In recent days and weeks, those of us who take an interest in safeguarding concerns in the Church of England have noticed a level of confusion and incoherence in this area among the senior levels of church management. The latest misstep on the part of our church leaders is that surrounding the appointment of David Urquhart, the former Bishop of Birmingham to the role of Bishop to the Archbishops of Canterbury and York (BACY). This appointment caused a negative reaction among some survivor groups. Bishop Urquhart has been publicly named in at least two cases of serious failure over safeguarding cases. Here it is not necessary to dwell on these well-rehearsed lapses or failures of judgment on his part. Rather we question the wisdom of allowing any individual who has so evidently attracted serious criticisms to his name to be, once again, prominent on the stage of national church decision making.
On this occasion Lambeth Palace (LP) has responded to criticisms by announcing that the safeguarding part of the post of BACY is to be handed to Ijeoma Ajibade, Chief of Staff at Lambeth Palace. This does not, in fact, sound like a clarification but more like a panic response or reaction to the criticism. No one has indicated that this holder of the post of Chief of Staff has any qualifications or experience in the safeguarding field. In fact of the three key people who oversee the CofE’s efforts in this arena, the head of the NST, the Lead Bishop and now the Archbishops’ Chief of Staff, each may have varying degrees of professional experience and backgrounds relevant to their roles. However, the task of applying these to the complex structure of the CofE and the centres of real power in the Church is extremely challenging for newcomers. Whether any of them have the authority to effect necessary change is something that can by no means taken for granted. Is LP continuing with its delusion that as long as there is someone with the job title of safeguarding, then everything will come out all right? In view of the countless ways that things can go wrong, that is a short-sighted assumption to make.
When the auditors of SCIE were writing their report last year, they were clearly assuming that the bishop replacing Emma Ineson (the former BACY) would have her safeguarding brief as part of their job-description. LP (and its lawyers!) also had access to the report for several months beforehand. No one at the review stage of the report saw fit to correct this perfectly reasonable assumption on the part of SCIE. Questions arise about how this apparent panic response and muddle ever arose. Had senior people at the Palace and Church House simply forgotten about the Urquhart’s safeguarding failures or is this yet another example of senior figures in the CofE failing to grasp the importance of understanding safeguarding from the survivors’ perspective? The SCIE report, as we saw, drew attention to a serious failure of empathy for survivors at LP. Perhaps this is just a further example of such insensitivity in operation. The SCIE report also identified bullying and fear among the junior staff and a reticence for taking unwelcome news ‘upstairs’.
Meanwhile further confusion continues at the Independent Safeguarding Board (ISB). We have to remember that this group received significant blanking from General Synod in February. The controllers of the agenda at Synod did not allow even the existence of the group to be mentioned in the published agenda. This blanking does not allow us to know what the ISB thinks it has achieved in the first year of its existence. The three individuals chosen to make up the ISB all bring significant life-experience to their roles.. But we still do not yet have a sense of what they feel able to do, in supporting and critiquing safeguarding work across the CofE. It is still hard to discern what they expect to achieve and how their work dovetails into all the other safeguarding initiatives being undertaken at present. They also do not seem to know whether the powers that be in the Church will allow them to be effective. Several major stumbling blocks stand in their way. One is, as we have already reported, the stepping back of the Chair, Maggie Atkinson. This took place months ago, and we had expected that some kind of resolution to this problem might have been achieved by now. It is hard to see how the rest of the Board can achieve very much in the light of this major impediment. It is an absurd situation. A second factor standing in the way of being an effective operation is that the two remaining active members are employed part-time. Jasvinda Sangera, the survivors’ advocate, is said to be employed by the Archbishops’ Council for one or two days a week. This may provide sufficient time to write reports, but it will not be sufficient for the task of finding survivors and creating robust lines of communication with them. Nor will it allow them to undertake major investigations or detailed case work. There seems to be an acceptance on the part of the remaining ISB members that their capacity to perform the tasks that the Archbishops’ Council might hand to them is beyond their resources, manpower and financial. Such candour on their part is important and welcome.
