In the post of today I referred to a recent review put out by the Truro Diocese referring to a convicted paedophile who has been convicted and sent to prison. Gilo has kindly submitted further information on the background to this case which fills out the information in the last paragraph of my blog post. Some of the points that Gilo raises are quite detailed but the reader will be able to discern the point that I have made in my piece that the powers that be do not oversee safeguarding with a degree of professionalism which would help us trust their competence in this area. Gilo writes:
There are many holes in this review from Truro Diocese. I will pick out a few.
Omission of any mention of the CofE 2007-09 Past Case Review (PCR) is notable. And it’s worth having a little background on that for your readers. The PCR looked at 40,747 files dating back more than 30 years. It’s scope lasted two years and the concluding 2010 report identified only 13 cases needing formal action. Bishop Anthony Priddis, chair of the Church’s Central Safeguarding and Liaison Group which effectively led the PCR across all dioceses confidently said at the time “As a result of this Review, we are now able to say that nobody representing the Church in a formal capacity has allegations on file that have not been thoroughly re-examined in the light of current best practice, and any appropriate action taken”
The Dowling Review in fact mentions the PCR without even realising it – when it cites Bishop Bill Ind’s recollection that an audit of files had taken place in 2008 by Martin Follett, Diocesan Registrar at the time. But the reviewer, Dr Andy Thompson, seems unaware of the PCR. It’s odd that the “fat file” wasn’t unearthed, but took another 4 years to come to light. I’m told by a reliable source that the “unusual place” the file was found, was no more unusual than the back of a filing cabinet in the Bishop’s residence/office.
Why has Dr Andy Thompson left out any mention of Truro diocesan failure to carry out the PCR properly? Probably because he has no awareness of the history, little understanding of context, and has been given a carefully restricted remit.
Incidentally, when the PCR report came out in 2010, members of MACSAS approached the Church and asked whether the 13 outstanding cases included 22+ they were aware of in one diocese alone! The PCR was an expensive paper-clip hunt, and MACSAS told the Church that information on file was scant as much history and disclosure of abuse was simply never filed – or when it was – was often later destroyed. But it’s strange that Truro did not find such a significant paper-clip. Perhaps the Diocesan Communications Officer and Bishop’s Research Officer at the time made sure it was ignored. That was Dowling himself.
But there is another much more glaring omission. There is no mention of any survivors. They are invisible. Presumably they experienced the cover-ups and failure of appropriate response. Some may have tried to raise awareness as they watched Dowling rise up the diocesan ladder. But their experience and any insights on how the diocese responded to them – is totally absent. This omission is disturbing. It suggests a remit very purposefully constructed to withhold information whilst giving out carefully selected information. I imagine Dr Thompson cannot be blamed. But perhaps he should have asked Nigel Druce of the Diocesan Safeguarding Panel why such a wafer-thin remit. Why are the primary voices, the voices of survivors, not being invited to offer any insights to this diocese? Dr Andy Thompson is a leading lay figure in the diocese and on the Bishop’s Council in the diocese. I can’t help thinking a more independent and experienced reviewer would have spotted this obvious hole immediately.
The previous bishop of the diocese, Tim Thornton now Bishop at Lambeth, gets a mention in the telephone interviews, but any further involvement ends. Incidentally his chaplain cited in the review, was one of the diocesan figures I spoke with about my case. His response was priceless. A very sarcastic and mocking: “What did you expect me to do – go bang on the door of Lambeth Palace for you!” before putting the phone down. He was on the Safeguarding Advisory Panel at the time. That should indicate the culture of delinquency, deference and dysfunctionality present within some of these diocesan structures. It should also indicate the need for an independent structure – which we heard again and again expressed by many voices during the IICSA hearings.
