The judgement by Dame Sarah Asplin should have marked the end of at least one major strand in the Percy affair at Christ Church Oxford. It was meant to be the conclusion of the CDM process first initiated by Canon Graham Ward against the Dean back on November 5th 2020. This process began as a response to an incident of alleged ‘sexual harassment’ on October 4th, by Percy against a Ms X in the vestry The process had been handed over to the Bishop of Birmingham as the Bishop of Oxford believed himself unable to oversee the process on the grounds of existing involvement. Two things have hindered any move to completion following Dame Sarah’s judgement. First there has been absolutely no comment coming from the sponsors or enablers of the CDM process to say that the process is complete and that they accept the judgement. We had always felt that silence throughout the process was particularly unfortunate in respect of the Bishop of Oxford. At the beginning of the whole episode, at the time when a group of senior CC members were attempting to remove the Dean, we heard little in the way of support from Bishop Steven Croft. As Dean Percy is the Dean of the Diocese of Oxford Cathedral, some measure of solidarity or support might have been expected from this source. But as time has gone on, the complete absence of any supportive comment from the Diocesan Bishop has changed the nature of this pervading silence. Earlier it could be interpreted as indicating neutrality. Now the same silence feels like active hostility. To say nothing by way of comment to the ruling by Dame Sarah is particularly indicative that Bishop Croft’s sympathies are not supportive of his Cathedral’s Dean.
This suggested hostility of the Bishop of Oxford towards the Dean is an unfortunate scenario, to put it mildly. Bishop Croft cannot, because of this, ever act as a mediator between the College and Dean. The recent failure to say anything supportive, even after the Asplin judgement, shows that the Bishop is likely, in fact, to be in active sympathy with the Dean’s enemies in the College. This one-sideness is no doubt helped by the fact that lawyers acting for both the College and Diocese come from the same firm, Winckworth Sherwood. This firm has received fees, totalling hundreds of thousands of pounds, from one or other of these sources to harass and persecute the Dean.
The Asplin judgement has not halted the College’s intention to proceed with its own tribunal. In a recent public statement, it has referred to the judgement as an assessment which had no bearing on the College’s determination to carry out its own processes. This summary dismissal of the judgement of a high court judge seems high-handed. In my last post I mentioned the possible involvement of the Charity Commission. They had expressed unease at the quantity of money being spent on a case which was far from charitable in intention. In spite of the College finding senior lawyers to offer their opinions about the legitimacy of the various legal steps being taken to get rid of the Dean, the Dame Sarah judgement cannot be so easily dismissed. The other glaring issue is how a tribunal set up by the College can command respect for its processes when two of the members are appointed from within the College. One of them is to represent the Cathedral constituency of the foundation. I understand that the Archdeacon of Oxford, the Venerable Jonathan Chaffey, has been nominated. Here lies a further problem. The Archdeacon is one of the members of the Cathedral Chapter involved in overseeing the recent CDM process against Dean Percy. If the Archdeacon has been part of the hostile, now discredited, attack on the Dean through the CDM, it would seem that he should be unable to offer himself in a quasi-judicial role in this other case. The conduct of the College so far, in the five separate attempts to rid themselves of the Dean, means that they seem to have developed a nonchalant disregard for the rules of process. What is a mere judgement by a High Court Judge when you control the assets (totalling a half billion) of a venerable institution with links to the monarchy? The overall demeanour of the Christ Church senior members towards a single vulnerable individual has been hard to understand. The College was founded with a charitable and Christian purpose and these qualities have become almost entirely invisible in recent years. From the outside, Christ Church seems to stand for the values of bullying, chronic insensitivity to pain, cruelty and the abuse of power. Any compassion that might have been shown to a suffering individual and his family has apparently been entirely absent. Whatever else the eye-wateringly expensive tribunal may seek to achieve, it will not succeed in persuading anyone looking on that the College or Chapter is behaving either charitably or in any way with Christian values.
