by Stephen Parsons
Among all the stories of terrible abuse that have occurred within a church setting, there are a few which follow a different narrative, that of a false accusation. All abuse accusations need to be responded to professionally and well. But, when, as in some accounts, a false accusation has been made, the one accused turns out to be the actual victim. The implications for the health and well-being of the accused are life-long. Some of these stories, like that of Bishop Michael Perham, are in the public domain, while others, unknown, blight the lives of those accused while continuing to protest their innocence.
Any individual burdened with the accusation of committing a sexually abusive act is in a very difficult and sometimes impossible position. Sexual activity, abusive or not, is done in private and if an accused individual is unable to prove that he (normally he) was elsewhere when the attack was made, his protestations of innocence may be unheard. If a child is involved, many people assume that a child is incapable of telling a lie about such matters. Even though an allegation from a child should be taken extremely seriously and never trivialised, this does not take away the need for detailed and careful questioning. Assumptions of guilt should never be untested and unchallenged. Anyone who is accused of a crime should always have the opportunity to be properly heard and recover their reputation, if innocent
Any accusation that gets through an initial inquiry, one that may sometimes be based on amateur guesswork or homespun psychology, can still be the cause of enormous damage. Also, requiring a teacher, a priest or a bishop to ‘step-back’ for months, even years, while enquiries are made can be a time of extreme mental torture for the accused. I knew of a case of a head teacher at a special school who was accused by pupils of some kind of abuse. He had to go on paid leave while the accusation was assessed and rejected. The experience broke him, and he died from a sudden heart attack in his late fifties. Equally tragic was the story mentioned above, that of Bishop Perham. I knew him fairly well in his curate days near Croydon. This was before he started to move from one important job in the Church to another, ending up as Bishop of Gloucester. As a liturgist, Perham had a huge part in the creation of Common Worship and it was in the early 80s that we met at conferences for the study of liturgy. The accusations that surfaced during his time at Gloucester emerged from his time in Croydon. I have no doubt that protocols were correctly followed but there is something wrong with a process that takes many months to deliver a verdict. The accusations were withdrawn, and Perham was then allowed to return to Gloucester to receive proper farewells before retirement. These had been denied him while the accusations were being examined. Sadly, he was soon to develop terminal cancer, and he never lived to enjoy a long well-earned and productive retirement.
Having brought up two accounts of false accusation and the devastating damage they can cause, I want to raise the question of why anyone might choose to make such an accusation. The points that I bring up are not based on a single case, but long-term readers will recognise that some of the questions I ask could be appropriate to the ‘Kenneth’ case. My assessment of why his case has proved so difficult to resolve is first to point to the institutional refusal by the Church of England to allow any kind of independent appeal process which might challenge the amateur assumptions of a Core Group. Possibly his case might have been dealt with differently if he was a cleric, but the Kenneth’s lay status seems to have worked against him. Declaring him guilty by placing him in the ‘high-risk’ category has created damaging effects for him and the cathedral concerned. In addition, confidence in the safeguarding protocols has been undermined in his diocese, as I understand. There still seems to be no resolution in sight.
Having thought for some time about accusations of bullying and abuse and the motives for making them, I find myself in company with the vast majority in believing the bulk of such accusations to be true. But there will be exceptions, and a group has always to be open to the possibility of a false accusation being made. A child may normally be truthful, but the same child may be attention seeking. Many children know that one way to get attention is to say something outrageous. In the village where I served my first incumbency, the Headteacher routinely asked at assembly if there were any birthdays to be celebrated. One small boy from a poor family would raise his hand on every occasion so that he could be the centre of attention for a moment. It was sad to behold. Was a response every time to this cry for importance the right way forward or would it have been better to ignore his hand shooting up? Being the centre of attention is strong motive for behaviour, and what is true for children is also true for some adults.
In our attempt to make decisions about who is likely guilty and who innocent, people at the top of an organisation can call upon the expertise of people we refer to as professionals. A professional is someone who has received a relevant training in such things as law, psychology and sociology. Such book knowledge is backed up by proven experience and expertise. One of the problems about church safeguarding has always been the lack of a generally accepted path to professional accreditation. Who should occupy this space, able to lay claim to safeguarding professional expertise? My own reading into the subject suggests that anyone who claims to be expert in this area without continuous professional development over 5-10 years is probably engaged in an act of self-deception. Merely listing some of the disciplines that contribute to a proper understanding of safeguarding – law, criminology, psychoanalytic theory and practice together with sociological insights. – makes one aware of that there will be probably serious, even dangerous, gaps in the so-called professionalism on offer from a typical Diocesan safeguarding ‘expert’. A multi-discipline team might overcome some of these skill problems in cases like that of Kenneth, but we will quickly hear the cry that such expertise is expensive. Allowing contested cases to reach no conclusion is also expensive, both financially and in terms of reputation. Who knows how much damage is sustained by a cathedral, even the wider church, when such cases come into the public domain? The lack of competent professionalism operating, as in Kenneth’s case, results in reputation damaging consequences for institutions and leaders alike.
