Gilo takes a hard critical look at the Safeguarding Culture and the Administration of the Church of England
When will sufficient numbers of bishops wake up to aspects of the inherent corruption and dysfunctionality at the centre of their structure and challenge it fearlessly? Scared of straying away from their herd, they are marshaled into the enclosure and together protect a rickety status quo. Some of them, perhaps even most of them, are awake to the broken culture of which they are a part. But very few have the courage to defy the machinery of central comms or the House of Bishops’ whips and raise their head above the parapet. Current leadership is very low grade but, or rather perhaps because of this, it commands deference and adherence to the hive mind.
Episcopal retirements are celebrated whilst those retiring have been quietly able to bypass any accountability for safeguarding failure. Others are able to maintain silence in the face of repeated questions. And it seems that little has been learnt across the last decade. Bullying, silencing and a special brand of Anglican gangsterism is rife across many dioceses.
The redoubtable ‘Elbows’ Alan as he’s known by some following Welby’s description at IICSA of the Bishop of Buckingham as having uncomfortable elbows – is a kind of wild saint and I imagine bears the marks of much reprimand for having spoken up in alliance with survivors. I spent a day in London with Rosie Harper and Alan Wilson towards the end of last year. We went to the Hogarth exhibition at the Tate to see one of the great satirists and social commentators of English society. Alan is rare amongst the bishops in being unafraid to see as Hogarth did the contradictions of society and its less than noble institutions.
Sadly, the reality is that bishops mostly drink the Kool-Aid and prop up a broken and decaying edifice. So let’s take a closer look at some of them. Jonathan Gibbs, a decent man, will probably be gone sometime this year. Who will follow him? Another who will start with the best of intentions and be quickly ground down and find the structure offers no tangible support. Gibbs will likely end up broken on the wheel of his own ineffectiveness. How can one person hope to change a culture which has little intention of changing more than it has to? One lone figure with nothing more than a secretary up against an army strong in Church House (akas CofE Centre for Cognitive Dissonance) and up against diocesan bishops who can politely ignore him and who know that he will have little awareness of what is going on in their diocese.
I like Jonathan. I think he’s a decent bloke who chose this role with a heart to bring major change, and at first it seemed he might be able to bring seismic change. I suspect he’ll be haunted by the failure of the structure to follow his call. And haunted by the strength of his Church’s ability to row back on changes that have been promised. His predecessor (Peter Hancock) was continually thwarted and misinformed by powerful figures within the structure and relied far too heavily on an NST led by gormlessness, dishonesty and cruelty.
Church House will continue to run rings round Gibbs, just as it has previous Lead bishops. Nye ran EIG rings round Paul Butler, Bishop of Durham. What can Gibbs do? Little. He has no real power to change much. He hasn’t got a loud enough purple shirt and stronger purple shirts can pull rank. He also has to contend with Nye and the creatures of the crypt who run the Church’s dysfunctional safeguarding empire at the centre. They know their status is one of total and protected unaccountability.
What of other safeguarding lead bishops? There’s a team, but one could be forgiven for having forgotten. Debbie Sellin is currently ensconced in an aircraft hangar somewhere in Hampshire, reassembling bits of Winchester and hoping for something vaguely resembling a workable diocese by the end of it. Winchester is likely to take at decade at least to recover from the Dear Leader who wreaked emotional and psychological havoc upon a diocese across a decade.
Viv Faull, Deputy lead bishop, has been completely invisible. It seems the Bishop of Bristol was muzzled by minders following an interesting moment in 2020 when hers was briefly a stand-out voice of courage. I remember various journalists were keen to speak with her following her ‘moment’ but were carefully batted away by the Church House comms walla who largely controls the NST. The team of Bishops has been unable to address the gangsterism of Church House, as we saw in a recent data-breach scandal when the NST and Church House comms threw everyone under the bus in order to protect itself from scrutiny.
