Those of us who follow American politics to any degree will have noted the extraordinary testimony of Cassidy Hutchinson to the January 6th Committee in Washington DC last Tuesday. What this 25-year-old assistant had to say to the Committee was instantly compelling. No doubt those who arranged for her to give evidence knew that her grasp of detail, her obvious integrity and her position right at the heart of the action on the fateful day of the attempted coup, would make her a star witness. What raised her testimony to become decisive and history changing was the assured way that she answered the questions that were put to her. There was no point where she hesitated about what she had seen. She had been physically present at some events about which she gave testimony, or she was able to recall precisely what others said they had seen. To call her a star witness is probably an understatement. She was a superstar witness in that her testimony cannot easily be destroyed by those who prefer propaganda to replace the recording of historical events. There was nothing for her personally in giving this testimony, except perhaps a place in the American history books
The performance by Cassidy on Tuesday has led me to reflect on what we expect from witnesses either in a legal trial, or from an investigation such as those conducted by the Church of England safeguarding processes. I will have, at the back of my mind, the Cassidy performance as I try to list some of the qualities that we expect to find from witnesses, whether or not they are under oath in a court of law. As I write this, I am aware that there are presumably formal guides for barristers and other legal personnel who work within a trial or inquiry setting. The questions I raise here are strictly from a lay perspective but there is one basic question that we all must ask. How do we determine that the person speaking to us is telling the truth?
For any person to tell a lie or untruth of any kind, there must be some reason for doing so. The person we are speaking to may have a vested interest in holding on to a false set of facts, because lies appear to be advantageous to them or to an institution like the Church. ‘Alternative facts’ may help to preserve the reputations of senior leaders in these organisations in the short term. But over a period the truth has a habit of coming out to heap shame and embarrassment on reputations. History is harsh to those who have attempted to hang on to power at the expense of integrity and honesty. Reputations of all, living or dead, do matter. For the Church, the honesty and holiness of past members is able to feed the integrity of the whole institution long after they have gone. The opposite is also true. Immoral behaviour or dishonesty, when it is exposed, even years after the deaths of those guilty, are still able to do damage both individuals and organisations. Telling a lie may appear to provide some advantage for someone but over the long-term it serves little purpose.
Whenever an investigator is searching for the true version of factual events, he/she will be aware of any potential motive for producing a false narrative. If there appears to be an incentive to lie or cover up facts, the questioner will want to be allowed to ask further questions. The narrative that is given may of course be the true version but there is nothing wrong in the further questioning as a method of confirming or raising doubts over what has been presented. The cross-examination of witnesses is an age-old part of the legal process alongside the taking of an oath by witnesses in a court of law. Everyone, including children, knows that it is quite hard not only to tell a lie, but to sustain that lie when questioned by a skilled investigator. Lawyers at criminal trials and the police have plenty of experience at sorting out truth from lies. Sustaining a falsehood when further questions may be asked about the setting or context of that event is quite hard to do. For a start you need an extremely good memory to ensure that you never swerve from the version of events that you first told.
If an individual in a trial or an inquiry is thought to be relaying a false version of events, the questioner may need to have a working hypothesis as to why and how this could be. Among the reasons that might come to mind are the presence of shameful episodes in a witness’ life that need to be shut out from memory. More commonly we might expect to find, behind an individual giving possible false evidence, connections to another person or group. These external influencing forces may well play a role in encouraging someone to align themselves with as false version of the facts. The power of a parent to compel a child to follow a particular false account of an event is often decisive. Thirdly we have, potentially, a wide range of psychological benefits to be obtained by telling a lie. The self-delusionary aspects of a narcissistic disorder come to mind. Then there is the avoiding of a raw fear of the truth coming to light and what it might do to the witness and those around him/her. All these potential causes for telling a lie will normally be grasped and form part of the background awareness of the suitably trained investigator. In summary, the investigator will look at the relationships, the networks and the ‘political’ factors that surround a witness which may impinge on their ability to tell the plain unadorned truth. Once again, we are not suggesting that these other factors make lies inevitable. It is, rather, that lies or false versions of events are less unexpected when there are emotional factors or powerful networks of influence impinging on a witness. These may alter both the perception and the recalling of events from the past.
To return to the Cassidy Hutchinson testimony, the power of her words was greatly enhanced by the fact she had apparently nothing to gain from telling any version of the events on January 6th except the true one. Someone might possibly accuse her of being in league with Trump’s enemies to manipulate the facts, but it would be extremely difficult for anyone to come up with a false version of events which was not contradicted on points of detail by other witness statements. It is the sheer amount of detail, something Cassidy seemed skilled at recalling, that makes her testimony so important. People sometimes become confused by details in giving testimony and this is especially true of older people. While there is always this potential for confusion, It should not be difficult, in practice, for a questioner to tell the difference between the partial memory loss of an older person and the deliberate attempt to cover-up the truth in the interest of relaying a false narrative.