The recent SCIE report about LP provoked a vigorous response from Ms Sangera of the ISB and this was published on their website. In it she first calls for ‘a less complicated system so that survivors have clear referral pathways supported by a team.’ Clearly, she has met a number of survivors and this is also reflected in her second demand. She knows all about delay and ignored pleas for this group, since these are constantly encountered. She asks those who receive such pleas for help to provide ‘actions in good time that provide updates and assurances to those they serve in safeguarding’. All this is summed up by a plea from Ms Sangera that the church authorities ‘should prioritise arrangements for identifying and responding to complaints about safeguarding received by the Palace, which this report states is hampered by the lack of a comprehensive complaints system’.
Clearly Ms Sangera has some good ideas for safeguarding and many survivors might feel heartened by the thought that there is an apparently independent voice articulating some of their needs. She also appears to have a good grasp of the way that church structures are frequently ineffective in meeting the real needs of survivors. But the serious problems of delivery remain. One we have already mentioned, the part-time commitment of the ISB members and its depleted strength. The other complaint that I have heard is that, even after a year of operation, the ISB has failed to become widely known. Much communication these days takes place on Twitter and Facebook. The ISB profile on Twitter is virtually non-existent. Any campaigning organisation in 2023 should be working hard to identify followers and activists in the field. Even though the ISB has professional and paid PR support, there seems to be minimal online activity and the website is not easy to find. The website, when you find it, contains very little information of help to survivors. Surely a well-funded organisation like the ISB can devise ways of creating interest in its work and having a strong online presence?
The safeguarding world of the CofE is not, as far as one can see, in good health at present. The bureaucracy at the centre, whether in Church House or LP does not communicate a loving or empathetic face to survivors. The difficulty that these official structures have in showing compassion and care, has an unfortunate result. When individuals, who actually do possess human compassion, work within these structures, they can quickly become disillusioned. These unresponsive structures evidently sap the morale of staff every bit as much as through their dealing with angry and frustrated survivors.
One by one people of empathy seem to be squeezed out of these bureaucratic systems because they are often, quite simply, fairly toxic environments to work in. We have seen the high turnover of staff at the NST, and it is clear from the published material from the ISB, that its individual members have not found it easy to find their way within the total system. The CofE is, like most other organisations, instinctively programmed to put its own its own survival and existence as the highest value. The demands of safeguarding are seen by many to attack the two things that are held to be vital to the CofE’s survival – its assets and reputation. The task of dealing justly and honourably with survivors may assist with the integrity of the Church, but any substantial alignment with honesty and just dealing is seen by some to undermine the wider institution in terms of its material well-being and institutional power.
We have begun to see how some of the serious reputational issues that the Church is currently facing may be a direct consequence of failings in the safeguarding sphere. Getting things right in this area is thoroughly hard work and there are signs of weariness and loss of stamina among many involved clergy and lay-people. They dread hearing the word safeguarding in any church context. Even though many people inside the CofE do not want to hear anything further about protecting the vulnerable, any further failings in this area will weaken and undermine the structure of the whole Church. We need to hear the survivors; we need the reconcilers and healers. In short we need to find again the values of integrity, honesty and justice in our Church. Whenever we lose sight of these things, we are in danger of seeing the Church itself disappear in the course of one or two generations. The writing is on the wall when we suddenly discover that men and women of competence and integrity no longer want to seek leadership roles in what has started to become a discredited institution. It is alarming that none of the Diocesan bishops is prepared to step forward and shoulder the responsibility of Lead Bishop for Safeguarding. They fear, as I tried to explain in the last blog post, being swallowed up by dishonesty and even corruption because they detect that integrity, honesty and justice no longer really matter in the Church of England.