Meanwhile elsewhere an Orton-esque farce, Malice in Blunderland, combining cruelty and delinquency in gowns and cassocks continues its long run in Oxford. I gather a sidesman in the Cathedral was recently sacked. His misdemeanor seemed to consist of stating that he missed the Dean. Last year Private Eye reported that dozens of Gideon bibles had been dumped in a skip. They’d been given to the Cathedral Friends who then found themselves and their funds appropriated by current powers at the Cathedral. The Friends didn’t dump the bibles. They were appalled. One imagines the Church’s top hierarchy must be in despair at the Bishop of Oxford’s failure to grasp the nettle of his senior clergy. The Church cannot deal with the rotten borough that is Christ Church College – that is the task of the Regulator and she seems to be biting down hard. But the diocesan must surely have responsibility to bring diocesan gangsterism to book.
What can we expect from Synod this year. There’ll be a continuing procession of soundbites, maybe even further promises. The Bishop of London will doubtless be wheeled out to deliver yet another deeply hypocritical soundbite. The Bishop’s record is questionable. And the culture which surrounded the appalling treatment of Fr Alan Griffin has passed without accountability. The Bishop’s response was more concerned with the coroner’s statement which highlighted the gangsterism in the diocese. And it seemed she wished there had been far less transparency in the coroner’s report.
Promises will continue to be broken. The news cycle is rapid and embarrassment fades fast. There are many good Synod members – but there’s only so much they can do to maintain pressure on this noxious theatre. Nye will go at some stage, and will no doubt leave benighted to be replaced by another Nye. The ringmaster of the quiet gangsterism at the Church’s core regenerates like a Time Lord and is usually drawn from the world of the senior civil service courtier.
The Church’s response to survivors might change in another decade or more. This is a very long arc. Survivors have probably done as well as we can to drive change as hard as we can. All of it has been driven at the expense of survivors. But many of the things survivors were up against five years ago, ten years ago, are still routine. Silencing is still the primary defense of choice deployed by bishops and their protective structures. At least current child protection will change with the introduction of Mandatory Reporting. The big ticket item which will close IICSA we all assume. But once recommended, it’ll take up to five years to grind through the wheels of parliament. Let’s hope various Whitehall departments and their ‘expert’ advisers don’t try to whistle up a counterfeit.
The forces ranged against survivors in the CofE will continue to be monolithic. They always have been. Archbishops Council is divided between the handwringing of its clerics and the shadowy politic of its unaccountable Secretariat. In Church House which many of us believe is twinned with Mordor, the Nye-ocracy is buttressed by an acquiescent and unquestioning NST who cannot dare challenge its paymaster general. I’ve been told of some of the corruption that has taken place within the NST, and have evidence of some myself – but the structure is efficient at air-brushing from history anything it wants to ignore. Nye and his minions operate silencing and a culture of cognitive dissonance to cover their tracks. Bishops like the Bishop of London who have been hoovered up into duplicity follow suit and operate the same silencing. But she is not alone. This is a culture in which silencing is rife.
Those in the machine who know where compromising bodies are buried will be unlikely to talk. They are either too compromised, too fearful to speak out, or their mouths have been stuffed with sterling on leaving. The kingdom of the Secretariat maintains enough semblance of order to appease the anxious clerics. And its unaccountability remains protected by the arch/bishops’ abdication of responsibility to its all encompassing power.
Maggie Atkinson, recently appointed Chair of the Independent Safeguarding Board, will start with the best of independent intentions but is likely to find herself managed into the margins by the machinery of this polite Mordor. Atkinson will doubtless be presented with carefully selected paper clips and reports. Invites will be sent to meet with a wan Archbishop who will be managed by his shadowy consigliere. And so the teetering circus will continue. Atkinson may be the one who can cut through the gangsterism of the senior layer, cut through all the denial and dishonesty, cut through all the failure to repent and to apologise – especially if she arranges to meet with survivors and hears what has been going on across many bad diocesan cultures. But she will need eyes wide open and all her wits about her lest she become another Meg Munn.
