguarded here? And who did not get safely guarded? It’s quite a story.
You can find more information here. There is some confusion as to whether Norfolk Diocese did or did not obtain a ‘fit to appoint’ clearance from the Church in Ireland.
No doubt the C of E will say it has improved its systems in the 14 years since this incident – some of us are doubtful.
‘Dialogue Ireland’ website has some good features on this Anglican-‘transfer and exit’-case. Interesting…..
Sorry, I forgot to post the link. Here it is: https://www.edp24.co.uk/news/21101834.norfolk-vicar-resigns-due-campaign-focused-matter-past-church-england-confirms/
Could this report be cut and pasted? Access limited on the link.
There may be a lot more to this story…….
I have cut and pasted a Church publication article below (from The CoE Newspaper). It is very informative.
‘Dialogue Ireland’ website has ‘Summary of posts concerning the Rev William James Stewart’ posted on 18 January 2012.
The multiple ‘Dialogue Ireland’ posts on this ‘summary of posts’ take a bit of study and reading. But what a story! It takes a few hours to read and to reflect upon it. But do ‘Dialogue Ireland’ deserve credit for exposing Church trickery?
THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND NEWSPAPER 22-11-2012
The Rev. William Stewart and Bishop Graham James
A Norfolk clergyman has resigned after allegations of misconduct committed while he served in the Church of Ireland were posted on the internet. On 11 Nov 2012, the congregation of Holy Trinity Loddon in Norfolk learned their vicar, the Rev. William Stewart had stepped down. The Bishop of Thetford, the Rt Rev Alan Winton said Mr. Stewart had resigned due to a “campaign focused on a matter from his past”.
However a former Archbishop of Dublin stated he was surprised to learn Mr. Stewart had been serving in the Church of England. On 12 Nov 2002 Church News Ireland published a statement from Dr. John Neill saying: “It has been brought to my notice that my name has been mentioned in reports concerning the Rev William Stewart who has resigned as Vicar of a parish in the Church of England. Whilst extending pastoral support to him and his family when he resigned from CORE Church in Dublin some years ago, I consistently refused to give him clearance to apply for any further ministry in Ireland or overseas.”
Mr Stewart was inducted in the Holy Trinity Church, Loddon, on 16 June 2011 by the Bishop of Norwich, the Rt Rev Graham James, after serving in Dublin.
“A number of parishioners have been supportive of him and his family but he has increasingly felt that under the present circumstances, he is no longer able to continue his ministry,” Bishop Winton said.
However, “in appointing William Stewart the diocese followed the normal procedure of seeking assurance from the Church of Ireland that he was a priest in good standing, and a CRB (Criminal Records Bureau) check was made and returned clear.”
“On this basis he was offered the post of Rector of the Chet Valley Benefice in good faith. When information about William was posted on the internet, the diocese consulted Norfolk Police.”
The bishop said that the police advised the diocese to “manage” the affair “in accordance with its normal procedures”.
Although Mr Stewart has made an “excellent start”, Bishop Winton said that “as a result of the information published on the internet, he has increasingly found the strain on him and his family to be too much, and has tendered his resignation.”
Life has advanced passed the time where you do everything within your physically strength, the great people who knows the secret of this earth and rules the world knows there are super natural forces attached to everything we do in life, so the wealthy people knows and engage in some things the poor man or woman cannot fathom or have the privilege to attain. in the secret online community, I won’t disclose the name, A lady introduced us to a man who walk in the supernatural, He command the sea and the earth follows. If you are a spiritual person, I am not talking about various religions, spirituality is differed from religion practices. The ring is a spiritual object that is just a ring, if you have the ring of power, you will live a life of Immortality till your die old. always remember Spirituality and power is based and build on secrecy.
This ring Will serve you in several ways….
0. Spiritual Power and fit.
1. Making Excess Money/ business empowerment
2. Controlling people to your will.
3. Sending a spiritual attack to your enemies. (good or Evil)
4. Invisibility, I might be in a place with you, but when the deal goes Bad.
I go invisible, they won’t see me. And many more…
This ring is a power plant of spiritual energy, I wasn’t there when Dr. Flame had this prepared, but, I once video called him while he was preparing this masterpiece, I have linked Two person already, one in the USA, the other one from ASIA, as a matter of Fact, they all received their Piece after preparation, this is not a scam, I was told to come for my preparation which was going to take 4 days of work, I couldn’t travel due to the nature of my job. If you can Fund it . I am here to tell you this will be one of the best things you have done for a very long time, for anyone who is wanting to do something great and remarkable in life, please key to this opportunity. only serious person should Talk to Flame. at: Flamingomi@usa.c om