I think the comments made about the ISB not having a visible presence are both unfair and unwarranted. If Independent Safeguarding Board Church of England is entered into a search engine it is the first item that appears. The site is very clear and easy to navigate with a proper contact form, not windows messenger which is unreliable. The site has drop down questions and answers and a clear pathway for reviews. The ISB is not a support group in the same sense as Safe Spaces and therefore has a different remit for its website. It’s not perfect but it’s far better than the NST site and promotion of the ISB can, at least in part, come from the survivors that are moaning that its presence is not visible but I don’t see it promoted on Survivor’s groups forums or survivor’s twitter pages.
As jasvinder Sanghera of the ISB stated when she took up the role no survivor or group will be treated with favour (good for her, a very welcome message) and she actively promotes that by not seeking out ‘followers and activists.’ Both ISB members have twitter pages and I have seen retweets and responses to survivors on them.
It sounds more as though the comments you are repeating are from survivors who are aggrieved because they are no longer the ‘go to’ people for giving their opinions!
Trish, for any organisation trying to “get themselves known”, when social media is so important, their Twitter profile is not exactly high. 38 tweets after 15 months in existence is hardly high profile. Their tweet promoting International Women’s Day has been seen…..27 times only. And where are the announcements or tweets about IICSA, PCR2 ? ISB has not used its voice ( though the post SCIE Audit statement is very strong). The ISB also had the issue of the……erm, unnoticed……porn on their Twitter account…..
The first three victim/survivor “drop ins” were cancelled, the first I know because not a single person registered to attend: no one knew they were happening. The NST Survivor Engagement Newsletter in February mentioned an ISB consultation in York on 29 March, but there has been silence from the ISB. No one knows what it is, no one has been told anything about it. And I actually have an email suggesting it has been cancelled anyway: perhaps because not a single person registered by the suggested 6 March ?
Yes, their website is not bad: however, for example, the link to SafeSpaces is hopelessly out of date. Splitz changed their name months ago, and a new service provider started in January. There is no point offering a signpost to the wrong organisation.
Don’t get me wrong: it is vital for all of us that the ISB is strong and uses its voice and influence. But at the moment, this just cannot be achieved with limited resources, part timers, and a Chair suspended for more than half the life of the ISB. And, while Synod ignore them, the Archbishops’ Council ties their hands, and they do not comment on some of the most important safeguarding events ( PCR2, IICSA, or how about Bishop Conway’s apology last week ?), then I am afraid they are not a “go to” place for this victim.
Graham summarises it well, Trish, and that is before we take up the point
( acknowledged by the ISB ) that constitutionally they are not yet suitably distanced from the very people they are supposed to be overseeing.
I do not think it is a good idea to try and divide survivors especially those who have put in such effort to bring us this far. “
“Divide and rule” is a an old tactic. Don’t assist it.
Thank you Graham, you have extended the conversation much further than I did in my comment and I certainly do not disagree that the ISB needs to be properly resourced and have complete independence. Indeed that is what the ISB want. My irritation with the comments made in the blog came because people seem to use public forums to ‘knock people’ without first bothering to engage with the people personally. Have you used the contact form (I got a response within 2 hours) to raise your concerns, to ask if they will update the Safe Spaces information or to ask if they could provide further information regarding the March meeting or to even ask if there is anyway you can help to raise their profile for the benefit of all? I strongly suspect you haven’t because I do not believe they would knowingly leave out of date information on the website.
Martin, I do somewhat object to you calling me out on dividing survivors when you advocated for the SRG at Synod. The SRG is a closed group of survivors who have long wanted the monopoly on safeguarding engagement to the detriment of other survivors. The group was not formed after a suggestion by Peter Hancock as the literature stated but from SCIE as can be seen in the MACSAS newsletter (Number 4 2018) and from Sheila Fish’s own testimony at IICSA. Not all survivors were invited to join the group, they were ‘cherry picked’ and some survivors were actively turned away. That group was/is divisive yet you have publicly supported it. It is the main reason I would not give SCIE the time of day.
