Episode Five: Alarm Bells Ringing

Lambeth Palace FC have had a record 12 points deducted for financial irregularities , fielding ineligible players, match-fixing, and also having pecuniary interests in other clubs, coaches and referees. The Manager, Justin Welby, vows to fight on, knowing that as there is no relegation from this league, he can’t lose. Unless, of course, the club is stripped of its status. But with the Owner-Chairman’s deep pockets, it looks as though Mr. Nye can ensure the club stay afloat, despite the fans being in open revolt…

Gaby: Well Justin, thanks for giving us this interview. It seems that no matter what you want to do on the field, it is all about the club when your not playing matches at the moment. Would that be fair?

Welby: Well look, Gaby, I don’t really get involved in the day-to-day running of the club. The Chairman and Owner, Mr. Nye does all of that, and he’s got an excellent team of people totally under him focussing on the difficulties that are being caused by the regulators. I mean, my job is just to get results in the games, and the players are obviously committed a 100% to that.  But yes, we could do with more press coverage on our upcoming games than on all of this financial stuff and match-fixing scandals.

Gaby: Well, we all hope this turns out OK, but in the meantime, your own fans continue to be very hostile to the Owner-Chairman and to you, the manager, and your, er, ahem, rather hapless assistant coach, Steve.

Welby: Well let me quash some of those rumours right there, and nip them in the bud. Steve is very happy, not hapless. We work together, and he’s always smiling, talking, laughing and doing his motivational team talk talks. In fact, he’s so committed to the motivational teams talks, I’ve known some take longer than the training session itself. He’s a great talker is Steve – one of the best. As for Mr. Nye, well he doesn’t usually bother himself with criticisms directed at his conduct, complaints or protests. He’s just not bothered by that kind of nonsense from the fans, the press or the public, and I imagine he takes the same attitude with the regulators too. I mean he owns the club, so he’s not going to be pushed around by so-called stake-holders, fan-forums or the like. He is a good listener, and he listens to me sometimes, but he’s the Chairman, and he doesn’t have to take account of other people’s views. So he does the team selection, the fixture schedule and all the other things that matter, leaving me free to manage what’s left, which is really just weekly match.

Gaby: But you haven’t commented on the fans hostility to you, Justin. I see the other day that you were advising your backroom staff to carry panic alarms, and that you have one too. Is that right? What are your afraid of here?

Welby: I’m not afraid of anything. I’ll have you know I have no fear at all. But a panic alarm is essential for health and safety these days, and our PR team made a pre-emptive announcement about the need for us to carry these now, and I’m just waiting for mine to be issued. It was really a proactive measure, designed to stem the kinds of attacks and criticism we have been facing. We’re not looking for sympathy, or trying to stigmatise aggrieved fans. It’s just that this seemed like a good way to get ahead of the story, and put the fans in the spotlight rather than me, week-by-week.

Gaby: Do you think the Chairman carries a panic alarm?

Welby: Good grief, no! It really was his idea that we were issued with them in the first place, as a kind of warning to others to stop their endless criticism and attacks. But the Chairman, as I said earlier, ignores all criticism and verbal attacks, and gets on with the running the club. He’s the owner, he calls the shots, and to be honest, he’s not going to pay any attention to a group of aggrieved fans complaining. If they don’t like where he is taking this club, the fans can always walk away and buy a season ticket at another club.

Gaby: Rather cruelly, some fans have suggested that the panic alarms are there to alert you to when Mr. Nye is in the vicinity. I know they’re pulling your leg, but it does say something about how the fans regard him, and you…

Welby: A bit of rough humour from the fans is fine by me. I saw the other day that one of Mr. Nye’s feeder clubs for Lambeth Palace FC is AFC Bishop Argyle, and some fans have suggested that AFC stands for Another Fu..[bleeped out]..ing Corrupt Bishop? But boys will be boys, I guess. Sometimes you just have to rise above the fans and accept that you can never be a perfect manager…

Gaby: So, no panic alarms going off then, but other alarm bells are ringing, are they not? In recent media interviews you fielded Jamie Harrison and Ian Paul, who are players known for their rather aggressive style of play and their robust tackling…but they’re not necessarily a good advert for the club. Harrison seemed to suggest that the club were always fully compliant with league regulations and referee decisions, and he’s clearly mistaken there.