Returning to this review, in short the remit seems entirely self-referential from a diocese that looks as if it’s protecting more than is revealed. The former Bishop of Truro and the acting Bishop of Truro (Bishops Tim Thornton and Chris Goldsmith) ought to be asking serious questions of the way this process was initiated and led. And I hope General Synod will be asking critical questions of the hierarchy and the broken culture it has so often engendered in July’s meeting in York.
Gilo
Thanks Gilo. Seems to me that the response of the Bishop’s chaplain is utterly shameful. I’m assuming that he is a Christian priest? Another one with no fear of judgement. I’ve met a fair few. How can one do other than assume they don’t really believe? But it seems to me that any decent human being would know that’s a cruel and heartless thing to say.
It is important to remember that the actions of people in authority who are mentioned in the Dowling Report, operate within a Christian Church! Do they really care about the suffering that abuse gives rise to? Do they want it to stop or do they just wish that the survivors of clerical abuse would all just disappear?
Having observed the actions of the Church of England in recent years, in responding to the issue of clerical abuse, I have reached the conclusion that some people are simply incapable of recognising the full extent of the harm that they cause. They hide behind ineffective structures and initiatives that if judged by their outcomes, would all be seen to be woefully inadequate. How can a review of this nature be undertaken and not engage with survivors of clerical abuse? It is so fundamentally misguided that it simply beggars belief.
It is time for the Church of England to own up and declare, do they really care about those they have hurt and the lives they have destroyed? Does it really matter to them?
If the answer is yes, then they need to repent, reform, and refocus now before more harm is done.
Agreed. But I’m afraid I’ve more or less come to the conclusion they don’t care and won’t change. So what do we do?
Sadly, but realistically, the only thing the ruling structure responds to is crisis. Even acute embarrassment is not really enough – it has learnt to absorb embarrassment.
There is an efficient omertà machine, and a ruthless strategariat. Bishops for the most part are sleep-walking. Those that are compromized remain tight-lipped. There are some decent ones. But up to a third of the current diocesan layer have responded dishonourably to survivors – ‘dishonourably’ includes such things as silencing, blank and fog, denial, distancing, even discrediting and gaslighting. The crisis of the hierarchy is significant – and it’s a crisis that they are not yet prepared to own. Until they take honest ownership of the harm they continue to do – little else will change.
But the problem is not just a broken episcopal hierarchy. The CofE is a many headed monster – and it often feels impossible for survivors to do battle against such a complex Hydra. One of the biggest heads in the complex is the NST and Church Hse structure – experienced by many survivors as one of the most dysfunctional forces within the church. My own opinion like Graham Sawyer’s, and Richard Scorer expessed in the IICSA hearings, is that it needs to be disbanded. It is I think beyond salvage as a working force with survivors. It seems devoid of much honesty – but more frighteningly it operates as a law unto itself. It is almost entirely self-referential and part of Nye’s operational kingdom in Church House. A powerful kingdom which cannot be tackled by bishops, even by the lead bishop. Just as in the same way, most diocesan structures are laws unto themselves in the demesne of king bishops. And the systemic deference shot through all these structures props the whole thing up.
There needs to be a properly **independent structure** with an emergency button for anyone to press at any time – survivor or diocesan advisor – to summon help quickly. That independent structure needs to have teeth – so that it can quickly call halt to bad practice, put a sane and safe response into place, and even have power to call for reviews and set their remits. An independent structure which would monitor and act as ombuds on the whole system. I don’t think the church has any intention of giving itself that much scrutiny at present. There is simply too much to lose. And survivors are not at the centre of their reponse. Instead protectionism is.
At present they can ride it out – until the crisis is sufficient. They will get by (only just though) on mirage. But that mirage is creaking. It can’t last.
In theory, the CofE is run by the government. Rumour hath it that when the church machinery said the question of women bishops couldn’t be looked at again for years, the government leaned on them. Fearful of having their power devolved to parliament and the courts, lo! the matter was brought again two synods later! Is there anyone who could be persuaded to put pressure on the church in this way?