And before you call me out further -yes- I have tried to engage with the group before putting this on a public forum.
Trish, I have engaged with them, and pointed out the out of date link to the ISB on 7 March. It remains unchanged. Splitz are still listed as the Safe Spaces provider.
I also asked the ISB direct about 29 March, and have had it confirmed that it is postponed. My initial comment was that no one knew about the York event, as it had appeared nowhere other than the Survivor Engagement Newsletter, and I was not aware of any direct invitation or information from the ISB. I have a (private) email confirming it is postponed. So, no proper announcement it was happening, or was postponed.
I have been in touch fairly regularly with the ISB in the last month or so, and I hope have made some constructive suggestions to them: Jasvinder thanked me for those. I would comment that emails sent on a Monday do not get a reply until the end of the week: reflecting their part time roles.
I have tried meeting the ISB. I was offered a Zoom but said that I preferred face to face ( are we so used to Zoom that the body language, emotion, connection in a room are lost ?). I was told, pretty bluntly, that other victims had only been offered Zoom, so that was all I could have. I persisted, and on 20 Jan received an email saying they would “do their best…..to facilitate a meeting in the South of England would be possible”. I have heard nothing since. I have tried.
Thank you Graham I do fully appreciate all our experiences are different. I have had a very positive experience of Jasvinder but recognise that you have had less success. As I am currently engaging with them, about something completely different, I will also ask if the Safe Spaces information can be updated to try and get some action for survivors needing signposting.
My understanding is that the meeting in March invited other stakeholders from professions relevant to offering advice on how to gain independence so there could be many reasons for its postponement but you sound as though you would have a valuable voice to offer when it does happen.
I do absolutely agree about zoom which I loathe and which is unsuitable for many survivors without internet, disabilities, in secure units etc so please keep plugging away at that.
I am sorry you feel let down by the ISB and have, for whatever reason, not had the same positive experience as me.
Take care
Trish, I have had issues over confidentiality with all three members, separately. My complaint against Maggie was upheld by the ICO. The other two both separately ccd emails to third parties without my permission. I have not got the energy/anger to complain further. It just shows a lack of understanding of how hyper sensitive anonymous, traumatised, victims can be.
I have in the past referred matters to the ISB, and got nowhere. That was really disappointing as we have nowhere to go, if things go wrong ( surely it should be to a well resourced, effective, independent oversight body ?). NSP, NST, Lambeth, the Lead Bishop have all been useless so, the obvious thing was to take it to the ISB. Got nowhere, and we know they do not really have the capacity to take on case work ( they were sacked from the Christ Church gig) and no one listens to them when they do say something ( Devamanikkam enquiry was sent to ISB in Nov 2021, they said “just get on and publish” in Feb 2022, over a year ago; and we know that no one initially even acknowledged, yet along commented, on Don’t Panic).
So, you said above “let down”. Well, don’t feel that strongly. It is just that I haven’t even got the starting block with them. My low expectations have been met !!
Trust me Graham I know what energy it all takes and I feel very sad that someone as courteous and articulate as you has had such a disappointing response from everyone. So have I, my first glimmer of hope was the ISB and I am doing that dreadful thing of having hope! Thank you for the reality check, I will try to keep my hope in check with it.
On another subject as you said you get the newsletter I assume you have the redress survey. If you haven’t looked at it Please Be Careful but if you have do you reckon there has been any ethical compliance testing done on it?
I would normally put the link on here but I think it’s completely unsafe and retraumatising. Have sent an email asking where the ethical compliance came from.
Would welcome your opinion.
Sorry Stephen going off topic!