In writing about professionalism and the way that is sometimes absent in safeguarding cases, I am minded to suggest a few ideas about how we might begin to change the situation. Being ‘unprofessional’ implies one of a number of possible lapses in judgement and behaviour. It is clearly unprofessional to indulge in such things as bias, favouritism and partiality. Such things are routinely found in the school playground. All of us have memories of our own childhoods where we had to negotiate our way through fickle and unreliable relationships. The constant shifting of moods among children means that a child’s best friend one day can sometimes become overnight the worst enemy. One of the gifts of adulthood is the ability to enjoy relationships that have stability and are not subject to constant changes of mood. The adult human does not cease to be capable of some serious lapses of judgment, involving possible regression to childish responses to others. There is also the danger of groupthink and unacknowledged prejudices can still pervade the way we think. There are, we find, many ways that we can get caught up in primitive ways of thinking about other people. Primal feelings of dislike often seem to be fed by memories of childhood rivalries; we may also be guilty of lapsing into child-like attention-seeking behaviour. In this way a non-professional group (PCC?) will also often be full of primitive dynamics. A chairperson of a committee or Core Group may need to be constantly reminding the individual members not to get swayed by such things as the memory of a school bully who resembles candidate B at the interview. Rising above subjectivity is something to ask of everyone in a quasi-judicial role, whether deciding on a candidate for class teacher at one’s local school or forming an opinion of someone accused of a sexual offence.
When the Church judicial processes get things wrong, the follow-on damage is appalling. When a Bishop can survive the credible claim that he told, without evidence, a female abuse survivor that she was victim of a false memory, many of us feel deep shame for even being associated with an organisation that can incubate such distorted thinking. The persecution of Fr Griffin is still recent enough to be a malignant wound in the Church of England. Where was the professional competence able to get the bottom of the rumours and leave an elderly priest in peace?
Safeguarding in the Church will continue to focus on the protection of the vulnerable. At the same time, the Church must learn to offer protection to the small number of individuals who fall into the category of falsely accused. When such accusations are made, we must not allow untrained individuals to have the final word. These beliefs may be mere prejudice, based on encounters many years before. If we do decide on the guilt of another, there must be the opportunity for an independent third party to review the case. Millions have been spent on safeguarding in the Church of England. The case for spending a small proportion of this money on the protection of the falsely accused would seem in order. They are victims too.
I believe that a person wrongly accused of sexual abuse is indeed a victim. Genuine victims of abuse know how hard it can be to prove their case. It seems from what is in the public domain that if a priest is an abuser he is likely to get away with it and may even be publicly praised for being a “rolls royce” priest. The same attitude has not been extended to Kenneth although it has never been shown that he is an abuser. I assume this is because he is not ordained. I understand further that details which would help exonerate Kenneth have not been divulged. I don’t think I am being cynical in thinking that they would have been divulged if they could show Kenneth to be guilty, but that probably the reverse is the case. It appears that senior clergy dig in their heels after deciding someone merits their protection, even if known to be guilty. In Kenneth’s case they seem to have dug in their heels without ever going through a transparent, just and fair process. To my mind there is only one reason not to be transparent, and that is so that details and processes which are not just and fair can continue without scrutiny. That is why our justice system is open to public scrutiny, in order to provide as fair and just a system as is possible. This has been denied Kenneth. Had Kenneth been tried through our courts credible evidence would have had to been produced otherwise he would be found not guilty and his reputation remain untainted. The Church scandalously continues in its safeguarding failures failing to protect legitimate complainants and those things unjustly accused alike. It should not be allowed to pursue legal and quasi legal processes which are contrary to our justice system. We found out what happened when the Post Office did so. Innocent postmasters were declared guilty when there was no credible evidence to prove they had committed an offence and even when it was known that evidence of existed to disprove the case against them. It seems that Kenneth has been placed in the same position and is unjustly suffering as a result. The postmasters have received a measure of justice. Will Kenneth and others like him receive the same? With so many survivors awaiting justice I fear not. It is time to strip the Church of powers for which they appear to be unaccountable and which have been shown to be abused on too many occasions. We can only pray that Kenneth may be able to hold on until then. Fr Grithin could not. Let us pray that, the government will finally come to its senses and understand that the Church will continue in its seemingly dogged pursuit of safeguarding failures unless they are stripped of their powers. Until then, I hope supporters of truth and justice will continue to support both survivors and the parishioner unjustly accused.