While, as we noted, Cassidy had nothing to gain from giving her account, she had everything to gain by keeping silent. The political forces in the States have become polarised and potentially violent. If, as is being claimed in the newspapers today, her testimony forms the obituary to Trump’s political career, then she has good reason to be afraid of the anger of Trump and his supporters. We all wish her well and hope that her life will eventually be allowed to return to normal.
The power of a witness to make a statement so that justice can be established is a proper part of process in every legal or quasi-legal setting. We need to find this in the Church’s safeguarding processes. In every case it is also important for there to be skilful questioning and scrutiny of the one making a testimony. Problems arise when testimony is lodged, and no proper scrutiny takes place. So often in church settings no one seems to make it their business to forensically examine whether a testimony is true or even plausible. The evidence of a complainant is sometimes taken to be the only possible version of truth. Perhaps what we are witnessing here is the Church trying to work off a compensatory debt to survivors. For decades, even centuries, the testimony of the weak, the very young and the powerless was ignored. It was the words of those in power that had weight, and these normally prevailed in church circles as in many others. When this institutional bias in favour of the powerful finally became exposed, the Church as well as society had a lot of catching up to do. The pendulum then swung violently in the opposite direction. Now the witness of the weak and abused has become privileged to the extent that in some cases I hear about, not even common-sense questions are asked of child or vulnerable adult witnesses. Recently Martin Sewell has been asking questions of the controversial Independent Safeguarding Board and the way that, in a recent report, it asserts that ‘complainants can expect to be believed’. Such a statement is ‘extraordinary to find in such a body’. A declaration like this, along with the mantra we heard in the Kenneth case ‘the voice of the child must be heard and believed’, is more appropriate to a counselling service than in a body which is expected to involve itself with issues of justice and truth. A more appropriate statement, the one produced by the Cleveland Report in 1989, is ‘always listen to the complainant and take what they say seriously’. This principle would have been usefully applied in the Kenneth case. Allowing an automatic acceptance of a child’s testimony to pass unquestioned in safeguarding cases, has led to an untidy and inconclusive ending to the affair. The Carl Beech saga is also a warning of what can happen when there is an automatic acceptance of a complainant’s testimony.
Believing a testimony without any scrutiny of its plausibility can lead to thoroughly bad process in church legal protocols. While we want to move away anything resembling the old aggressive strategies of defence lawyers in rape trials, we do still need independent scrutiny of accusations that are made in church led processes. It does not take a top QC to establish the plausibility of a witness in a CDM process. It does take a person who combines some basic legal training, an understanding of independence combined with a basic grasp of human nature. Such a person, perhaps designated as a plausibility investigator, does not need years of experience to hone their skills. We need these kinds of independent voices in the church’s legal protocols since, in some cases, compassionate common-sense seems to have left the room. If the CDM process is not reformed speedily, many young clergy are going to feel thoroughly insecure. The system in which they work has become untrustworthy. I am hearing from various directions, not only cases of injustice, but also a sense of deepening insecurity, even fear among clergy, at the way the church’s legal structures are operated.
Allow me to share a cautionary tale.
I was once involved in a case involving the custody of a child whom neither parent had the capacity to care for long time. Highly respectable grandparents came to the rescue, one a member of a senior profession, the other a successful actress who had married very well. She it was who alleged that the child had made a serious disclosure of alleged abuse against the opposing grandfather. Her evidence was full, compelling, unshaken in cross examination under the relentless questioning of my friend who represented the accused. It was hopeless but my friend was unswerving ,tying down every nuance and detail. I was whispering to him to sit down, he had taken it as far as he could. The witness was convincing, the case. Lost and the grandfather heading for professional disciplinary proceedings…
However, a flurry of activity brought the local authority Counsel to their feet. The «disclosure « ;had occurred in France, been reported to the Gendarmerie who had supplied a translation which the Social worker had forgotten to disclose. She was embarrassed sorry – but honest, and she and corrected her oversight mid-trial. She handed over the original testimony to the police and it differed in every respect.
The woman had lied for her own purpose and done so utterly convincingly. I had to buy my friend the beer that afternoon, his seemingly futile cross examination to the nth degree was the right tactical decision.
Some people lie convincingly. The Psychologists tell us that when ew remember, we recall the last time we told the story – not when it happened, that’s how tales grow and why capturing the first account is crucial. It is what we teach in Safeguarding cases. It often does not happen.
The way to beat a lie detector is to tell a simple story in the same form. You will eventually convince yourself that your tweaked version is the unvarnished truth. Judges know this and there is case law guidance. That is why I trust good judges. They don’t fall into the « I believe him/ I believe her trap ». They apply sound principles case hardened over years of experience.
You still get the sense with the Institutional Church, that they don’t really see themselves as accountable to anyone. Despite the testimony of many witnesses, they continue to be almost immovable, and certainly painfully insensitive to many of their abuse victims, on an almost daily basis.
This inertia, this resistance to questioning, this deafness to the cries of its children, is symptomatic of a hardened, heartless core.