Quite apart from the fate of Dean Percy, we need to have regard for the for the fate of the College, its reputation in the University and among the university institutions across the country. The campaign against the Dean has had an obsessive quality which does little to attract or create admiration among those who look on. If the dons succeed in destroying and removing their Dean, who will praise or congratulate them for this? Even if somewhere in the ongoing programme of persecution, a sliver of justification exists, it is certainly invisible to the onlooker. The same failure to exercise any form of Christian compassion or understanding can be laid at the feet of the senior hierarchy of the Oxford diocese. The problem for the church is that relationships and institutional dynamics have become so corrupted by these examples of poor behaviour that the whole institution will take years to recover. Are we to see no resignations or apologies after the highest legal authority trashed the enormous act of hate, vitriol and bullying against a single individual in the CDM process? There are many caught up in that act of crowd madness. Reputations have been shredded by the incomprehensible rush to judgment and persecution. How long will the toxicity take to clear in the Cathedral chapter? Ten years ? Fifteen? Certainly, no other institution will be in a hurry to employ existing members of this group, when the values of normal ethics have been so thoroughly turned upside down and forgotten. This is not about a story about a defenceless young woman facing up to power and a sex-mad Dean. No, the story started several years before. The causes of the persecution are not all available to us but we can surmise a saga of professional jealousy with the preservation of privilege and power all playing their part. Whatever the origin of Percygate, it is not edifying or a good advertisement for Christian values. In the middle of all the recrimination against the Dean, it has been forgotten that Ms X showed a Christian willingness to meet the Dean and resolve the issue between them. This was forbidden by those who needed her testimony to add to the accusation against him. All those who have stoked up the story and cause so much institutional as well as individual damage have much to answer for. The judgement of history will not be kind to the perpetrators of such terrifying institutional bullying and cruelty.
Sir Wyn Williams, a retired High Court judge, wrote an Opinion for the College in effect stating that the proposed Internal Tribunal had been properly brought under the Christ Church Statutes. That has been submitted to the Charity Commission to justify the Tribunal going ahead. One suspects that Sir Wyn’s instructions and his Opinion were limited solely to issues of legality of the Tribunal and conformity to the Statutes. What was surprising (surely the mildest term) was his saying at the time that some of his knowledge of the ‘facts’ came from what he had read in newspapers. Somehow this (I suggest) staggering admission passed without comment.
The position of the Bishop of Oxford is far from being totally clear to a lay outsider. It is ‘his’ cathedral but he is not the Visitor in it. The Crown is the Visitor (of both Cathedral and College), but on behalf of the C of E William Nye has asserted that as a non-Royal peculiar clergy at Christ Church are susceptible to the CDM, and hence the disciplinary jurisdiction of the Bishop of Oxford. In itself the existence of two separate disciplinary codes being applicable to the Dean seems, shall we say, anomalous in itself. For people unconnected with Christ Church, or Oxford, this must seem an ‘Alice in Wonderland’ scenario.
I hope these comments might assist by way of additional background.
It has been suggested that I over-egged the pudding somewhat in my comment above about Sir Wyn Williams. If that is so, I apologise to him. I am fully aware that nothing I say here or on ‘Thinking Anglicans’ will make a shred of difference to events at Oxford, so I can only remain an onlooker – a very sad one – at what is happening there.
It all helps the rest of us to form more rounded opinions, Rowland!
Not *Keith* Ward!!!
Just to note that the current Archdeacon of Oxford is a recent (2020) appointment and does not, at least prima facie, have any personal involvement in the history. The current Sub-Dean of Christ Church is also a 2020 appointment.
That doesn’t necessarily stop them from being involved ever since their arrival in post. The Sub-Dean particularly seems to have got stuck in.
Thank you Sam. Now corrected but a feature of writing at speed!
“How long will the toxicity take to clear in the Cathedral chapter? Ten years? Fifteen?”
The chapter comprise, in addition to the dean:
Grant Bayliss (b. 1975), precentor from 2017.
Nigel Biggar (b. 1955), regius professor of moral & pastoral theology from 2007.
Jonathan Chaffey (b. 1962), archdeacon from 2020.
Sarah Foot (b. 1961), regius professor of ecclesiastical history from 2007, and in orders since 2017.
Carol Harrison, FBA (b. 1953), Lady Margaret professor of divinity from 2015, and not in orders.
Richard Peers (b. 1965), sub-dean from 2020.
Graham Ward (b. 1955), regius professor of divinity from 2012.
At least one of these is a known partisan of the dean, and at least two of them are known to be hostile. They would, ordinarily, have retired at 67, but the House has made this announcement: “The default retirement age no longer exists; as such employees may continue to work past the state pension age. However, Christ Church can lawfully retire employees at a set age if the retirement can be objectively justified.” (https://www.chch.ox.ac.uk/age). So it is possible that Dr Percy’s adversaries on the chapter, and amongst the students, might remain in office for a considerable period of time (he is himself nearly 59), though note Sections 1 (2) and (4) here: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukcm/1975/2/section/1. On this estimate it might be a decade, at least. This war of attrition could run, and run and run.
