This blog piece and the title that is given to it, is one that I would rather not have to write, The reason I am writing it will become, clear to the reader as I set out a series of events and correspondence that began on January 16th 2024. The Open Letter from Martin Sewell and others to the two archbishops who chair the Archbishops’ Council (AC) concerned the sudden, some would say shocking, termination of the Independent Safeguarding Board (ISB) in November of last year. The issue with the closure was not just the event itself, but also the brutal insensitivity and apparent absence of any trauma awareness with which it was done.
Sewell’s Open Letter to the Archbishops began with a call for the immediate suspension of the Secretary General of the C/E, William Nye. This was to enable his conduct and responsibility for the disastrous ISB episode to be properly investigated. By his actions and negligence in this affair, Nye had forfeited the position of trust placed on him by General Synod. ‘The misconduct that we identify hereunder has resulted in the complete forfeiture of trust in him and in the institution which he serves across the survivor community and beyond’.
The recent Wilkinson Report has identified many failures in the way the ISB closure had been mishandled but Sewell’s letter focuses on one particular issue of great importance to the survivor community. Specific expert advice had been given to the AC, and to Nye as its CEO, by Steve Reeves of the ISB about the risks involved in leaving vulnerable individuals without proper support. This had to be in place when they were informed of the drastic decision to close the ISB. Any professional opinion would have concurred with the view that a sudden closure was a risky, potentially disastrous, action. In short, to quote Sewell’s letter, ‘(Nye) chose to prioritise his perception of the interests of the AC and/or General Synod over the needs of the Church’s survivors.’ Further ‘he owed a duty of care, both personally and as an institutional leader across multiple iterations of safeguarding within the CofE.’
The next section of the letter spells out some of the clinical observations of Professor Glasgow which we looked at in an earlier blog. The clinical analyses he had made backed up all that Steve Reeves had indicated in the advice he had earlier given to the AC. By rejecting this advice, the Secretary General had caused serious harm to some of those who had come to depend on the ISB, for the sustaining support they needed to keep them at a minimum level of psychological well-being. Taking away such support with no notice or any replacement available was experienced as an act causing ‘significant harm’. Such harm needed to be responded to, and anyone responsible for causing such serious damage to individuals should face suspension. This would enable the whole episode to be investigated by independent individuals who had no connection with the governing structures of the C/E.
The reply that Martin Sewell has received was sent on Tuesday 6th February, some three weeks after his original letter to the two archbishops and members of the AC. It bears the signature of Carl Hughes, the Chair of the Finance Committee of the AC. It has all the hallmarks of a letter written by several hands. It is not hard to see the language of both lawyers and the publicity professionals employed by the Church. The letter predictably contains expressions of ‘regret’ and ‘learning lessons’, but there is absolutely nothing to persuade the independent reader (me) that anybody involved in the letter has any real understanding of the trauma and pain that survivors, such as those at the heart of the ISB episode, carry every day of their lives.
The kernel of Carl Hughes’ letter was to reject Martin Sewell’s request for the immediate suspension of the Secretary General, William Nye. The reason given was that an opinion given by a specialist employment law solicitor declared that there were no grounds for this suspension. We need to pause for a moment to consider the implications of this statement. A senior (and well-paid) employee is accused of reckless and highly damaging behaviour but there are no grounds for suspending him, even when the accusation involves serious ethical lapses as well as raising concerns of apparent administrative incompetence. Does employment law protect the Secretary General in every circumstance? Does Nye’s status at the very top of the Anglican pinnacle of power mean that he cannot be challenged, let alone suspended for what is arguably a serious failure of professional competence and judgement? The misdemeanours that Sewell wants investigated are not only serious administrative failings but severe breaches of Christian principles. Hughes’ letter does not engage with any discussion of whether Nye’s actions created harm; he simply appeals to employment law and what is legally possible. In noting the absence of any apparent attempt to show the AC as being a place of compassion and kindness, we catch a strong sense of an organisation where the chill winds of pragmatic managerialism blow strong. I would not feel comfortable working for an organisation that could not discuss and resolve issues which should be rooted in Christian morality. Did the AC in their deliberations about the ISB really fail to realise that their response to problems there needed to engage with realities beyond the realm of legality and contracts?