The testimony of the many witnesses still carries great weight elsewhere, not least to the droves of people leaving, and leaving their wallets at home.
Whilst the belligerent core continues with its ears stopped, the walls are crumbling at the periphery. It’s vital to continue with obtaining multiple testimonies from witnesses to the various abuses going on. For example, the group nervousness of clergy to false allegations needs quantitatively collating to assess the significance of the threat at large. The Church can’t be trusted to do this. It needs to be done by an independent body. Witnesses in isolation are easy prey to being ignored or squashed. Witnesses en masse are not. “Kenneth” and Percy are just the start.
The IICSA wasn’t the first, and it won’t be the last. Each study informs the next, and the findings must be kept front of mind to avoid the fading of memory. No decent person wants injustice. Keep the testimonies coming.
You may not be instantly believed, for excellent reasons. But you must be heard. And remember that the adversarial system does have its drawbacks.
I recently re-read the apology from my Bishop just before Christmas. He had read what I called my dossier. 36 pages, which is far too much, but I was too weary to edit. Quite plainly, he believes me. And I felt heard. I asked earlier what restitution looks like, and this is partly the answer. Along with change. Yes, I agree, just saying you believe every accusation simply will not do. But I was not asked for “proof”. It was accepted as my evidence.
The curate who testified on oath against my husband would have been believable if her “star witness” had not contradicted her evidence, especially as she testified wearing her dog collar. Being blind I rely on changes of voice, not body language. Whilst many people cannot lie with out either a change in tone, hesitation etc, some people do sound exactly the same as when they are speaking the truth. However a longer examination of a witness is liable to produce anomalies, but not always. Some people are simply excellent liars as Martin says. In my case I have given a mass of documentary evidence to the reviewer of safeguarding in my Diocese. Their questionnaire asks whether or not it is safe to disclose in your parish and Diocese and whether appropriate action is taken after your disclosure. A lot of the documents given as evidence originate with the Diocese, my Rector and the criminal proceedings. I hope the reviewer provides the proper scrutiny Stephen mentions above. I am awaiting his report. A previous reviewer warned me that although their name would appear on the report, it would not be their report as two senior members of the organisation would scrutinise it first. I assume that scrutinise meant change the report so that it did not reflect the views of the reviewer, otherwise why would they not take responsibility for a review brought out under their name. This time I have asked the reviewer to take full responsibility for their report. After all a report that the reviewer disagrees with is essentially a lie in another format. I do believe that the majority of liars will be caught out if proper scrutiny is applied. However a few will not be. After all, these cases do not go before experienced judges. I am glad you were believed at last Athena. I felt terrible at the police station when the police officer interviewing me did not accept that my former vicar had admitted partial guilt in what the church described as a legal process. Although I had brought the decision letter of the Bishop overseeing cdm proceedings, she did not look at it, preferring to accept the police statement of the Diocesan Secretary saying that my allegation had been baseless and unfounded. Some people do not want to scrutinise the evidence. If the police can get away with blatantly ignoring evidence, it is not surprising that an institution which puts safeguarding the reputations of its leaders first and foremost does the same.
The C of E’s National Safeguarding Team say that they do not investigate allegations of abuse. Which Church officers or bodies do investigate, I wonder? And what qualifications do they have?
WHAAA …? so what do they do? Believe everything, or refuse to believe anything? Guess? Pray and draw lots?
They say they are there to make safeguarding decisions, not to investigate the facts – I have that in an email. Beats me how they can make safeguarding decisions without ascertaining what the facts are.
In another case, in which I’ve seen all the correspondence between the respondent and NST, the NST official jumped to a conclusion a schoolchild could have told him wasn’t supported by the evidence. The cleric concerned lost his PTO – and there wasn’t even a complainant. He did later get it back again, but was never publicly cleared of suspicion.
I also have it in writing, Janet, and beats me too 🤷 Their role is just to manage risk, but apparently they can do that without deciding whether I am telling the truth about the men who raped me?🤷🤔
And as Stephen says, what possible benefit could I gain from making it up?
The advantage of not looking, is that they won’t find anything.
What are they for then? If they do not investigate abuse allegations and do not have a supervisory role to make sure Dioceses follow safeguarding guidelines, who does? Oops, it would be very inconvenient for the Church if allegations were actually investigated or Dioceses forced to follow H of B guidelines. It wouldn’t do for the Church to act justly. Whatever can we be thinking of? Justice for victim/survivors. Naah, no way. As to qualifications, my Rector was permitted to “investigate” without speaking to me and a witness . So probably a lack of integrity is the one qualification needed. But from posts here a lack of compassion and the willingness to intimidate complainants come a close second. But I can tell you what the NST are for. Bullying you into trying to stop you making a complaint. Oh and for passing your complaint straight back to the Diocese about which you are complaining without doing anything to resolve your complaint. So what are they really there for?