As I see it, this saga has demonstrated that the system of dual control enshrined in the Christ Church Oxford Act 1867 has been broken, perhaps irretrievably.
I believe Grant Bayliss is no longer Canon Precentor – he is not listed on The Christ Church website as a member of Chapter and was appointed as Head of IME 2 in Oxford Diocese in late 2021.
That was late 2020 for the appointment (!)
Many thanks! Then the online Crockfords is not yet up to date. I haven’t yet had a copy of the annual report which lists the chapter (I looked at the last one I had to hand); it should have come out by now. However, he is off the online list of the governing body.
I’ve just read something here by a Fen Punton (I think) who didn’t seem to ‘bad-mouth’ anyone though was not suportive of the wealth of support Dean Percy seems to have had. She said she expected her comment to be removed which it seems to have been. I’m just a little puzzled, Stephen.
Fen punter, who could be a bloke, has, in my opinion, been unnecessarily rude. This site tends to be a safe place. Victims/survivors come on here, and can be quite fragile. I, for one, agree with trying to stay a nice place.
Thank you Athena. SChurch is probably a less robust place (less tolerant to harshly expressed ideas) than Thinking Anglicans or Archbishop Cranmer. Whenever personal comments are made about another person, the alarm bells ring. If things were to get out of hand in this direction, all the comments would have to be moderated. That would put extra work on the editor which may make the whole enterprise less viable. Up till now the policing of the site has been done by the followers. I hope that if any of you believe that someone (including me) has overstepped the mark of respectful listening, you will say so without using harsh language. Let us keep the blog a place of learning, listening and the consideration of ideas, some of which may be maverick. The commentary role will continue, even though that is an area of a danger of partisanship. I normally only comment in areas where I have good sources of information. There are always gentle ways of expressing disagreement!
Hear, hear!
I didn’t see the original comment, but I for one am very glad that Stephen and everyone here keeps this a safe and respectful place. Gentle disagreement is to be encouraged. I find the level of harshness in some of the more ‘robust’ blogs unsafe & triggering. Thank you Stephen for your work trying to keep this balance.
Smyth, Winchester and Christ Church all erupting almost simultaneously, must be exhausting for our host.
I have a personal interest in the first two; Christ Church is a matter of respect for decency and justice. However it can also be exhausting, physically and mentally, as a blog contributor. So, from time to time, taking a sabbatical from commenting is a good idea, and I have decided this is one such time – meanwhile with best wishes to all regular contributors here.
I echo Trish’s comments, your contributions are also much valued, Rowland. And also commend you for the sabbatical, knowing when to rest & recharge is so important, but can be hard to achieve. Best wishes to you too. I’ve been quiet for a while partly for similar reasons, there is only so much one can do. We look forward to your return Inn due course 😊
Thankyou for your wisdom Rowland, I follow with a mixture of hope, sadness and controlled anger at the way institutions in the Church cause so much unnecessary pain .Have a good break, return refreshed and strengthened.
That’s a shame Rowland you always remind me of my therapist because you always say ‘we will have to wait and see what happens’. It is a levelling comment.
Irritating, in the case of my therapist, when I am jumping up and down shouting ” lets do it now,” but his calmness is usually right! Very irritating 🙂
Have a good sabbatical and come back soon.
Indeed. My similar comment seems to have disappeared!
Thank you both! I’m still very actively researching relevant law about this – it’s compulsive! But the reason for saying “wait and see” is that we don’t have any say in what happens at Christ Church. But rest assured, other people better qualified than I are closely watching matters there.
I’m just left with this overwhelming sense of sadness, to be honest. The ability of institutions to misuse their power and persistently do so, against individuals. No-one is, getting the justice they deserve here. I feel for Martyn and his family, and especially for Ms X, who has had her legitimate complaint dragged through public scrutiny, which has tended to minimise her experience. There is still no justice or appropriate resolution for anyone here.
And a sense that these institutions are too big, will they ever change enough?
I can’t see now how this can end well.
Nice to have you back, Jane.
Thank you Janet.
I hope you and everyone else here are doing okay.