Welby: Well, Jamie talks a good talk, but people honestly shouldn’t take him at his word.  He’s just trying to get his point across, and not to be taken literally.

Gaby: ..er right, so, we should really discount most of what he says?

Welby: [low grunt of agreement; looks at his watch].

Gaby: As for Paul, well, his media comments seem to offend just about everyone.  The other day he was claiming that Irish-born players faced the same kind of discrimination as black players. He also claimed that Irish players in the transfer market had just as much of a tough time as black players who in the past were often forced to play for no wages many thousands of miles from home. These comments were deemed very offensive. What do you say about that?

Welby: You make a fair point, but you know not so long ago it was pretty tough on Irish players trying to integrate into the English game. Many black players didn’t have that problem, because they just upped-sticks from Africa to play in the American and Caribbean leagues, and they didn’t have the same integration problem, as there were so many of them, and there was such solidarity in their numbers, and those football leagues could all be started from scratch, so yes, no real problems with integration there.

Gaby: I think that may be all the time we have today. Thank you. Do keep hold of that panic alarm now…you never know when Mr. Nye might be near…

Welby: …hah hah…[looks around nervously].

Gaby: Back to you in the studio, Gary.

Episode Four: Things Can Only Get Better

Problems continue to mount for Lambeth Palace FC. With external audits of alleged financial irregularities underway, and results still very poor, match-fixing scandals and a reclusive Owner-Chairman doubling down on any dissent, the club is an unhappy place. The manager has tried to lift the morale, but every move he makes, it seems, causes more ructions…

Gaby: Well, Justin, thanks for agreeing to be interviewed again. I know you’ve only just come back from the friendly fixture for the England team against the Post-Colonial XI, but that was a pretty embarrassing defeat against a scratch team that hadn’t played together before.

Welby: Yes, well, it pays to never underestimate how far these other nations have progressed in the game, and the days when England could beat anyone in the world are long gone. If you look at the Premiership, its full of players from developing nations that were once colonies of ours. So in a way, this is our legacy, and you could read this as a ‘win’ for England’s investment over the centuries…

Gaby: Well, I’m not sure that the English really did much to support football teams being created on slave plantations, or as a distraction in other countries we colonised through conquest and occupation by military force, albeit badged under the imposition of commerce, civilisation and Christianity.

Welby: I think you’ll find those countries were very pleased that we brought order and rule to them, and got them playing sports like cricket and football…

Gaby: …er, well, it was a 6-0 loss for the England team in any case, and the England fans all threw turnips onto to the pitch at the end to make some kind of symbolic link between your tenure as a manager and Graham Taylor’s time in the hot seat.

Welby: I can’t comment on the fans. They will have their own views. I hope they know that the lads gave a hundred percent in very difficult conditions, and were it not for injuries, VAR decisions and other problems, I reckon we might have nicked a result. But football is a funny old game, and a fickle mistress…

Gaby: I am not sure that last remark is helpful, given the recent problems with Lambeth Palace Women’s FC. Apparently some members of your board, the Owner-Chairman, and a small group of fans, don’t believe in women’s football, and want you to boycott it completely. They’re talking about breaking away from the club, or not paying for season tickets.

Welby: Look, Lambeth Palace FC is an all-age, all-inclusive club. We accept everyone, and that includes those who want to bar others from entry or playing. What we absolutely don’t accept is discrimination of any kind, and we have a zero-tolerance policy on that. That’s why our ‘Kick-Out, Stamp-Out, Shout-Out’ campaign was such a success last year.