The NST are there to manage allegations against bishops, archdeacons, deans, and other high profile clergy. I don’t think they have any supervisory role over dioceses’ safeguarding, though they will work with diocesan officers in the case of senior clergy from that diocese. You can see how that works (or doesn’t) by reading reports such as that of the Whitsey Review, where a deceased Bishop of Chester was the subject of multiple allegations.
We badly need a third party organisation to handle this stuff, the C of E does it so badly.
Thanks Janet. However I would not call bullying me in an attempt to stop me filing cdm against my Bishop managing allegations in the sense that most people would view the term. Having previously asked me to list my safeguarding concerns when the Lead Bishop for safeguarding instructed him to meet with me to discuss them, and despite a long correspondence with me about safeguarding concerns, a member of NST then kept forcefully repeating that I could not file cdm against my Bishop as it was not a safeguarding complaint. Perhaps this is what they are for? Funny how they are not there to investigate yet “knew” my safeguarding complaints were entirely about something else other than what we had corresponded about. Managing the reputations of senior clergy and stopping complaints? Perhaps someone else has had a good experience with them.
I haven’t heard of anybody who’s had a good experience of them. And no, the Church has no intention of managing allegations in a way which most of us would consider proper.
I copied in a deputy lead safeguarding Bishop to an email about the potential to take further action against a diocesan Bishop if matters were not resolved and she wrote back saying she had no role to play in this. Seriously!!! .
So the ‘Be informed of, and when required, involved in the resolution of safeguarding matters which might arise through diocesan safeguarding audits or investigation of complaints’ from Key Roles and Responsibilities of Church Office Holders are just pretty words and not to be taken literally!
Very disappointing for you. It is a serious cause for concern when senior clerics in safeguarding roles do not fulfil their responsibilities. I assume they behave so brazenly, putting their misconduct in writing, because they know that if you complain the matter will either be covered up or ignored. A national inquiry would expose their misconduct. However I doubt we will be given one. The government is too busy trying to protect its own perpertrators. There is a concerning issue of why those in power and holding authority seem to be allowing abuse, both of a sexual and bullying nature, to continue without taking concerted action. Indeed it seems that only when there is a great deal of public opprobrium will some slight gesture of doing something about the matter take place. We have safeguarding and bullying scandals in the church, ditto in government, and a prince whose bodyguards were not able to say that he was not involved in any wrongdoing, and another prince who accepts extraordinary amounts of cash in suitcases and bags. At the same time there is large scale corruption in the police. There is a serious lack of integrity in public life which no one seems willing to tackle because their own institution is mired in misconduct. Meanwhile ordinary citizens are abused and have no protection from those in authority. It is high time the established church reformed itself, cleaned up its act, and set about using its new moral authority to reform the public life of our nation. It is all very well for senior clerics to speak out about the problems citizens face in other nations in an outraged tone, they need to speak up for all those disenfranchised from justice in our own. And I think we know which institution they should reform first.
The title of this blog and Martin Sewell’s comment that ‘capturing the first account is crucial’ is exemplified in the Kenneth case. The complainant’s first account was to the police and their verdict was that there was ‘insufficient evidence to pursue the case’. The complainant said he was not pleased with that decision. He need not have worried.The Safeguarding group has spent twenty-seven months relentlessly pursuing Kenneth trying to prove him guilty.
Since the account given to the police the complainant has often changed his story but never been questioned by a legal person. Nor has there been any attempt to establish the truth of the accusation.Indeed Kenneth’s request to see records he knew existed and which might have proved his innocence were denied him.
In Subject Access Requests Kenneth found evidence of many inaccuracies which have affected the attitude of the Core Group towards his case: his requests for the senior cleric of the church to intervene were denied on the grounds that he could not interfere with the due processes of the Core Group. Yet through the SAR we found that this cleric was listed as ‘those present’ in many core group meetings and was minuted as giving his opinions on issues.
In the Micah 6:8 Initiative, (http:// chng.it/HLF4dhVd6Q) which has been referred to in previous blogs, Lord Carlile, point 6, says,“Having people on a core group with a conflict of interest is simply not sustainable and is,on the face of it, unlawful”. Yet one of the clerics in this group was on Facebook with the boy and his mother.
Also the senior cleric and his ordained colleague who have known the complainant and Kenneth well since they came to the church nine and eight years ago respectively, were listed as being present at a Core Group meeting. Yet under the section, ‘Declaration of interest’ it asks: i) Does anyone know personally the respondent and /or the victim/survivor? The answer listed is, ‘No’.
Also, in that section is asked, ‘Is anyone pastorally supporting the respondent and/or the victim/survivor? The answer is again listed as ‘No’ and yet both were supported.
Page two of these minutes says ‘no further investigation required’ but there has never been any investigation, so ‘no further investigation’ is a misleading statement.
This meeting was therefore unlawful.
Stephen asks in the title of his blog, ‘How do we find the Truth In Safeguarding Cases?’ It is a good question. In Kenneth’s case the answer is simple: from the SAR it seems there is little if any. Fabrication and lies are there to be seen, but as he was not told these directly he had no opportunity to defend himself.