Trish, I think we all had high expectations of the ISB: I tried to endow them with executive powers over Bishops which was unsuccessful cause of procedural manoeuvres on the floor of Synod ( resisted by ABC and ABY – in fairness). I would not have done that had I qualms about the integrity of members. The problem is that the more we asked the clearer it became that they lacked legal and functional independence to carry confidence. That is a constitutional problem for Synod and even the ISB has belatedly acknowledged the problem. These are complex multi layered problems: the ISB members have probably still not ascended the entire learning curve built by survivors like Gilo Janet Graham and others. I have said that at present even the Archangel Gabriel could not make CofE/ISB work in its present incarnation. Not even me ! It’s a functional problem not a personal one.
I agree with you Trish ; Jasvinder is great to work with and we are lucky to have her.
My engagements with ISB have been very comforting , instead of the usual, re-abusive; and i think they are the best thing to happen in CofE safeguarding bar none.
It upsets me when i hear them slagged off.
Thanks for that Christopher I appreciate your support it can feel a bit lonely actually being positive about something happening, or someone, in the church!
I always like to judge for myself not simply follow the crowd because after all following the crowd is what got the church of England into this mess in the first place!
I think the real problems lie at a much higher level. In my humble opinion, in this and some other matters, the Church of England appears to wish to operate a parallel system of justice and jurisprudence to the secular world, and to avoid the involvement of the secular authorities in Church affairs other than when it is faced with no choice. Church structures seem to be designed to keep it that way. This is a twisting of Episcopal governance – our Bishops are theologically trained and are the guardians of the True Faith and Orthodox Teaching. This does not make them competent in other fields. We have, as a nation, correctly trained and appointed people, taxpayer-funded, to deal with matters which fall under the umbrella term “safeguarding”. Where conduct which, if true, would be criminal, is alleged the correct authority is The Police. Where non-criminal “risk of harm” is suspected, the correct authority is the Local Authority department of Social Services. Where it is suspected that an individual is “high risk” and perhaps should have their behaviour circumscribed and regulated, the correct authority is the Disclosure and Barring Service, who can impose restrictions on what named individual are, and are not, allowed to do. These bodies are entirely separate from The Church and offer complete independence and impartiality. The Church should use them – always – and not get involved in determining guilt, innocence or risk but, rather, concentrate on its mission of love and support to all persons caught up in these ghastly situations. To work in this way would serve the interests both of survivors and of anyone who finds themselves in the firing-line of false, malicious or exaggerated allegations. It would protect the survivor from their allegations being “covered up” to preserve the reputation of The Church. It would protect The Church from any allegation of “cover-up” because covering-up would not be possible. It would protect the person on the receiving end of any allegation, because most sensible people would not give incorrect evidence to the secular authorities and would find themselves in serious trouble if they did; furthermore any possible careerist motivations of church safeguarding personnel would be eliminated. Just as it is wrong for the Church to conceal possible wrongdoing from the secular authorities so is it equally unjust, in my humble opinion, for The Church to hold up holy hands and, by its behaviour, set itself aside as having “higher standards”. “This person has no criminal record, has never been charged or even arrested, is not on any DBS barred list and not known as any form of abuser to Social Services. Nevertheless, without giving reason, we regard them as high risk and do not want them amongst us unless their behaviour and personal interactions are circumscribed” is a sentiment that should have no place in a Christian organisation. We live in a secular democracy, not an Anglican (or any other) theocracy.
Indeed, but the Church’s justification is that it has operated just such a parallel system of jurisprudence since Christianity was first adopted as the ‘official’ creed by Anglo-Saxon kings. Its legal separateness has been defended very forcefully, even where it amounted to a scandalous abuse of justice by any objective standard. Take the notion of ‘benefit of clergy’, which was used by those in orders (and also literate people) to evade the capital punishment which went with the commission of any felony. Becket was martyred over this issue. However, the separateness of the Church’s jurisdiction also corrupted the state: as a felony mandated a death sentence, benefit of clergy was a useful mechanism which could be applied by judges (who wanted to avoid the political scrutiny that went with death sentences) to impose punishments less extreme than the ‘ultimate sanction’ (see here for a new study on the subject of benefit of clergy and sanctuary: https://global.oup.com/academic/product/the-kings-felons-9780192887689?lang=en&cc=ir).