Gaby: Yes, but you do have people sitting on the board opposed to women’s football, and who won’t allow them to play here at Lambeth, so they have to train in a local park, and play matches somewhere else…

Welby: Let me stop you there, Gaby. Dorset is not that far away from Lambeth, and the supporters like to make a day of it and travel. The women’s team training in a public park is a good advert for women’s football, and clearly makes the game accessible and inclusive to a wider audience. We are fully committed to equality and inclusion. We don’t tolerate racism, discrimination on grounds of ability or disability, or allow ageism – these things are all against the law.

Gaby: Hmmm…but you do tolerate sexism, don’t you? And you do make sure that those who want to operate with a sexist outlook are honoured, in the same way that the club has yet to welcome an openly gay player. I mean, you are also homophobic as a club too, aren’t you?

Welby: I think you’ll find that sexism and homophobia are not the right words here. Discrimination on grounds of gender and sexuality have a long history in football, and are part of its traditions. We have obligations to those fans and board members that represent that honoured tradition, and they have every right to continue with their discriminatory views and practices. As do those who oppose them! But as an inclusive club, we treat all opinions and all people equally…

Gaby: But that makes no sense, Justin. You can’t do that with racism, can you?

Welby: Ah, but racism is illegal, and sexism and homophobia isn’t – well, at least not in football, though that is changing, and we are keeping our eye on changes in the law, though football is exempt, I think you’ll find, from equality laws that don’t continue to permit the perpetration of inequality.

Gaby: What about your fabulous gay centre forward from last season, now transferred to another club I gather, for an undisclosed fee? Some of the board refused to watch matches if he was in the team, and a few of your fans ripped up their season tickets in protest at him playing.

Welby: Well, these things are difficult. I get where the opposition comes from. And I get where the player comes from. And I get where the other fans are coming from. It is true that 95% of fans signed a petition saying they wanted him to play, but I have to consider the 5% who are not ready for that step yet. We owe it to them to keep them onside…

Gaby: Now, moving on, if I may, we interviewed Steve, your assistant coach last week, about the player-referee scandal, and since then some fans have come forward to complain about one of your players, Cole, who sometimes plays one half of a match for the home team, and the other half for the away team. Last week in the B-League, she was a defender for the Archbishops’ Council XI, and then at halftime became a midfielder for the Audit Committee XI. She scored twice – once in each half – but nobody knows if these are own goals. It’s a bit odd, isn’t it?

Welby: Oh, I don’t think so. The Owner-Chairman makes the team selection, and both these clubs are his, so it is quite normal for him to own the players too, as they are contracted to him, and they can therefore play for two teams at once, sometimes in the same match.

Gaby: How do the fans know whether or not this is match-fixing again? I mean, if Mr. Nye owns the players, the clubs and the referees, and chooses who plays and officiates each match, it is starting to feel like…well, I don’t know what word to use here, but maybe a bit corrupt?

Welby: I don’t think most fans would see it like that. They are just out for a good time and to watch entertaining football. We want them to pay for that and get value for money, subscribe to the club TV channel, keep renewing their season tickets, buy the merchandise, and spend their money. But the management of this club is something we do for them, and I think most fans are very glad to not know what is going on behind the closed doors of the board room, or even in the dressing room.

Gaby: One final question, Justin. Here you are, Lambeth Palace FC, languishing at the bottom of a league you can’t even be relegated from. You used to play against the likes of Newcastle, Nottingham, Manchester and Sheffield. With relegation, that changed to Leicester, Norwich, Ipswich, Birmingham, Blackburn, Coventry,  Southampton and Leeds. With another relegation, that opposition became clubs like Derby, Carlisle, Bristol, Oxford  and Portsmouth. And now you are up against the likes of Isle of Wight Drifters, Eton Old Boys, Hacienda Orient and South Croydon University Alumni. Where does it all end?