Stephen has written a profound piece of Truth about the realities of safeguarding procedures in the Church of England. He especially describes their effects on the falsely accused, with lay respondents being at a particular disadvantage.
This is echoed by Mary’s comments. She accurately describes Kenneth’s situation as being representative of falsely accused people, especially lay. Thank you for your comments Mary.
Stephen emphasises the lack of professionalism in the Core groups and Diocesan Safeguarding Officers who lack any legal training. It is a most amateurish process devoid of any sort of justice in a country which prides itself on its honourable justice system developed over centuries. This must change! Surely the obvious and simple solution is to insist that Diocesan Safeguarding Officers have a legal qualification.
I do hope that some senior and influential people in the Church of England are reading and taking notice of this blog.
I was devastated after effectively being evicted from a New Wine run Anglican training programme in 2017. My partner (a Cambridge educated university professor) was disgusted at how Bishop David McClay failed to address savage student abuse. We felt that David McClay tried to coerce us into getting married as a condition of being considered for parish placements or preaching opportunities. My partner has health issues, and we thus have a longstanding celibate relationship. She was adamant that no Anglican Bishop would ever coerce her into getting married. She also queried my readiness to consider marriage, to facilitate ministry opportunities. She felt that an untrustworthy clown like Bishop David McClay, who would steep so low as to try marriage coercion, could never be trusted anyway on any deal about getting married. Two out of five students in my group felt unfairly accused of sexual misconduct in crudely sadistic language. “Any of us might fancy a change of breasts” was one reported comment. We were mystified when a fellow student (with a jailhouse conversion and past contact with paramilitary group members) was fast-tracked into a parish position by the local diocese. They appear in this Olive Tree Media YouTube film posted 30.1.2022: ‘Karl Faase interviews Joe Turner for Jesus the Game Changer Season 2’. But did they long before vanish from Facebook or website material at St Brendan’s parish in Belfast? Bishop David McClay has many questions to face. David McClay shamefully remains as Bishop of Down and Dromore, even after covering up all sorts of scandals adversely impacting innocent people…….
My old pastor (not C of E) would brag in public about being “a sinner”. A parishioner added two and two together and protested about it being implied we are all morally deficient in spiritual status. This is because there isn’t solid teaching (in any churches) on the real work of sanctification.
It’s either magic, or there’s no such thing. Now why are so called “Anglicans” such as “cor!” groups and undereducated officers / officials merging with a shepherding denomination like New Wine, whose job is to point the finger at all of us. Martyn Lloyd-Jones did warn them of this, and in my opinion he was giving them till 1995.
Yes I agree that as soon as we enter a church we are made to feel ashamed of who we are. Sinners :there is no help in us. Every service. Getting stuck on Good Friday and in the communion service stuck on the Lord have mercy etc.
I used to remind the vicar of all the quotes of Jesus , living life abundantly and shining our love in the world. There may not be what would be called magic but there are many teachings and mysteries that point to the fact that we are new creations unique and made in the image of God. Couldn’t we celebrate that as soon as we enter his house and start from there.
The appropriateness of this comment is also applicable to a piece on ‘Thinking Anglicans’ published on Friday. I intend therefore to copy this comment to that item as well.
https://www.thinkinganglicans.org.uk/bishop-of-st-edmundsbury-and-ipswich/#comments
The King has approved the nomination of The Right Reverend Dr Joanne Grenfell, Area Bishop of Stepney, in the Diocese of London, for election as Bishop of St Edmundsbury and Ipswich.
At Synod, February 2025 I was in the public gallery and heard Bishop Joanne,lead Bishop in safeguarding, say that every complainant should be listened to.
To remind regular readers,Kenneth was falsely accused in March 2020 and I have been supporting him ever since. After five years of gross mismanagement of his case, Kenneth has by now ceased to be a respondent and is a complainant. I wrote to Bishop Grenfell explaining briefly the situation over the last five years and the reason for this change in his circumstances. I then asked for help in the strongest terms based on what she had said at Synod. I said Kenneth’s case typifies the worst of safeguarding abusive processes and would make an excellent test case for other lay people falsely accused.
Her reply was that she is unable to intervene or comment on individual cases. I pointed out that this is not just an individual case, but in supporting Kenneth I was also drawing attention to many others in a similar situation. Bishop Grenfell suggested that the only course of action, “is to complain through the Diocese”.