It is with sadness that I have to report that Kenneth’s health is deteriorating. The Core Group continue to refuse any investigation or scrutiny of evidence. This constant strain is slowly destroying the man Kenneth once was.
In the meantime, we, the friends of Kenneth, can only watch and pray. He is very dear to us and…
‘the respondent and/or the victim/survivor’
That is a very telling phrase. It should, of course, be ‘complainant and victim/survivor’. They seem to be assuming guilt at the outset – and yet victims/survivors don’t get fair treatment either.
Janet how very true that is. Throughout this whole process Kenneth has been treated as being guilty and having to prove his innocence. When it was pointed out, several times, that the law of the land is ‘innocent until proven guilty’ there was no response from the Core Group. Then two years later I challenged them with turning the established the laws of England upside down and received a vehement denial from the Core Group. There was no explanation as to the reason they had not denied this accusation previously.
Totally corrupt. And even though the law provides access to documents which prove deliberate fabrication, neither the law, nor church processes provide you with resolution, or justice. People are put through the mill and ground down unlawfully, even by those ordained who accept the role of shepherds at ordination. Their ordination would be a joke save for the seriousness of their malicious and deliberate immoral fabrications and it’s impact on the parishioners of whom they they are “shepherds”. It would have been more honest to use the term devouring wolves at their ordination services. My apologies to all the decent clergy whose integrity is unblemished. It is not you I am writing about. But to ground Kenneth down in this manner is too deplorable for words. I know everyone in the core group was not a cleric, but if clergy on core groups behave like this, we have no hope whatsoever that the Church will investigate allegations with the due care that it’s so called legal process implies. Breaching guidelines, fabricating lies in official documents, and acting unlawfully, this is what the Church of England has come to. Even those clerics with safeguarding responsibilities over and above the norm fail to keep to guidelines and appear content that unlawful acts, fabrications and intimidation are at the heart of their safeguarding processes. Yet Diocese after Diocese gets glowing safeguarding reviews. Our leaders know it yet bleat on about improvements in safeguarding and only a handful in the general synod stand up to them. Even those clerics charged with safeguarding responsibilities over and above the norm are content with the situation and do not always follow guidelines themselves. Those who preach repentance cannot own up to any wrongdoing. Yet they hide behind their clerical garb in the most hypocritical way imaginable. My experience in supporting offenders and exoffenders was that unless they were genuinely remorseful at their wrong doing, it was a waste of time supporting them. These people show no remorse. God bless Kenneth and all victim/ survivors. Churches in my Diocese have been hypocritically asked to sign up to Safeguarding Sunday by a Diocese whose own documents show them to maliciously fabricate lies. Others will be going through the same charade. I am glad that the charade is beginning to be seen for what it is in my church, and hope this filters through to other churcges. We need to continue to call out this whole safeguarding fiasco, a system to cover up safeguarding failures and worse, deliberate wrongdoing and unlawful acts. My love and prayers to Kenneth and all who care for him.
Thank you Mary. That is appreciated.
This is such an important, and difficult subject. My experience has been the opposite of what you describe, Stephen, in that I, and many other survivors I have spoken with, have been met with disbelief, minimising, inaction. It would be enlightening to see some statistics on how many safeguarding cases are ‘substantiated’ and of those that aren’t, how many are about risk being unsubstantiated rather than because there is no credible account of abuse. We know that the majority of safeguarding complaints about church officers don’t result in any formal disciplinary or criminal process. Just as over 98% of rape reports don’t result in a conviction, yet we know that isn’t because they’re made up, but because it’s hard to disclose and harder to prove, especially with no forensic evidence. So it’s vital that we encourage victims to come forward, and to do so sooner, to keep them and others safe. That means we mustn’t meet them with disbelief.
It’s hard to get this right. Personally I think we need to meet victims with belief and compassion; and have a thorough investigation which examines all the Evi and makes a finding of fact.
It’s hard to get this right, but it’s vital we do better, as at the moment there is not enough justice or safeguarding.
That’s right, many of us are simply not believed, even when we can produce witnesses. Most allegations are true, so I am amazed that those in the minority which are not, are treated as true, Yet those in the majority which are true are met with disbelief and even intimidation. How often this is because the Diocese wants to show it is untrue. We cannot know. However to receive threatening letters from Diocesan solicitors telling you You must not complain even when you have witnesses and other corroborating evidence as I did is sure proof that it does happen. You have not been abused and must not make an allegation because the Diocese doesn’t want you to. I wonder how often this is at the heart of disbelief, especially when you complain about a cleric.
Individually it’s almost impossible to “prove” anything, but collectively, shared evidence from multiple sources becomes evidence much more difficult to refute.
My former GP, now languishing in prison for sexually abusing patients, is illustrative in some ways. One or two came forward to protest his actions, and as far as I can gather the police started investigating. They wrote to me more than once, despite my not being in the exact demographic of his victim selection profile. They were asking for additional evidence to build as complete as possible a body of proof to convince a jury. It worked.