The previous paragraph is a personal response to Carl Hughes’ words which were written in reply to Martin Sewell’s demand for the suspension of William Nye. Sewell’s own response, sent on Thursday 8th February , contained much more in the way of legal rhetoric and style of argument. At one point he accuses the Hughes’ letter of containing a claim that is ‘quite plainly untrue’. This concerns the status of a law firm working for the AC, Farrer and Co. Sewell notes that this is the same firm that was suggested for the ISB in the dispute with the AC. There was an attempt to force the ISB members to use this firm even though the firm was already much involved in AC business and thus would not have been able to act in the best interests of the ISB whenever they conflicted with the interests of the AC.
What struck me as an important point In Sewell’s four-page response to Carl Hughes letter is his discovery that the Church of England has placed legal obstructions on anyone ever investigating the Secretary General. When Sewell asked for a copy of the NCI (National Church institutions) code of conduct for their employees, he was told that the policy is not a public document. It is not clear to me whether the terms “code” and “policy” are interchangeable; perhaps one cannot have a code without a policy, but whether one has followed the other we cannot be sure because the head of HR at Church House advised that this is a private document. Survivors have from time to time been told that the terms of their complaints do not fit within the terms of internal policies, yet if those policies and procedures are not publicly available, how can they complain and be sure that they are receiving justice, and how can a church that constantly issues platitudinous statements about “transparency and accountability” justify secrecy in such areas. Employment law is deeply dependent on contract documents and procedural compliance. When these are kept hidden, it is hard to see how justice can be done or be seen to be done.
Secrecy will always be an enemy of transparency and it is hard to see the Church easily achieving such transparency and thus obtaining the trust of the English people. Once again, we express the hope that Alexis Jay has found a way to cut through the brambles of obstruction and impediment to help us to become a body that flourishes in the light and can be trusted to tell the truth. Lying is an attempt to abuse power. It belongs to a different arena of human activity to sexual violence, but both are abuses of power which sadly are found too frequently in our national Church.
Donald Trump has boasted that he could walk down 5th Avenue in NYC and shoot someone dead in broad daylight, and nothing would ever happen to him.
William Nye can lie to IICSA, cover up meetings that stitch up victims and people who dare to cross him, pursue victims seeking some redress in court for costs, lie and lie repeatedly to General Synod, manipulate Synod’s agenda, use the LamPal and CHW lawyers to cover his tracks, and set the vicious dogs from Comms on to anyone, pull the wool over the eyes of Archbishops’ Council, and otherwise run the CofE as though it was some racket controlled by a mobster. He lies to Parliament, Charity Commission and to any ‘inquiry’.
He’s protected by both Archbishops. Or perhaps he protects them? Carl Hughes, for the Archbishops’ Council, won’t even investigate Nye. The entire stinking pile of all this corruption hides in plain sight, because it doesn’t occur to anyone just how utterly and totally corrupt this can be. Because Carl will ring up the best friends of Nye, London’s most expensive lawyers, and buy an opinion from them that gives Nye immunity.
Folks, all of this is being done with charitable funds, and collection plates coming from hard-pressed parishes. If you want change, stop contributing to this corruption. Stop giving money to Nye, Hughes and the lawyers who, for all we know, have Nye and others on a monthly retainer. We cannot know if this is NOT true, because Nye and the Archbishops’ Council consistently block NCI officers and Archbishops’ Council having a Conflicts of Interest Policy, or a Register of Interests. They might all be Freemasons too. But as Nye makes sure everything is secret, we cannot know.
It’s quite sobering that Donald Trump can be called to account and even go to court to answer charges in the USA. But this isn’t possible with William Nye in England, who enjoys full and total immunity, courtesy of the Archbishops’ Council. What a way to run a Christian Charity. Tons of charitable money spent protecting Nye. Are we all happy with that? I’m not. The Archbishops’ Council is morally bankrupt.