As in the middle ages, so too now. The retention of a separate jurisdiction by the Church permits the Church to do things which would not be acceptable in civil society, but it also debauches the civil system by allowing the secular authorities avoid getting too involved with all of the often disagreeable complexities of interfering in so-called religious matters (a task of increasing difficulty in the context of the Human Rights Act 1998 and the vast plethora of commentary and precedent which it has inspired). However, the ‘courts Christian’ were rendered largely moribund by the civil war, and have retained only a shadowy existence since they lost the bulk of their jurisdiction in 1858; this is a parallel jurisdiction which could quite easily be swept away with little harm (other than to tiny numbers of legal practitioners who profit from it) or trace.
To argue that anything should be so because it has historically been so raises absurd possibilities with which no-one should agree, such as the thought that a religious teacher who offends secular authority by his teaching and preaching should be nailed to a cross, or that schoolchildren should be subjected to extreme forms of corporal punishment because (due, possibly, to dyslexia) they are unable to produce written work of an acceptable standard – and so on, and so forth. Perhaps the best contemporary illustration is that of female genital mutilation which is, very rightly, an extremely serious criminal offence in the UK and most of the western world. It is no excuse to say that the practice is, and has been, the historical norm in the culture from which the perpetrator comes. We don’t allow it, it’s against the law, if you do it you go to gaol. End of. By the same token it is surely within the gift of our democratically elected government to pass legislation which says that neither The Church nor any other interest-group shall be permitted to engage in quasi-judicial processes which do not conform to appropriate standards, parallel to such secular provisions as the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, the Human Rights Act, the Public Interest Disclosure Act and so on and so forth. Most import of all, whilst there may be circumstances where “balance of probability” (as used by the DBS) is more appropriate than “beyond reasonable doubt” as an evidentiary standard, all such processes MUST begin from a presumption of innocence, but with full respect to any complainant , who must be taken very seriously. The level of skilled resource needed to investigate these matters thoroughly and at an appropriate level of detail must be absolutely enormous, and I do wonder if this, with associated cost, is not the true primary reason why matters seem too frequently not to receive the close and detailed attention they merit. Yet another reason for turning the whole business over to the secular professionals.
Many thanks. I agree completely. As per previous posts, I think that there should be a national agency, under the Home Office or MOJ, which supervises the safeguarding of all institutions (including religious institutions and public bodies) which have safeguarding responsibilities, not merely to children but also to vulnerable adults. It would be part funded by Treasury and part funded by a levy on those institutions. It would have powers of investigation, and it would have the power to issue fines or other sanctions (such as deprivation from office).
I was surprised that IICSA did not make such recommendations, and that it largely confined its proposals to the protection of children, when it is evident that there are other categories of vulnerable people which are no less in need of protection. The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO), for example, provides a template for how such a body might function. There could be a risk of ‘regulatory capture’, but it would be far less vulnerable than the ISB, and the diffused sources of funding (and the disparate nature of the institutions being supervised) would make capture less likely.
I find the Church’s claims, and its attempts to wriggle free of genuinely independent oversight, like a greased piglet, absurd and discreditable.