Will the cultures of the Church change? Realistically not for another decade at least. Probably two. This arc is long. When did the scandal of corruption and cover-up begin? There was awakening awareness to abuse as far back as the 70s and earlier. This got going in the 80s and 90s. The 1940s are probably the earliest of any recorded material any of us have seen in dioceses. We’re talking a seriously long arc. And the Past Case Review 2 shows little sign of being willing to be more transparent than transparent. It will feature a different brand of whitewash from that deployed in the original PCR. Its whitewash will be applied much more carefully of course. But we’ll see deployment of restriction in the remit to protect failure, protect hierarchy, protect retiring bishops. Why should anyone expect the culture to change overnight? PCR2 is likely to attract critical and damaging headlines all over again. The Church has not learnt that anything less than a total opening up of the books will further add to the damage already sustained.
Will the NST improve? It’s regressed significantly in recent years in my view. I remember when I first met Melissa Caslake in York – and said her secret weapon would be ‘resigning power’. She left a little over a year later unable to effect change, but with a clear look of reproach cast behind her through the exit. My understanding is that she told the bishops what was what in no uncertain terms! It was possibly the only dynamic thing she was able to do in the end. Zena Marshall is likely to leave with barely a whimper. She has achieved little in terms of change of culture in those above her head.
The mix of sclerosis and apathy in many dioceses, dysfunctionality in the NST, and toxic strategy at the core all run deep. There is no mechanism for repentance, no route by which bishops can take ownership of failure or dishonesty and say the simple word sorry. There is zero mechanism for holding accountable those who have been complicit with corruption. Those who have tried to hold bishops or Church House accountable meet the power of stealth and silencing. Everyone takes cover in the hills whilst an engine of quiet corruption powerfully embedded at the center purrs as it cradles an institution. And the formulaic “no blame will be apportioned” is a systemic insurance policy which lets everyone off the hook.
Any notion that the Church has moral consideration at its heart really has to be abandoned. At its heart is the twin engine of damage limitation and reputation management. This engine motors Lambeth Palace, Church House, and many of the diocesan offices of the broken world of Bishops who cannot face or address their own and their agents’ gangsterism.
As in political worlds, so it will remain a bewildering and necessarily painful time dealing with the institution of the Church.
The gangsters in my part of the world operate more like the mafia. How else would you explain a complainant being interrogated under caution for the heinous crime of simply reporting the breaches of written restrictions? And why after my cdm against my vicar was upheld was I facing a criminal trial based on evidence given by the Diocesan Secretary that my allegations against my vicar were baseless and unfounded? And why could I not go ahead with cdm against my Bishop within the usual timescale? And why is the senior partner of a firm of solicitors allowing me to be threatened if I write directly to my Bishop yet in his role as Registrar he would not confirm he has forwarded my cdm against my Rector to the Bishop. As Gilo says silencing is the name of the game by whatever unethical and foul means the Church hierarchy can think up. And why was my case covered up under past case review 2 by the not so independent reviewer who had already played a serious safeguarding role in regard to myself? Apparently for the cause of good practice. I kid you not it transpires it is deemed good practice for those I have already accused of misconduct in regard to safeguarding to review my case for past cases review 2 although apparently it does not fall into the category because it is an on going safeguarding case. Will someone please tell my Rector this before I file cdm as he insists there is no safeguarding agreement and therefore no breach took place. Oops too late. Meanwhile in the red corner the past case review 2 cover up saying I have an on going safeguarding case and in the blue corner the parish and diocesan cover up saying , well actually it is not safeguarding.
Yup. Like my complaint to the Episcopal Dioceses of Massachusetts and Virginia about my former rector, Bob Malm’s perjury. It’s facially obvious that he did commit perjury, as he contradicts himself in writing, under oath. Yet both dioceses simply brush off my complaint.
The ironic thing is that when we were in the throes of the property recovery litigation, the church fairly foamed at the mouth over the applicability of its canons. But when it comes to abuse, the church totally ignores the very same canons.
Much promised, little delivered. I think the Church of England will have withered on the vine before the arc is completed.
Amazing juxtaposition of photos in the Church Times today, showing two senior appointees both straight out of the Lambeth stable.
The most egregious recent failure is the case of Fr Alan Griffin. Not only the appalling ‘brain dump’ and 44 clergy not knowing of what they’ve been accused. But the blatant attempt to have criticism removed from the Coroner’s report. Any resignations or dismissals?