There’s the parliamentary ecclesiastical committee
https://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/other-committees/ecclesiastical-committee/membership/
But they are for the most part likely to be very establishment. It was as recently as 2011 that Baroness Butler Sloss hid allegations about Peter Ball, because of her love for the church and the “press would love a bishop”.
But there are one or two who are interested in looking at the church’s culture and structure. Caroline Spellman is one. And there are quite a few well informed Synod members who are active supporters of survivors, and not afraid of raising awkward questions at Synod. I think there has been a general awakening in Synod over the last year.
I just heard her name mentioned just one hour ago by another survivor currently trying to protect others. Isn’t there a blog?
Gilo, I agree the NST should be disbanded. Speaking about the NST if you or Janet are going to the safeguarding debate please could you try and get some sort of response on the SCIE surveys?
If I can just run through the timeline: In September 2017 this was written in the safeguarding summit report:
The research involves a rapid evidence review, victims/survivor survey and in depth direct contact with victims/survivors to elicit their experience and perspectives.
I had made a formal complaint against SCIE before this for lack of survivor input even though one of their core criteria is co-production with the service user. On March 4th 2018 I got this response in the formal report from the trustees:
• The supplementary project on working with survivors by the Church was due to be ready by the end of 2017. That it has yet to appear is a matter for the Church of England.
On March 19th at the IICSA hearings Mr. Tilby said this:
We are looking to receive two reports from SCIE during April. One is the final overview report, having conducted all those independent audits of all the dioceses, and, secondly, the report in respect of what does “good” look like for survivors.
On April 2nd I queried this contradiction with Heather Reid and asked for a survey, she said she did not know why SCIE had responded as they did and the survivors report had been delayed until the end of May. The surveys were not ready at this time. I told Heather and Sheila Fish (lead auditor) that I would help to distribute the surveys and that is the last I have heard. No surveys and SCIE won’t talk to me.
It seems the safeguarding debate will take place without any of us (bullying/abuse/ domestic violence) completing surveys and after all this I won’t actually trust SCIE to analyse the information from them in an unbiased and truthful way.
I hope you understood all that -sorry -but would be really grateful if you could get some answers. Thank you.
Hi Trish.
Yes the SCIE audits left out the most vital material required didn’t they! It was quite bizarre really. I’ve spoken with Hugh Constant several times – he works alongside Sheila Fish. Apparently the Church’s initial remit did not allow them to meet and interview survivors – sneaky strategy there from Church House leaders. So they did all 42 dioceses without meeting a single survivor. I’m not surprised … Church House are keen to present a public mirage whilst at same time carefully screening experience of survivors.
There are some well-informed Synod member, strong allies, in place who will be asking crucial questions hopefully – if Synod isnt too stage-managed, which we suspect it will be. I think one of those questions will be on SCIE. It will lead on to the deeper question about need for an independent structure. CofE central has been trying to sell the idea that these audits represent an independent monitoring structure – when clearly something with far more teeth is required.
One question I’ve asked SCIE is what was the total bill to the CofE for this process. We guess each diocese cost in region of £5-10K. So probably £250,000 minimum – maybe much more. It’s fascinating to see how much the Church is prepared to waste on pretending transparency. For example the Past Case Review 2007-2010 cost the Church £2.2million and it was a total whitewash. A giant paperclip hunt which yielded 13 cases across the whole Church.
It’s good that we’re raising the SCIE questions. And I think this might come out in a media piece soon. Trish, stay strong in yourself and know that you have courage.
Thank you Gilo, you are very kind. I kind of feel I need to hand my fight with them over right now as I struggle with my own case but I desperately want everyone, including me, to have a voice as being kept invisible horrendously replays abuse.
I had no idea it would be that amount of money that’s truly immoral when survivors have to fight so hard for anything.
I think you were told that they hadn’t used survivors because of problems with keeping their anonymity which never once appeared as a problem in the report I received. I queried that with them but they said they had answered my questions and that was it.