Many people, still working in large organisations, aren’t easily able to step out and whistleblow about corruption in their midst. With fear, mortgages to pay and young families to feed, it simply isn’t feasible for most people to speak out. We must become more savvy about how this works.
Of course some people are completely oblivious to what’s going on at a senior level, the politics, the posturing, the game-playing. In some ways I envy them. I’m thinking of new ordinands and rookie police officers for example, full of ideals.
Everyone reports to someone. The higher up you go, the more political it becomes. Witness the officers dealing with Peter Ball. One stop wrong, and your career is over.
One final thing becoming clearer from all this, is in effect there is NO internal Church system capable of being relied upon to assist those in need like us. We must look outside the established Church, join forces, merge our resources or setup new vehicles to bring justice collectively from outside.
Your experience echoes my thoughts. This seems to work when several choristers come forward and their evidence, taken as a whole often leads to prosecution. It doesn’t work for the lone complainant. After all if a parishioner made a complaint about the leader in my parish who requires monitoring following a complaint in their previous Diocese, they will not know this and will be treated as if they made a complaint against an upright cleric and not believed. The documented practice of moving clerics to other parishes after complaints about them has shown just how effective this is .The vicar who admitted guilt in my case was moved on and at the very last moment their request to have their case treated outside the measure was granted, effectively publicly giving them a clean slate for their next parish. But I do agree that building up evidence of systemic failure within the church as a whole, as we and others are doing, is probably the only way we can currently hope to see appropriate action taken. Just hope it happens in my lifetime. Glad to see action was taken in your case.
I just thought he was a rubbish doctor. His abuse was aimed at women I gather, and I only learned of his prosecution from the press, and the police correspondence.
In terms of the abuse at school, I’ve not had any action taken that I’m aware of, but made my story available to IICSA in the hope that this would add to the pool of evidence of paedophiles operating in schools. The perpetrator priest died over 30 years ago, and it all went quiet once they’d discovered this.
But I think you’re right about this site bringing together isolated victims, whose stories would otherwise not be heard. All these are important contributions to the work of exposing corruption at the heart of our Church.
It’s worth pointing out to others reading these posts, that the discovery of rottenness at the core of what we held so dear, represents a significant loss, a bereavement. As such we should expect to feel a range of typical reactions such as rage and denial. It takes years to process, at least I’ve found it so.
Core groups within dioceses should have representatives of statutory services on their boards which sounds good but in reality these people just get sucked in to the narrative that the church wants them to hear as the complainant and respondent aren’t invited. So in Mary’s case the police that interviewed her might not have been that impartial particularly as many ex police, who really stick together, are employed in safeguarding roles in the church, something I have always felt to be wrong as they have no external registering body as social workers do.
I understand survivors frustration if they have no evidence but I have a whole load of evidence, even my abuser admitting he did it but the church interprets that as him being safe so he can just carry on as normal and in my SAR I found a sentence saying “don’t leave her alone with men.” So either way the church does nothing.
Oh ,Trish. That’s heart breaking. Don’t leave her alone with men because if they abuse her She will complain. As you say it is not a matter of whether you can prove your allegation, and how much evidence you have, but of leaders ignoring actual proof then targeting you for making a legitimate complaint. Sadly, I have found that the network of those covering up can extend to helping agencies. I am assuming that over time my Diocese has been able to place people willing to cover up in the right position to do so. So one DSA has links to county statutory agencies and one has links to police. Another in a position of power has links to police and other agencies. When the Diocese commissioned a safeguarding consultant they too were ex police. When the consultant tweaked the agreement to say that it must be understood that people with restrictions may forget about them, Melissa Carslake handed my case to a national case worker labelling it high priority. A short time later this same consultant was working for NST and when I made a new complaint, it came under him for his advice. You can see how over a period of time a Diocese can build up a network of those whose credentials look good on paper but who are willing to cover up. Then the DSA who felt “harrassed” because I reported breaches had my case signed off as satisfactory for past cases review 2 by the very same consultant the Diocese had previously commissioned. When I complained that he was not independent I I have it in writing both that he was independent and that he was not employed by the Church of England. However I did find one person with integrity at national level who was brave enough to take action. After their intervention I have it in writing, that it was done as best practice. Unfortunately in some Diocese the network of cover up is so extensive that we need independent people from outside the Diocese being brought in. I genuinely believe no vulnerable parishioner is safe in our Diocese for all these reasons. And if this is not the case in your Diocese, as Trish says they are likely to get sucked into accepting whatever the Church says. If this is what happens when you have masses of evidence, what chance do other credible complainants have of being taken seriously? And even when it may be taken seriously, your Diocese may, like mine, allow a leader who requires monitoring to hold a leadership role in any case.