I agree Jane. My sense of overwhelming sadness is the number of people able to do something, but allowing matters to continue. Am waiting for yet another Bishop to act. He has it in his power to take action. So far he remains silent. Why have so many Bishops either covered up or overlooked failings? They put the welfare of colleagues first and abuse victims nowhere. Gospel values do not exist apparently. I feel tremendously sad that our church is led by such as these. Bishops could ensure something real is done to put an end to all this. All they need to do is relinquish the medieval concept that they can do no wrong and push for legislation which puts an end to the Bishop is king in his diocese. Stephen has my evidence showing how Bishop’s and others are still getting round the current processes. This allows the national church to cover up by pretending that rules and procedures have been followed and say look, we are now squeaky clean. Well they are not.
Mary: many thanks. I too share a sense of desolation. This is not merely about people but the credibility of the existing constitution of Christ Church, which I feel has been injured beyond repair.
Frankly, I do not believe that any of the principals to this unedifying dispute are able to bring it to a conclusion. Therefore, outside intervention is now necessary, and can be undertaken by the visitor. This does not mean that the visitor (the queen) should act herself, but that she appoint a commissary to act on her behalf (as she can under the college statutes), with a mandate to resolve all aspects of the dispute and to determine how the costs should be borne and funded. Frankly, I think that all parties should be required to bear a burden of the costs, but that the burden should amount to little more than a pronounced slap on the wrists (perhaps something in the region of £5,000): enough to sting modestly paid academics, but not so much that the ability of the college to provide teaching to its students is impaired by an exodus. The balance of the costs which have accrued should be borne by the endowment, and effectively written off as a bad debt, repugnant though that may be to charitable principles. Let us hope that the college can mitigate much of this through insurance.
The determination of the visitor (who has wide discretion) may also lead to the dismissal or resignation of certain office holders, perhaps with a financial settlement (which could be paid over a term of years rather than as a lump sum).
After that, I think that the statutes should be revised, together with the 1867 Act (as amended), so that there is a more formal and complete separation between college and cathedral, with a lay head of house. The canon professorships, two of which are already laicised, would become ordinary chairs (as per the Hebrew chair in 1960), which would halve the size of the chapter – currently the largest in England. I have suggested elsewhere that the cathedral be removed altogether, and that it become a pro-cathedral, with the choral foundation and perhaps one priest, but I suspect that it would be hard to establish a consensus for such a shift, at least for the time being.
Sorry, I should have written ‘not *only* about people’ – since this is very much a human affair!
Hello Froghole and commiserations. How intelligent and otherwise decent (I h ope) people allow matters to escalate like this is beyond belief. If I read a novel about my situation I would not believe it, as it would seem far fetched to a ridiculous degree. These matters are too serious to call them farcial. I recall a novel about college disputes by, I think Snow. It is very small beer by comparison to what is happening now. Yet there appears to be no shame that such shenanigans are going on. I can’t begin to to write about the lack of morals, ethics, and compassion. My own Bishop gives me the feeling that the I only thing that matters more to him them covering up is that he must, at all costs be seen to be right. Having taken the wrong course at the outset, there is no way he will back down now. I wonder whether this attitude is prevalent at Christchurch also. These people would rather steer the church into an iceberg, than reset their course a few degrees. I really do fear for the church.
Many thanks, Mary. I believe the C. P. Snow novel was ‘The Masters’ (1951), based on his own experiences at Christ’s. Indeed, along with his ruminations on the ‘two cultures’, it’s probably the work for which he is best remembered.
Yes, the plot of ‘The Masters’ is thin gruel compared with the Percy saga for which I think there is frankly no precedent, even allowing for Magdalen in 1687-88 or Wadham in 1737-39 (the Thistlethwayte affair).
What this saga reminds me of is the vendetta in Hugh Walpole’s ‘Mr Perrin and Mr Traill’ (1911, and filmed in 1948 with Marius Goring and David Farrar in the title roles). Things did not end well for Perrin. Actually, no, it’s worse than that: this is like something out of Balzac!
I suspect that much of this dispute was about personality, ‘justice’ and affronted ego, but now I think it has become as intractable as it has because it is about money, and people being too scared to back down because of the costs they face and their inability to cover those costs. Since the parties are evidently incapable of resolving it themselves, there must now be an outside intervention against which no further riposte is practically possible.
A former bishop seemed to take the view that I was just saying horrible things. Not that I was disclosing horrible things that had been done. Bizarre!