I know you and others will do your best to expose the truth so a big thank you.
You look after yourself. You focus on what you need to concentrate on. No one here will think you’re being selfish. And we will pray for you.
Thank you Athena. Please don’t worry there are far more influential people than me fighting for those surveys, I think it just came out a bit me, me, me because I was trying to run through my timeline for Gilo. I have only played a tiny part in the fight for us all to be ‘seen’ by SCIE so me not hassling them won’t make any difference. I just don’t want the church making the safeguarding officer pay for my actions, which is the sort of charming thing my diocese does! I hope we get a survey so that you and everyone that has waited so long to be given a proper voice is finally heard (to some degree -let’s not get ahead of ourselves!)
Trish, I’m afraid I can’t get to Synod as I am chronically ill, but there are people on Synod who will speak for us and ask questions – if they’re allowed to.
Do look after yourself. All of us have to take time out now and then, but there are enough of us so that many will still be fighting while we are resting.
You just awarded yourself a place on my prayer list. Sorry you’re so poorly. God be with you!
Thanks, Athena. I value your prayers.
I am so sorry to hear you are unwell Janet, my thoughts are with you.
Well I must have been living in a parallel universe as I thought they had invited survivors to the debate! It’s not rocket science is it, how completely unethical and ridiculous.
Do take care of yourself.
There’s an item in the Church Times which I found hard to follow. Did it claim survivors had been involved?
Athena, do you mean the item on liturgical resources on safeguarding? I haven’t read all of the Church Times yet so there may be another article?
Regarding the resources, there doesn’t seem to have been any wide consultation as none of my contacts (who are very well placed) knew anything about it. No doubt we will learn more in due course.
Trish – no, they haven’t invited survivors to the debate. They’re still treating us like non-persons. There should be ‘nothing about us without us.’ That’s just elementary.
Agreed. Yes that would be it. Also of course the article on Truro below it on recommendations for the future. Were survivors included in framing those? If survivors were included in the liturgy plans, why not other things? Unless the powers that be fear what people like us would say! Sorry, I’m inclined to skim so I can cover it all. I noticed the item on secrets of the confessional. I’m afraid I’ve been stung by clergy gossip so often, there must be many clergy who haven’t a clue what confidentiality means! But any rule that allows abuse to continue has to be a bad rule.
The review does not indicate whether survivors were invited to take part. Their voice is entirely absent. So the weak recommendations – which ammount to not much more than “all is fine now” – presumably had no input at all from them. This review is really very strange. Is this the direction CofE now wants to go in with reviews?
Athena, there seems to have been little, if any consultation with survivors on the liturgical resources. It’s really puzzling why they just won’t include survivors. As I said above, it’s as if once you admit you were a victim, they just don’t want to hear anything you may have to say. They can’t get it into their heads that we might actually know something and be useful.
I know. I do feel that it would be something of value I could get out of twenty otherwise wasted years if I could help frame responses that as far as possible prevent further victims. The article seems to imply survivors were involved. It’s a bit like the legal definition of strawberry jam. You can say it was made using strawberries if the folk on the line had strawberries for lunch!
The introduction to the resources says some prayers were written or recommended by survivors. I’m still trying to figure this out since none of my sources knows anything about it. I’m currently looking at the resources in details so may be able to come back to you on this.
😀 It would be funny if it weren’t so awful!
Does anyone know why survivors aren’t invited?
In a research article published in 2011 in the field of mental health this is said:
‘ Involvement of mental health‐care patients in the decision‐making processes is considered to be an ethical requirement. Health‐care systems worldwide are increasingly emphasizing the value of participatory approaches.’
Surely this needs to translate into church safeguarding and with its multidimensional nature it is clear that one size can never fit all so that recommendations need to be different for each target group.
The empowerment of survivors by inviting key representatives to ask questions and voice opinion in a debate, or a review of a seriously failed diocese, is surely fundamental in moving forward in step with statutory services who all now recognise this as good practice.