I began this journey in supporting Kenneth. I have been appalled to find such unimaginable injustices as the C/E’s safeguarding practices. Now, thanks to Stephen’s blogs especially this one which highlights the rottenness and untruthfulness of the Safeguarding Core Groups, I support each one of you as well. In order to do this in the best possible way I have carefully re-read this latest blog and all your comments. I could reply to every comment but there is no room here. Instead I listed the main points that you have made between you for these to be utilised to have the best possible outcome.
The general feeling is that individually very little can be achieved but collectively it is more difficult for evidence to be ignored. There is a strong desire from you all to call the safeguarding practices to account for their deliberate illegalities, failures and refusal to act in a transparent way. Janet Fife suggests ‘ We badly need a third party organisation to handle this stuff, the C of E does it so badly'(July2nd 6.51 pm). Yes indeed Janet and the C/E have supplied one in the form of the Independent Safeguarding Board. There is nothing independent about it. Peopled by their own, no experience to investigate such a complex case as that of Dean Percy or anybody else for that matter and no independent legal representation. It is more of the same. Nothing will change if left to the ISB, so the ISB must go.
Martin Sewell sent me a link to an online petition objecting to the ISB. I urge you all in the strongest terms to read it carefully and suggest you sign it if you have not already done so. A full critique is to be found on the Thinking Anglicans website with a full copy of the letter sent to Archbishops’ Council
https://www.change.org/p/no-confidence-in-the-isb-oxford-review
The question is asked there, ‘So why not commission a proper Lawyer-led comprehensive independent review by someone with experience and expertise? What precisely is wrong with that?(Read that question twice!)’
My second suggestion is for you to write to both Archbishops about the lack of independence of safeguarding core groups. Post it Special Delivery and then you will be able to access a signed receipt as to who received it. If you read the above petition you will gain plenty of ideas. Also of course the Micah 6:8 Initiative. hhtp://chng.it/HLF4dhVd6Q
I know I frequently mention this but when I first found it soon after it was published, August 2020 I thought it would solve all our problems. I quoted it in many complaints but doubt it was ever looked at. I doubt that the people it was intended for have even bothered to read it but you draw attention to it, my friends, because it is a significant document. Look at the names of the signatories. The C/E cannot close their eyes to it forever; it exists and that is indisputable.
Let us unite and work together because only then will we achieve a truly independent body to address our injustices!
The (Non)independent Safeguarding Board is just another C of E deception. The Church has no concept of what ‘independent’ means. That’s why I used the term ‘third party’. Though I’m sure they can corrupt the meaning of that term too.
This, of course, is the deep concern about the ISB ‘lessons learned’ review of the Church’s actions both in the NST referral and CDM of Martyn Percy at Oxford.
In the case of Father Alan Griffin, the Diocese of London instructed an independent reviewer Chris Robson whose report is published today. It highlights, among other things, not only shortcomings in procedures but, very importantly, the competence (or non-competence) of people carrying them out, stressing the need, yet again, for both independence and expertise.
https://255urd2mucke1vdd43282odd-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/AG-report-Final-Report.pdf
One can ask why hasn’t the Diocese of Oxford grasped the nettle and similarly accepted the need for an independent inquiry.
Because they’re too afraid of what it will reveal. They’re fighting hard to avoid it.
One wonders, for example, how the Diocese of Oxford feel they measure up to Recommendation 17 “All safeguarding investigations should include a risk assessment
that considers the creation of a written plan for pastoral care for the person being
investigated. “
Isn’t the purported risk assessment which was used in the CDM something which needs to be independently investigated? My impression is that it does not fall within the C of E “lessons learned” terms of reference and is unlikely to figure in the separate Christ Church Internal Governance Review.
Kenneth had a Risk Assessment in December 2020, nine months after the allegation had been made. The outcome was delivered at a meeting in October 2021 with no acknowledgement of the formal complaints sent in the intervening ten months.The decision as to their continuing to exclude him was made December 2021 based on the Risk assessment of December 2020 and the October 2021 meeting.
The questions at the Risk Assessment were puerile and amateurish in the extreme and seemed to bear no relationship to safeguarding. For example, Kenneth was asked how long he has been living in his present house (which is since the age of eleven years, for the past sixty-six years). He was further asked the reason his parents had chosen to buy that particular house!
Thank you, Rowland, for your link to the report on Father Alan Griffin’s death. I was particularly interested because there were points in that report which reflect Kenneth’s experiences of the way he was dealt with. In August 2021 I came across the Coroner’s report which had been sent to Archbishop Welby in August 2021. In section 5 the Coroner warned the Archbishop that there would be further such deaths ‘unless action is taken’. In section 7 she said, ‘You are under a duty to respond to this report within 56 days of the date of this report, namely by 3 September 2021.’ I sent this information to the Core Group in the hopes they would realise the damage they could be doing to Kenneth. There was no response. I sent a description of Kenneth’s case to the Coroner of the case and received only an acknowledgement of her receiving that letter.