The Charity Commission and Parliament needs to intervene. And there is a growing list of corrupt officials and trustees who need to resign. What a disgrace.
The Post Office scandal started to hold people to account through a funded court case. Are there legal grounds to take corrupt officers to court if all other means of attempting to deal with the problem within the church have been found wanting?
“how can a church that constantly issues platitudinous statements about “transparency and accountability” justify secrecy in such areas”
“Secrecy…is the control of appearance, and authoritarian rulers care greatly about the look of things. Secrecy can have a theatrical aspect, the “spectacle of secrecy”…the formidable appearance of authority is also part of its essence…Theatre rests on illusion, and the maintenance of illusions in the Soviet theatre relied on keeping the spectators away from the back of the stage…Extreme secrecy gave the Soviet state the appearance of decisiveness, national purpose, a monolithic will, and an unrivalled ability to command the unanimous consent of the people. But the appearance was a facade, designed to deceive…behind the facade lay wall-to-wall bureaucracy, high decision costs (and sometimes gridlock), abuse of power for private purposes, the misallocation of talent, contagious mistrust, and a misinformed leadership [NB, despite being the heir apparent-but-one by 1983-84, Gorbachev did not have details of the overall budget, never mind defence spending, and Andropov would not let him have it]. The outcome was a state that was less capable and more fragile than anyone, insider or outsider, could imagine at the time…The mystique of authoritarian regimes arises from concealment of their inner workings. Like the proverbial sausage, they “cease to inspire respect in proportion as we know how they are made”…Secrecy conceals weaknesses as well as strengths. It seems designed to hide clues, but it may also hide cluelessness. When we strip the secrecy away, we find that the true capacity of [the USSR] was much less than appeared on the surface.” (https://www.sup.org/books/title/?id=34155, at 254-55: Mark Harrison, FBA, is one of the leading scholars of the inner functioning of the Soviet state)
Of course, no one can accuse the Church of England of having an “appearance of decisiveness, purpose, a monolithic will, and an unrivalled ability to command unanimous consent”, but as an episcopal church it is, to a large extent authoritarian, despite the overlay of co-opted deliberative bodies (which are themselves more Sovietical than democratic). Therefore, to forestall an even greater decline in the prestige of the episcopate, much of the internal workings of the Church remains secret. Mr Nye’s alleged behaviour is all of a piece with this: his supposedly furtive dealings are intended by him and his colleagues to protect the leadership from the full force of external criticism (which could be still greater than it is already if all the facts become known). This is to protect some leaders from others, and perhaps also to reduce the costs of factional infighting. That these stratagems may have effects which are the reverse of those intended should be of little surprise, but it does not mean that these strategies will not be attempted if it is felt that the alternatives are even worse.
Reading the blog and the comments from Anon and Froghole I cannot see how this case can be further ignored and yet I think there will be a continued attempt to cover up the actions of the AC and William Nye.
Please note my use of the word ‘attempt’. My fervent hope is that this appalling un- Christian situation, causing deliberate distress to so many traumatised people, will be noted by the media and challenged. Only by such publicity will the average church going congregations realise what is happening in their Church. The media have a moral responsibility to make public this reality of corrupt and destructive behaviour causing harm to so many, public knowledge.
The people who can then bring about honesty, integrity and Christianity as Christ taught us and not as William Nye would have it, are the members of Synod. This is their opportunity to bring about change, and Synod meets in two weeks. The members are in a position to insist on a full debate on safeguarding. I say ‘full’ because in previous Synods such debates have been curtailed, one leading to the immediate resignation of Gavin Drake.
When he walked out Martin Sewell said, “Significant integrity just left the building”.
He went on to say “We are in crisis – not a safeguarding crisis but an absence of integrity crisis”.