Your first paragraph would be achieved by appending the requisite investigatory powers to the existing functionality of the Disclosure and Barring Service, with appropriate resource, under the provision that any person who is dissatisfied with the outturn of any internal process of The Church (or any other interest-group organisation) may require a full investigation to be done, from square one, by that body. The interest-group would then be bound by the results of that investigation, which would have force of law. At present the interest-group is only bound to exclude a person from “regulated activity” if they find themselves on a barred list. The reverse needs also to be the case – a person whose case has been investigated by the investigatory arm of the DBS and found NOT to require placement on a barred list should be legally entitled to resume regulated activity without any circumscription of behaviour, as if the complaint had never been made. It’s a very similar concept to something an Employment Tribunal CAN do, which is to order re-instatement. Employment Tribunals do this rarely, but it does happen. Whilst it is (I suspect) true that most allegations have foundation in fact, “most” is not the same as “all”. Such things as malicious allegations do exist, and it is very important that there be proper machinery to deal with that. This is not only for the protection of the accused person, vitally important as that is, but it is actually necessary for the safeguarding of vulnerable people. If we allow even for the possibility of the “weaponising” of safeguarding “issues” to discomfort persons who have made themselves unpopular with authority for non-safeguarding reasons (I take that term from commentary on the Christ Church situation) then we run the risk of throwing “chaff” into the mix, distracting the necessarily finite resource from the vital task of processing safeguarding situations which are real and live and present an ongoing risk of significant harm to vulnerable individuals.
The above would place a burden on the DBS which, hitherto, it has been unwilling to shoulder – specifically that it would have to go further than barring or not-barring, and state – and take responsibility for stating – that such-and-such a person does not present any abnormal risk and must be treated on par with any other person who has never been the subject of an allegation. That is a big responsibility indeed, but these are the professionals, trained and salaried at public expense, and it should not be beyond them if equipped with investigatory powers and resource. After all, resource-hungry as the process would be, only a very limited number of “cases” would get to that stage, because people who were “guilty” and knew themselves so, would not appeal. A DBS investigation could, of course, uncover “worse” evidence against an accused person and result in a Police referral and subsequent conviction and prison sentence which otherwise may…
You can’t spend 10 grand on a website and hope that this somehow this will provide all the services your clients/customers/followers etc will need. People need and expect good quick and satisfying interaction. If they don’t get it, generally they’ll tell everyone else too.
There’s a whole (not-so-new) economy in the secular world populated by people with job titles we may not understand, but cannot ignore. It costs a great deal of money/investment and can’t be overlooked if you want to succeed in whatever it is you are trying to do.
If the Church wants something like ISB to succeed, it will cost them. If.
Well, it sure has hell has cost money. The answer to a Synod Question in Feb 23 revealed the ISB had cost £89,000 in 2021, £472,000 in 2022, with a budget of £465,000 for 2023. So, £1m by end of this year. To date, we have a body with no constitution, no independence, shared services with NST, no independent Information Sharing Agreement, no communications, a crap website, a Chair suspended for over half the life of the ISB, no invitation to Synod, and a remarkable invisibility.
So, Steve, it ain’t ten grand that has been spent…..
For £1m you might expect reacting to IICSA, or PCR2. You might expect that Synod and Archbishops’ Council would be asking if they are getting value for money. Victims of church based abuse, seeing £15 committed to heating churches, £40m on Welby’s vanity Lambeth Library, £100m on a slavery fund, yet also seeing the National Redress Scheme pushed back to 2024/25 might ask whether the CofE has got its priorities right.
Don’t get me wrong: I have been screaming for independent oversight for years. I wish the ISB was all it should be: competent, strong, independent, holding the CofE to account. it is NOT any of those things yet, and that has to be disappointing £1m into the Board’s life…..
So Maggie Atkinson has resigned as chair of the ISB and has been ‘temporarily’ replaced by Meg Munn. Now that really is something to complain about. Munn who is as wet, uninspiring and unindependent as they come!
Perhaps the Archbishops Council deliberately put her there to slow things down in the ISB.
Considering that a truly independent safeguarding body would undoubtedly wish to scrutinise and comment on, actions of the NST among others, appointing the chair of the NST to chair the ISB is a clear, unambiguous and undeniable declaration that the ISB is not, and cannot be, truly independent.
Sorry, for “Team” read “Panel”. The conclusion is the same …