Welby: Gaby, I can tell you now that we have a proud history of taking on the best clubs in Italy, Spain, Germany and all the other competition we might face. We’re a big club. As big as Rome FC and Dynamite Moscow FC. As big as…well, big. And we are big. We’ll be back. Just you see. We just need more time to turn this around. I’ve been manager here for over a decade now, and all the problems we’ve encountered on my watch are ones we intend to fix on my watch. The previous management left us with a dreadful legacy, and we will climb out of this hole, now that we have got to the bottom of this, and there is no possibility of going down any further.

Gaby: Justin Welby, thank you. Garry, back to you again…

Episode Three: The Assistant Coach Steps In

After some better results for Lambeth Palace FC, the issues over game-management and team selection have not gone away.  An independent regulatory investigation into the football club reveals an organisation that is mired in bad management, poor leadership, lack of professionalism, financial losses, corruption, and basic failures in running a club.  The Club potentially faces a huge fine.  With Justin Welby called away to manage the England friendly fixture against an All-Star Post-Colonial XI, Assistant Coach Steve Cottrell is in the hot-seat for the interview.

Gaby: Steve, welc….

Steve: Gaby can I just stop you right there and interrupt you before you start, and say how glad I am to be here talking to you today, and also to the fans? As you know, we love the fans. They make the club what we are, and I want to pay tribute to them for their support and fortitude. I know things have been difficult for them in recent times, and I can only say ‘sorry’ once again. I know that it sometimes seems like we keep saying that – and we do – but we always mean it. We will do better. We have to be allowed to get this right, and I genuinely believe that we will do that one day soon. We know we have to do better, and get things proper. We have a great team, and great board of directors, a fabulous Chair and Owner, and a top manager. The only things we need to fix are the results, and we are working on fixing all future results. We obviously can’t go back and change the results, though believe me, we have had a long look at that possibility, but it’s too difficult, apparently. Look, we are really listening to the fans here. I know it’s hard for the fans when we don’t get the results they want, and the performances are below par, but as I’ve said before to the fans, we can only say ‘sorry’ here, and repeat that we are sorry, genuinely, for the heartache, failings and mistakes we have made in management and leadership of this club. We just need more time to get this right, and we will. We are listening hard to the fans, and really listening this time. It’s hard for us too, as the fans know. But as we listen, we learn. For example,  I just bumped into a fan on the way to this interview, and he said to me, “Steve, you are not our enemy, but we badly need a change now, and you really do need to be on your…” and I stopped him right there and said,

“…thank you, you know, I hear that, I really do. And we are here to be part of that change and deliver it to the fans, because that is what the fans have asked us to do. Results will pick up, and once we have completed our internal reviews, run by our own excellent in-house staff, we will be able to turn this around, and get where we need to be…”

The fan just walked away after I’d explained our position over the next ten minutes, but he didn’t register any disagreement whilst I was speaking. So yes, I know that at present the results have not gone our way, and I have said ‘sorry’ to the fans for that because we know they expect better. But that is what this game is all about. We are here to win, and I genuinely believe we can, given enough time, turn things around, get things right, and be back to our old winning ways. Of course I am sorry that it hasn’t been a good season so far – or even with much to cheer about for several years now – but we need continuity, not change, and that’s why we continue to invest in our own internal strategies and tried-and-tested methods, because they’ve got us this far, and put us in this position, which I believe is a position of real potential for success and growth.  It is always sad when so-called external bodies try and intervene in the workings of a great club like ours, but look Gaby, we’ll take those independent reports on the chin, we’ve set up our own working party to look at the recommendations made to us, and as a sign of our good faith that working party was put together and started its work even before the independent reports were even published. You can’t get more proactive than that, can you? I mean, this just shows how ahead of the game we really are, and how much we welcome any recommendations for change that consolidate and confirm our current good practice and conduct in the game as a whole. As I say, I have said ‘sorry’ to the fans for this poor run of results, because we know we should be doing better. What we now need is more time to get things right, less pressure for critics and doomsters who keep telling us and everyone else that its only getting worse. Actually, if they just shut up a bit, that would be an improvement without us needing to do anything, and we’d then be free to get on and work out which of these independent scrutiny reports to take a look at first, because as I say, we take this all very seriously, and we know the fans are concerned. But nobody is more concerned than I am, and that’s why I am asking the supporters for more time, more support, and to be left alone to fix this, so we don’t have to keep coming back to interviews like this time and time again, saying ‘sorry’ to the fans, when what we all want to be doing is saying ‘that was a great game, and we deserved to win, because winning is what this great football club is all about… [editor: this continues for another ten minutes, and for reasons of space and the mental welfare of readers, has been cut at this point].