Synod members you are in a strong position of moral responsibility. In two weeks time you alone, each one of you individually, will be responsible for bringing back integrity to the chamber of debate at Synod. We all appeal to you to take positive action for justice and truth and not submit meekly to William Nye’s power over the two Archbishops and their council.
After all, if the safeguarding debate is cut short again, you too can walk out; then significant integrity really will have left the building!
Indeed. However, I would add a corollary to the point I made. In 1985-87 Gorbachev initiated perestroika and glasnost with the tentative approval of the politburo, which still included a great many conservatives appointed under Brezhnev (though Gorbachev had effected an almost complete clear-out of these by 1987, although a few conservatives whom he himself had appointed, such, as Ligachev, were retained). A few years’ ago the historian Chris Miller asked why it was that such a revolutionary policy received endorsement from many of those who stood to lose by it? It was because vast quantities of the USSR’s resources were being consumed by three sectors which were highly embedded within the economy and bureaucracy: (i) the military-industrial complex; (ii) the agro-industrial complex; and (iii) the resource extraction complex. All of these sectors consumed vast resources, were highly cossetted, and their interests militated against the welfare of the wider economy, which was in an advanced state of stagnation. Almost no one – perhaps as few as three or five people – knew exactly how much they consumed. Gorbachev was unable to break the power of these interests via private bureaucratic manoeuvring, despite being general secretary. So he and his politburo colleagues had to make a bid for transparency (and, therefore, for the reallocation of resources away from these predatory sectors) to the general public. That was why the CPSU moved in the direction of qualified democracy by 1988. Of course it all fell apart, and the three bureaucratic complexes reformed and retained much of their power after 1991: https://uncpress.org/book/9781469630175/the-struggle-to-save-the-soviet-economy/
Secret states are secret in part because they enable vested interests to pursue their own agendas without being exposed to the criticism which they would otherwise receive were their stratagems to be made public. The Church is riddled with vested interests and factional infighting. Naturally, the factions are well known, but most importantly, what is less evident is the extent to which financial resources are distributed as part of that infighting. This is one reason why secrecy and the lack of accountability are essential. In the period between 1988 and 1991 the authority of the CPSU disintegrated, and there was a scramble by vested interests to retain resources: many of the present oligarchs are the beneficiaries of that scramble. It is possible that secrecy is being preserved within the Church in order to forestall a like scramble were the authority of the central bodies and episcopate to disintegrate under the glare of accountability and exposure. I daresay that many senior Church officials and bishops reason that injustice to abuse victims is a price well worth paying to prevent such disintegration.
It’s much more difficult when your job depends on maintaining allegiance to the corrupt state, to say or do anything about it. If your housing and pension are at stake, and the financial security of your dependents, how are you supposed to speak up?
This is currently how the Church is propped up and sustained. It may well be argued that stipendiary clergy don’t have much in the way of pecuniary advantage (dosh) but the alternative is what? Become a Baptist or join one of the hundreds of other denominations with no or less pay and a less generous pension scheme? If they’ll have you?
This kind of seismic move is impossible for most people. So how do they live with the rising chorus of dissonance in and around them?
Stop listening. It’s surprisingly easy only to listen to data supporting your own world view. Switch off social media. Only read “Christian” books. Surround yourself with adoring congregants. There’s usually a ready of source of people anxious for the esteem of proximity to a church leader. Avoid the others. Forget things that are uncomfortable to hear. Re-frame ignoring episcopal sin as a generous way of forgiveness.
Those you lead will happily do the same.
Against this background the inner workings of the very top are more understandable. All they have to do is pretend to their workforce that hardly anything is wrong, and that nothing will change for individuals within it, so long as they go along with this “line”. Job done.
Indeed, Steve, this is very true – probably the most perceptive comment in the thread so far.
We’re encouraged to have very high standards of integrity – until reality kicks in. Then the church becomes as adept at hiding its crimes as any other secular organisation. Isn’t this ‘corporate sin’ as the theologians call it – the simple fact that all of us are sinful by nature, and any social structure which humanity may build is going to have that sin built into it?