Why are synod members who support survivors not very publicly boycotting the debate?
Re the liturgy survivors perhaps they are that well known group of survivors that hang out in the PR office!
Trish. Ian Elliot’s comments on another thread made it quite clear that the C/E are not following the professional protocols set out in Social Work guidelines, so we should not be surprised if they go their own way in other aspects of Safeguarding. I have learnt a lot about the way the C/E writes its own rules and tries to create its own culture beyond, it hopes, the scrutiny of the ‘watching world’. The IICSA will surely call out this behaviour in its report. It is not as though protocols do not exist. If the church were some pioneer in safeguarding matters, then it would allowed to write the rules. But it is clearly not and IICSA and some of the comments on this blog have made it quite clear to me that we in the church are laggards and way behind the times in so many ways. That is why we have to keep rattling the cage and hope that someone is listening!
Hi Trish
There’s a plan to try and get some of us to Synod. Realistically the whole thing is carefully stage-managed by William Nye and assorted powers-that-be. The Church’s response to all of this is heavily governed by the strategariat. They are aware that this will be an embarrassing Synod and will be figuring out how to shore up defences. They will want to reduce risk of awkward media headlines. They will be trying to predict what may happen. It’s all about presentation and stage management.
Our supporters and allies are aware of this – and it’ll be important that they are there whether or not survivors end up being invited. If they boycott – they won’t have much impact and won’t be able to raise key questions. But there is work being done at present on something which might give Synod plenty to think about. The whole structure is creaking and groaning. The mirage that the hierarchy has relied on for so long has so many holes in it – and it will only be a matter of time before the mirage turns to dust. The church’s leaders will be trying to figure out how to represent the crisis in fresh ways and show that they are doing something definite. But alot of it is likely to be foggy manoevres with not much delivery of real promises. It’s relatively easy to say that “we are now planning to do x” – and then delay x until four or more years down the line, by which time x will morph into much reduced y. This is how they operate – redrawing recommendations from reviews, and even redrawing their own promises.
The liturgy thing was ill-conceived, and from what I’m being told – had barely any involvement with survivors. It seems a hastily put together job without much real care or thought. To call it a ‘partnership project’ as they have done, shows some brass neck. My guess it’s part of the package of things they hope to present at Synod to try and mask major gaps.
Are there bishops who want to see major change? Yes. I genuinely believe there are some decent figures. Will they be able to emerge and make the diff? Only by breaking free of the omertà culture and raising their voices above the parapet. It probably needs crisis to enable them to find this freedom. Let’s hope that a sense of crisis may engulf them in the coming weeks. I light a candle to crisis. It is the only thing that will recalibrate the Church of England.
Agreed.
I have been looking at the liturgical resources in detail and hope to write a blog in the next day or two. Watch this space.
The NHS has been using the snappy line “nothing about me without me” for a while! Of course, I’ve no idea if they actually act on it either 😈! But the idea and principle is out there. It would be a start if they accepted the idea.
Thank you for these responses.
I want you or some survivors to get to Synod Gilo, not because I don’t respect or appreciate what supporters at Synod are doing (and I understand why it is better not to boycott now) but because somewhere in there I, like I expect a lot of others, need a survivor who can be trusted to represent the concerns of others. Most of us suffer from lack of trust because of our abuse and then re-abuse by the church and sometimes the institution has to acknowledge that and put in place key representatives that have the confidence of others in order to move things forward. I hope you are right that things are creaking or else there will be more lives damaged beyond repair. I also think that there are Bishops who understand the problems but their impotence is startling against the force of the NST.
When I read those prayers at the bottom of the liturgy article I thought about my own parish church who have completely shunned me, I have even been spat at, reading those out and it made me feel ill. The hard work in understanding what has gone wrong must not be short circuited. Those that don’t understand history are likely to repeat it.