One part of the CofE appears to be digging itself a hole with a regulatory body. CofE motivation appears to be to protect a perpetrator even though she is not in fact clergy or in a CofE position. What has come to light so far is that a substantial amount of personal data was gathered by this org but only for an agreed purpose. It was not used for that purpose, but it was illegally retained on their IT system. It was subsequently used for a high level attempt at silencing. The CofE org then declined to respond to a reasonable question from the data subject. When this was reported to the regulator for advice, it was required to reply. The eventual response evidences the manner in which it’s lawyers have begun using falsehoods to attempt to wriggle out of the clutches of the regulator. It completely bypassed relevant CofE safeguarding-related procedures to justify what it claims is the reason for holding other data that it has admitted exists, but it refuses to disclose. It is doing it’s own thing in order to silence a survivor. Given the continued absence of a constructive response despite discussing some of this at the highest level in that sector of the CofE, the regulator now has the full cooperation of the survivor, who hopes that if appropriate, it will extend it’s claws & deal with this most cruel & unChristlike organisation.
Has anyone successfully used the ICO to obtain dodgy data used to discredit them, and then sued for defamation?
What are the hurdles to doing this?
I contacted the ICO because the Diocese said that the Diocesan Secretary had brought a case against me as a private citizen after he submitted emails of mine to national safeguarding, parish clergy, my pso and so forth breaching data protection rules. Heard nothing for a long time. I had written saying I was unable to upload the evidence but could post it to them. Eventually they wrote back saying they had closed the case because there was no evidence. They had not told me they had opened a case. I wrote back insisting they keep the case open and allow me to post the evidence. Am in process of doing so but got the impression they were glad to use any excuse not to do anything. Rather like the charity commission who have done nothing about the fact I have received threats from Diocesan solicitors for contacting the Trustees which I have a right to do under charity law because their employee caused me, a vulnerable beneficiary serious harm by fabricating false evidence to the police and for my trial. All I can say is that the safeguards supposedly in place for misconduct tend to be ignored in cases when a private citizen is harmed by an organisation like the church of England. The ICO seemed in a distinct hurry to close my case without bothering to engage with me about it and I had to be insistent they held it open. So I Am not holding my breath as it seems just another organisation which purports to protect you but in reality does nothing. If I can get them to take action will post again.
I can’t answer the first question, but there is a major hurdle in suing for defamation. This must be done before the expiry of one year from the date of first publication of the libel. If the libel is subsequently repeated in substantially the same form, the limitation period still runs from the first date. Although the courts have powers to extend the limitation period in exceptional circumstances, it is for the claimant to establish such circumstances.
Many thanks for this fighting article, Gilo. So, the bishops are the ‘made men’ (mostly men), but who is the capo? And who is the capo di tutti capi?
This is not necessarily a frivolous question. The Church is a deeply hierarchical organisation. The hierarchs will presumably follow in the footsteps of their leader. Yet who is their leader? Is it the archbishops? Is it the secretary-general? Or is it some sort of amorphous collective will: an instinctive tendency to draw up the waggons or form a square against the real or imagined enemy cavalry? You liken Church House to Mordor, but perhaps it is akin to a hive: as an erstwhile beekeeper, I recollect that even a queenless colony can emit attack pheromones. I also note that there was a period after the war when the Colonial Office moved out of Downing Street/Whitehall and into Church House, and it was there that such regrettable policies as the creation of the Central African Federation, the brutal repression of the Mau Mau ‘insurgency’ and the Malayan CP and EOKA were hatched, or where the fate of the people of Banaba was sealed, etc. It is a place with the residue of an unsavoury reputation.
You also mention Church House and its nomenklatura. Yet who there is issuing the orders? Is it the secretary-general or is it the Commissioners? I ask this because one of the main reasons why the Church appears to have become so defensive is the risk of pay-outs, and I wonder whether – having moved into the same premises from No. 1 Millbank in 2007 – the Commissioners and the rest of the central bureaucracy have now become indistinct; that the money power of the Commissioners has affected the rest of the organisation, and that all problems, including the ethical problems posed by victims, are now viewed through a financial prism.
Yet the Church could easily lose £500m or so in damages payments. At present it would amount to less than a year’s capital growth.