She now ranks as the fourth bishop to use these exact words to us. I have said ad nauseam that in this particular Diocese those investigating complaints are the very people we are complaining about. When making a formal complaint through the Diocese in September 2021 we were told by the Director of Operations that, “I can confirm this matter is now closed”.
Now that Bishop Grenfell is moving elsewhere does she or anybody else care about her safeguarding role? Do they not realise that if somebody new is appointed that person will have to go back to the beginning again discovering all the complaints and injustices of the many cases. Our case is now into its sixth year with no progress whatsoever. Bishop Grenfell has only had safeguarding as a component of her post for two years and now she is off. In engaging another person it will be like running but staying on the same spot; no movement forward.
All this could have been avoided if only the Professor Jay Report had been implemented in full as she asked.
Why won’t they listen to survivors? I am so sorry Susan. They say in public that they are listening but are not. And why are they taking the top positions being promoted and the further they go the more they protect the church reputation and are so important that they have no inclination to listen to survivors.
I do feel that people are avoiding the ‘church’ now as word is getting out however much it is being hidden from the public.
‘A preacher asked me out. When I turned her down, the stalking began’ BBC 29.6.25.
DARVO once again? Joan Baez and ‘Where Have All the Flowers Gone?’: “When will they ever learn?”………………
Perhaps, never, in the case of our clay-footed and know-all Anglican Bishops and Archbishops……
BBC 27.6.25 ‘Archbishop retires amid cathedral behaviour failings’. Church in Wales leader is gone.
Joan Baez and ‘Where Have All the Flowers Gone?’: “When will they ever learn?”………………
Perhaps, never, in the case of our clay-footed and know-all Anglican Bishops and Archbishops……
‘File on 4 Investigates: Stalker in the Church’
*WORTH SHARING WIDELY?*
‘National Secular Society’ website 1-7-25 has a report on the Leicester Diocese scandal: ‘Lord spiritual ‘wrongly denied’ stalking victim’s claims’. It is an exceptionally interesting and well written piece.
*?worth sharing widely?*
The Venessa Pinto and Jay Hulme case is the subject of highly interesting 29 and 30 June statements on the Leicester Diocese website. Neither seems to focus deeply on profoundly disturbing questions which the BBC broadcasts raise. Bishop Martyn Snow was allegedly a potential frontrunner for the Archbishop of Canterbury post. Has he no ability to make a personal appearance, apologise and provide a fuller explanation of how (and why) the Pinto-Hulme horror story was not addressed by the Church?
See also Post on ‘X’ 9:07 pm · 17 Oct 2018 by Aberdeen Diocese:-
Great news for Aberdeen Centre of Mission as Vanessa Pinto is appointed
@Pioneer
Evangelist with responsibility for the missional community in Bridge of Don and working with @revcaptgerry & Jo Bowyer. Vanessa will be licensed before the end of the year. #pisky
@ChurchArmy
ENS Episcopal News Service has:-
‘This English church grew out of a lockdown WhatsApp group’ Posted Jun 29, 2021
The Leicester Diocese story has a number of strands.
ANGLICAN INK has: ‘Safeguarding bungle melting Martyn Snow’s chances for Canterbury’
(July 3, 2025)
‘Any excuse to go to pub’ culture at crisis-hit cathedral’ [BBC Wales, 4-7-25]. Anglican archbishops and bishops might struggle to fix-‘a piss up at a brewery’-when it comes to safeguarding children and protecting adults. But is Bangor Cathedral in North Wales an exception?
‘BISHOP PROVIDED REFERENCE FOR ‘DERANGED’ FORMER EMPLOYEE’ is a 5-7-25 Anglican Ink website article.
*Worth sharing* Does the author possibly seek debate on whether Bishop Ann Dyer should resign from Orkney and Shetland Diocese?
THE INDEPENDENT newspaper has posted this short 6.7.25 online film on the Bangor (North Wales) scandal: ‘Priests indulged in ‘binge drinking culture’ and played ‘seven last shots of Christ’ at Welsh cathedral Former singers at Bangor Cathedral have claimed there ‘seemed to be any excuse to bring out the wine’.
DARVO-KCJ-NDA and shoddy recruitment appear to define great swathes of the UK Anglican Church.
Deny-Attack-Reverse-Victim and Offender is combined with Kangaroo-court-justice. Non-Disclosure Agreements try to tidy the mess. Vilified victims (or witnesses) litter the landscape, as villains are protected.
And to really put the cherry on the cake’s icing, is there shoddy recruitment practice bearing zero resemblance to the normal standards of fair play routinely expected by UK citizens?
There are many Church victims, who will happily have a cold beer (or a soft drink) from the fridge, as the media pursue wayward Anglican leaders!!!!!