Indeed, it all boils down to this one simple fact. In the world but not of it isn’t that easy to practice – you can withdraw altogether into some kind of commune, which will still be tainted by our sin, but if you do, how do you become a light to the world? We can aim for high standards, but all know we will fail to keep them.
We can’t escape from it.
It seems to me that we’re possibly seeing the CofE shaking itself to pieces in a similar manner to some past governments which had lost their way and run out of ideas. Its the nature of all organisms to reach a particular point, then decline and eventually collapse and die. The sense of denial which apparently prevails in the ‘brass’ at present has a familiar feel to it, but we will have to wait and see. For a lot of us, the trust has gone. We remain loyal to our own congregation, perhaps, but confidence in the organisation seems to be a very low level. And when God moves in judgement, the scriptures teach us, he begins in his own house.
Lack of integrity and accountability flows down to parish level also. For months I’ve been futilely raising a concern about a PCC treasurer who hasn’t filed accounts to the Charity Commission for nearly two years. The Diocesan Secretary doesn’t respond to my emails. The vicar doesn’t respond either. Each time I raise a complaint with the CC, I get the same stock response – ‘the Charity Commission will allow the trustees sufficient time to implement or act on our advice’. I wrongly thought the trustees had obligations. As the Cof E leadership is so rotten, it also seems futile to get accountability at a local level, also rotten. Like others, I’ve ceased giving to C of E and support social projects instead.
Has it occurred to readers that this kind of obstructionism and mutual shielding is very reminiscent of organisations infested by Freemasons. In the 1980’s Sir Robert Mark rooted it out of the Metropolitan Police.
In 1987 the General Synod held that Freemasonry was not compatible with being a Christian, yet the Church of England has remained silent since then.
Why are not Bishops and senior admin staff not required to sign a declaration that they are not and never have been Freemasons as a condition of appointment ?
The bretheren look after one another very effectively.
To spot the possible Mason, look for clerics and laity who seem to skate effortlessly over every kind of scandal as if clad in Kevlar and Teflon.
Maybe it is time after 35 years, since apparently the Church want to shelve PLF and also now apparently low-cost weddings, that Synod looked at the 1987 report again and this time did something about it.
Then we can play Spot The Mason as we see who tries to obstruct it.
I was a spectator at the 1987 General Synod Freemasonry presentation. My recall may be faulty, but I think it was only a ‘take note’ motion that was passed, rather than GS voting that Freemasonry is incompatible with being a Christian.
The C of E has a real problem with Freemasonry – bishops, archdeacons, diocesan secretaries, heads of diocesan committees – and I suspect well-placed Masons would see to it that GS doesn’t tackle the subject in any meaningful way.
I remember Janet during my years as a Monk at Roslin, I went one evening in May 1989 to watch a debate in the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland where Freemasonry was discussed in the Light of a Report of the then Panel of Doctrine and Worship and the General Assembly decided by a majority that it was not compatible with the Christian Faith and that Ministers and Elders had to tp consider their involvement with the Craft in the Light of the Report. One Minister who was a Commissioner of the Assembly the Revd Malcolm Ritchie in addressing the Assembly said that many people taking Masonic oaths did not fully realise the implications of the Oaths they were taking, but Jesus could free people from the Bondage of these Oaths” The then Convenor of the Panel of Doctrine and Worship which brought the Report on Freemasonry the Revd Dr Douglas Murray, said that “the Problem was not that Freemasons do not have a Theology, they do have a Theology, that is the problem” May Ministers reported at this Assembly the Stranglehold Freemasons had on the Mission of the Church at Parish Level, when a Minister wanted to introduce new Mission inniatives for bringing new people into the Church, and the way Elders on the Local Kirk Session who were Masons (the equivelent to the Anglican PCC) would frustrate these efforts and Prevent them being adopted as Mission strategy. I seem to remember that Bishop Lord Williams when he was Archbishop of Wales and Bishop of Monmouth would not Ordain nor license any one who was involved in Freemasonry and as Archbishop of Canterbury, he had to call in a Priest he was about to Consecrate at Southwark Cathedral as Bishop Of Ebbsfleet and make it clear to him he would not consecrate him, unless he left the Masons, so the Bishop concerned did leave the Freemasons prior to his Consecration. In My Church, in the Orthodox Churches of the East, in the Baptist Churches and in the Salvation Army, members are forbidden to be Freemasons. It certainly has a corrosive and distructive Power in the life of the Church and I personally believe it is of the Devil himself. Jonathan
Thank you to Anon for floating the idea that there might be a Masonic influence in the Church of England. If so, it is yet another possible indication of a potential abusive influence of some clergy.