In June 2022 in a letter I wrote to the +Canterbury, I asked if he had responded to the Coroner by the given date because if so Kenneth had not benefited from any action. This was passed to a safeguarding officer at Lambeth Palace and I am still waiting for a detailed reply. I also sent an appropriately edited version of that letter to the Archbishop of York. That, along with my other complaints about the Core Group is being dealt with their Executive Legal Officer at York.
My main concern, not just for Kenneth but for all those in a similar situation,is the way the link between Father Alan Griffin and others like Kenneth has been ignored. As the Coroner warned, there could be further deaths but nobody has responded to this warning, nobody cares. They are too busy preserving their own reputations and justifying their actions. In the face of such utter callousness and carelessness as to the effect safeguarding procedures are having on people’s lives, can Safeguarding in C/E ever be just, honest, transparent and legal??
Above all , can it ever be independent?
I am deeply sorry to hear of this lack of response. The apology given by the Archbishop of Canterbury sounds hollow in the extreme taking in account the action you have taken. It appears once more that all the church is interested in is trying to look good whilst covering up serious failures. Even in extreme circumstances when lives are at stake, that is all our Archbishops seem to care about. I now wonder if they take any part of the Christian faith seriously. People with no religious beliefs would be expected to take this situation extremely seriously, and it would be on their consciences if any one else suffered because of their deliberate inaction in a situation where it is morally imperative to act. Shame on them. It is terrible that there appears to be no mechanism at all whereby the Archbishops can be induced to take action to make sure egregious failings do not lead to further lives being lost. I wonder if you can persuade your MP to ask a question in parliament? That and a journalist bringing this to public attention are all I can think of. As your Bishop seemed favourably inclined he may join you in persuading your MP. I hope other readers can come up with an idea to force the issue. I did think of trying to get a question asked in General Synod, but that is probably hopeless. The problem with any publicity is that Kenneth ‘s name may not be kept out of the public eye.
Thank you Mary for your suggestions. Sadly, I had pursued your ideas in 2020. Kenneth’s MP (mine is a different one), refused to help because this a Canon Law Case not a Civil one. You are right about the concerns of involving a journalist, Kenneth’s real identity would quite likely be revealed. I had explored the bureau for investigative journalists but in an anonymous conversation they wanted information I thought it inadvisable to give. At that point they were not interested. Whilst the Bishop approved Kenneth’s return to the church provided the complainant was not there, he had, during the previous 25 months ignored complaints in which he had been included. He said he could not interefere with the processes of the Diocesan Safeguarding Core Group.
After I had sent my last post I worried that it sounded too negative. Reform in the C/E safeguarding processes will be difficult but with prayer and all of us uniting I am sure it will be achievable.
From the responses from both Archbishops I am sure they will send a reply and I will certainly let you know when they come. Perhaps the beginning of the change will start there. Also, it is Synod this week and maybe there will be some influence from that. After all it is a Christian organisation and at some point people’s consciences must come into play.
Thank you again Mary
Good luck with that. I just hope that the Archbishops are not as reluctant to conform with the coroner’s ruling as they are to comply with the Equality Act . I am afraid the word lawless best describes how my they deal with my situation. Let’s hope they will be less reluctant to comply in Kenneth’s case. It would be good to hear they do have a few morals and scruples and that the coroner’s ruling has sobered them up enough to realise they should find a little time to fulfil their own responsibilities before pronouncing on national and international affairs.
Thank you very much anonymous for this. We must make them care even if they have to metaphorically speaking be dragged kicking and screaming to care.
From the website of the Archbishop of Canterbury, “Restrictions on freedom of worship often go hand in hand with other forms of repression including women and minorities, the Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby has warned government ministers from around the world.” This from the leader of a church who cannot put an end to to the abuse of children and disabled adults, let alone other parishioners and his own workforce . This from a leader who is extremely reluctant to keep to the Equality Act in force in his own country, repressing disabled members of his own church. This from the leader of a church which misuses its position as the established church to criminalise anyone who discloses the facts once the undemocratic and hidden church legal proceedings have taken place in direct contrast to the way our legal system prioritses openess, transparency, with all decisions and summings up able to be reported and commented on. This from the leader of a church which frequently ignores the testimony of witnesses and other evidence. Sounds like a repressive regime to me.
Did Jasvinder Sanghera, survivor representative from the ISB actually say at Synod yesterday that being criticised by survivors makes her more determined to stay!
The sheer arrogance of these people.
Watching that cringe worthy presentation yesterday with the lead Bishop putting on his best ‘Jackanory’ voice I thought this is a joke, we have a load of pointless figure heads talking a load of twaddle that is completely out of touch with what is actually going on.
Is the ISB at any point actually going to review whether they are needed, wanted and doing what is best for survivors or are they going to stay there however much they are criticised because of their own hubris.
Get Gavin Drake in charge!
Glad I missed it. Sounds as if much of it was an insult to survivors. And yet they do know what is going as many of us have told them. They seem content to ignore our suffering and the failure to follow guidelines, act justly etc. I do wonder how they manage to justify to themselves their own part in covering up abuse. Are some of them apostates I wonder?