Your characterisation of the bureaucracy is damning, and I am reminded of Lord Mountbatten at the time of Suez: as first sea lord he was very unpopular with the other service chiefs for telling Eden that the Anglo-French and Israeli forces would have to withdraw. The CIGS Sir Gerald Templer remarked, “Dickie, you’re so bent that if you swallowed a knife, you’d s–t a corkscrew”. So I must ask another question: is this organisation so far from its founding principles that it is beyond reform?
If so, could the solution be that it is not only disestablished but comprehensively disendowed so that the money power inhabiting Church House does not debauch the morals of the rest of the organisation? After all, the Church is in the morality business, isn’t it?
Unfortunately, social and political institutions often reflect wider society. Perhaps we not only have the politicians, police, social services, etc., we deserve, but also the churches we deserve. What, then, does that say about modern Britain?
Just to pick up on one thing, I’m not sure we’re in the morality business, really. Don’t misunderstand me, we should be moral people, and a morally decent organisation, but our business is spreading the good news. Hard.
Thanks, Gilo …
If as George Bernard Shaw wrote ‘Silence is the most perfect expression of scorn’ – then it appears that the attitude of the church hierarchy is one of holding safeguarding in general, and survivors in particular in contempt. Much of the C of E IICSA hearing transcripts describe ostracism and moral disengagement towards survivors – and this from the apparent ‘arbiters of morality’ (who are only too willing to judge others), which suggests that the bishops have convinced themselves that ethical principles do not apply in that particular context, and so have mentally disabled any self/group-criticism. Such groupthink mentality can hardly be unpremeditated but premeditated – and as you suggest more of a collective cultural perspective.
Indeed. However, I have found over the years that attempts to communicate with those in authority, be they officials or hierarchs, are very frequently met with silence.
If you submit materials that are contrary to their world view, or which are disruptive or inconvenient, they will simply ignore them.
This is one of the reasons why I am highly ambivalent towards the clerical profession, and why I oscillate – often very abruptly – between loyalty and outright anti-clericalism.
In the estimation of the jobsworth hierarch or official, they have received a professional training which is sacralised by the incantations performed at a rite of ordination or consecration. This quasi-deifies them (so to speak), or at least puts them into a rarefied sphere (as some of them see it). It does not, of course, in any rational or objective sense. Thus, having placed themselves on a higher plane, they consider themselves entitled to reject or, more usually, ignore the supplications of the proles – the laity (irritants like me) – who, insofar as they are part of an earthly hierarchy, are altogether lower and less consequential.
So, I don’t think the treatment of victims is unique, but of course victims are especially ‘inconvenient’, not only because their existence calls attention to a double standard in the Church (‘do as I say and not as I do’), but because it puts the Church official or hierarch in receipt of any pastoral or legal demand in the position of having to live up to the Word they proclaim, which many of them do not wish to do (except in theory), because it’s just too hard, too bothersome, or risks damaging their clerical amour-propre and sense of position. It is these entitled hypocrites and humbugs who have done as much, or sometimes more, damage to the reputation of the Church that the sexual perverts or maniacs who cause the original suffering.
A third of the clergy are wonderful (and I would go ‘over the top’ on their behalf); a third are average; and a third do greater or lesser degrees of active harm.
Totally on point, Froghole. I’m a retired parson, and all you describe is common in the CofE. Having come to ordination from 30 years in the higher education sector, I can say without hesitation that however grim that may be (grimmer now than in 1976 certainly) it in no way even begins to reach the depths of the church. If you want one, perhaps the most significant, reason for this, it’s independent external scrutiny, totally lacking in the CofE.
Ouch. Burn. Gilo, your eloquent summary, along with ‘Graham’s’ blistering analysis of the lack of accountability on John Smyth’s abuse (previous, on this blog), unfortunately confirm everything about the Church that one hoped wasn’t true. Thank God we have people of action like you both, who’ve not rested till the truth is displayed.
A key question is this: without accountability of bishops, what hope is there for the Church of England? Bishops must be made accountable and sackable – it’s the only way to ensure they stay on the straight and narrow.