I should like to thank Jonathan Jamal for his clear explanation of the history of Freemasonary and its destructive influence within the Church which I now understand fully.
Kenneth, (whom I support in his false safeguarding issues) has been a member of his Cathedral for more than sixty years and said he was not surprised at a possible Freemasonary influence within the church. He went on to tell me that about sixty years or so ago a Bishop of the Diocese was openly a Freemason and held a service in the cathedral for the masons. A large number attended all wearing their regalia and with their various emblems (I do not know the correct term for these).
He said that as far as knows he is not aware of any Masons at the Cathedral now. But then he wouldn’t would he? They are such a closed secretive cult they are hardly likely to advertise themselves even though a few years ago they were advised by their leaders to admit to their membership in the Freemasons.
I am not sure what possible use can be made of this information or how such an influence, if there is one, can be rooted out. Janet’s reference to a possible influence in GS is spine chilling.
A former Bishop of Chester attended Masonic events, and a Manchester suffragan bishop in an ordination sermon compared priesthood with Freemasonry. Years ago there used to be a clergy Lodge in Chichester diocese: maybe there still is. It isn’t uncommon to find stained glass windows and tombs in churches bearing references to the person memorialised being a Mason.
There’s bound to be suspicion that jobs and contracts are preferentially awarded to Masons.
Adding to your comment Janet, I have just been told by a friend that there is an altar in Sheffield Cathedral (near where we live), put there by the Masons.
And I thought my comment would be shocking news………..!!
Also posted on Thinking Anglicans:
This may sound like a silly question, but if I were to write to, say, Andrew Selous MP (Second Estate Church Commissioner) and my local MP about this, what should I be asking? I don’t want to simply get the response that it’s internal CofE procedure. Is it worth writing to e.g. Chris Bryant too?
Apologies, I’m not used to writing campaigning letters to politicians.
A very pertinent question! Others will have more to say, but IMHO a good start would be to point out that William Nye ignored professional advice (Wilkinson Report) causing “significant harm” to survivors (Glasgow Report) yet neither he nor ABC under whose authority (especially trustees) he should be acting are being held to account. What will parliament do to ensure that the established church headed by HM is accountable when it poses a serious safeguarding risk? Are parliament content that the church appears to be as damaging and as unaccountable as the Post Office?
As a very simple comment, Jesus said that that which was whispered in secret, in the inner room, would be shouted from the housetops.’
Froghole’s analogy with communism could have gone one stage further; their lies, denials and coverups availed them nothing when, in the 1990s it all came tumbling down, having collapsed through its own disastrous inertia. (Unfortunately, it didn’t stay dead, as we see now).
Welby is doing his level best, it seems to me, to hold a sandcastle together, to stop it from crumbling under the incoming tide. How much longer he can do so is well open to question – particularly as the evangelical wing, those who present themselves as the champions of morality, clearly have a lot to hide over Iwern and related issues.
Many years ago, as a student, I was told ‘we never wash the church’s dirty linen in public.’ No – as we can see, that simply means it never gets washed at all!
“Archbishop” Nye is a politician from the notorious Cabinet Office and holds tenure on secular terms regardless of codes of conduct. As a non believer he is not a lay employee. Rowan Williams was a rare exemplar of belief who caught others unawares long enough to delay some ills. I have yet to come across any account of why Parliament was induced into foisting the ABC onto the AB’s. Was it the ABs’ idea, was it the politicians’ idea, was it their joint idea, what was the goal and purpose of the idea, both stated and real?
Michael, I’m not sure what you mean by ABC here? It doesn’t seem to mean Archbishop of Canterbury (which is what the abbreviation often means)?
Apologies, I think I meant AC. Apparently the AC was set up to “assist” archbishops, but didn’t they have staff? And wasn’t there a Synod? Is there a theological basis? Why did politics impose this? Has its functioning been this harmful all along or only in the last few years? I’m trying to dig into the rationale.
(My own main brushes with the C of E have been at two parishes which were total chaos, and a bishop who did remarkably well on a narrow remit. I have been appalled to read about the plundering of parish wealth. I have confidence in said bishop but not in the lack of theology everywhere now.)
This is the official C of E website page for the Archbishops’ Council:
https://www.churchofengland.org/about/leadership-and-governance/archbishops-council
I don’t think that Parliament had, or has, any input: it is an entirely internal Church body. As well as its objectives, if you scroll down you will find details of both the present Council members, how they are appointed, and staff.
I meant rationale. I see from Wikipedia which I should have looked up earlier (apologies) that it stems from among Bp Turnbull’s efforts (the regional government enthusiast).
I believe that I read somewhere else (I can’t remember where) that an Act of Parliament was involved.
The piece you cite doesn’t explain who appoints the staff, why or how.
You are correct that the Archbishops’ Council was set up by legislation – a C of E Measure – The National Institutions Measure, 1998:
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukcm/1998/1/contents
I’m not privy to any C of E internal workings. Schedule 1 goes some way in answering your questions about staff: see Part II, paragraph 16.
The chosen phrase “The Council shall appoint a chief executive, to be known as “the Secretary General”, and may appoint such other officers as it may determine” goes about a millimetre “towards” answering my question about these typical time bombs that misshape our spiritual, social and national life.
Would anybody the likes of Ms Ozanne (if they had a seat at the time) have advocated for one such as Mr Nye for example? Would they have felt positively contented to rubber stamp him? Can such members subsequently seek an early move of him to an unrelated post?
Is “membership of the council” a useless cloak? Is it “not the done thing” to enquire about this?
Perhaps the answer to the question posed by Stephen can be found in today’s online Church Times. The article centres on the veracity of a statement made for members of the upcoming Synod which states that some survivors who had been awaiting a review when ISB members were sacked are now having their reviews progressed by Mr Kevin Compton. The group of survivors have issued a statement denying this assertion and questioning whether the false statement was made to appease Synod members. Readers will of course make up their own minds but I find a distinct lack of integrity in the issuing of statements about survivors which are at complete odds with what the survivors themselves say. As to accountability we can only wait and see. I for one will not be holding my breath.
Prof Jay’s report is now out, and she’s recommending the C of E fund a completely separate charity to deal with all its safeguarding. That charity would in turn be scrutinised by a second, smaller charity.
We’ll see if the C of E agrees to adopt Prof Jay’s recommendations – and (crucially) when.
I have to admit I did not believe this review would ever see the light of day: I’m glad to have been proved wrong on that!
Link here: https://futureofchurchsafeguarding.org.uk/report/
If I am honest I am a bit disappointed in the Jay report. I think the need for independence is a given but the over reliance on statutory definitions of vulnerability will leave many without a safety net. Spouses of abusive clergy would not necessarily be considered vulnerable, a history like Janet has told may not be viewed as a safeguarding concern unless the victim had other issues of vulnerability etc. For me that leaves a huge unplugged gap down which many people could fall. I am just left feeling a bit flat.
I can relate to that, Patricia. The Care Act definition of ‘vulnerable adult’ doesn’t adequately deal with the misuse of power by those in positions of trust, which can create vulnerability that would fall outside statutory definition, but could involve coercive control. It’s already hard enough to get this recognised.
I’m also disappointed that she wants to ditch the separate recognition of spiritual abuse, which some of us have worked so hard to get recognised.