Gaby: Well, there’s not much more time left for the interview here, but can I just run a couple of issue by you, as some of these independent reports have expressed quite serious concerns about some of the players and officials?

Steve: I have not been briefed about this by the Chairman and Owner, as he is the only one who gets to read these reports and respond to them. Is there a problem?

Gaby: You could say that. One report notes that whilst it is not without precedent to have a player-manager in the team, and maybe a separate captain, it does require some thinking through as to who has which role.

Steve: I accept that, but look, the Chairman and Owner picks the team, and he sometimes gets so heavily involved in selection and so excited by the action in a game that he sits with us in the players area, but usually well out of sight of the cameras as he gets very nervous about the media lip-reading him.

Gaby: …hmm, yes, I think we are aware of how much influence Mr. Nye has on the team selections, fixtures and results. I guess as the Chairman and the Owner he has a personal investment in how things go?

Steve: Yes, he does, and we are all the richer for that…

Gaby: …but what I was really meaning about player roles is that yes, you can have a player-manager, and a goalie that goes up at the end of a match to join the attack, and even a defender who can put on a goalie jersey if needs be. Plenty of players can play left and right, deep and wide, midfield and wing-back. But your matches have player-referees. These are players on your books who are also officiating at your matches.

Steve: What’s wrong with that? I mean, players who know the game and all the tricks of the trade make for ideal refs – they won’t stand any nonsense from the teams who are into diving and faking injuries and all that kind of malarky. There is an argument that says all refs should ideally be former, recent or current players.

Gaby: Er, maybe. But your match officials are also your players, so Mr. Nye is not just doing the team selection – he’s also picking the referees and the linesmen, whom he also happens to be paying to officiate at matches involving his teams.

Steve: Yes, but the ref is the ref, so independent. He stands above the match, and is beyond repute.

Gaby: …er, yes, but you can surely see the problem here? Mr. Nye might own both teams playing each other, and also selects the referees and linesman, who are also on his books as players. Don’t you think that is a bit odd…potentially corrupt, even?

Steve: No, I can’t see how. They’re all independent of each other, and everyone knows the rules of the game. Mr. Nye has a hand in match fixtures, and in choosing the teams and the officials. But that’s as far as it goes. After that, it is an open game. I mean, we all know that Mr. Nye has a gameplan and a result in mind. He’s a go-getter, and he’s very successful. If he needs a score draw from the two teams he happens to own when they play each other, I honestly can’t see how any of this is a problem for football.

Gaby: I think we’ll leave it there, Steve. Thanks for talking to us. Good luck with the listening. Gary, back to you in the studio.

Episode 2 Things are Looking Up

After a very, very poor start to the season, Lambeth Palace have suddenly won three games in a row, albeit by the slimmest of margins.  Gabby Gaby interviews Justin Welby on this unexpected upturn in the team’s performance.

Gaby: Well, that’s your third win on the bounce, and what can I say? Things are finally looking up, maybe? What do you attribute this to?

Welby: Well, obviously we’ve been training hard, taking a long, long look at the lessons learned reviews after each defeat, learning those lessons, and working out what to do on the training ground. The players have worked hard, and we are conceding less and scoring more.

Gaby: Hmm, yes, well, you’ve won each game 1-0, which takes your tally of goals this season to just three. Its true you did not concede in these three games, but critics of your style of play might say that you “parked a bus on the goal line”, and that if you play eleven players behind the ball, it is hard for the opposition to score.

Welby: I’m used to people criticising our style of play, but a win is a win is a win is a win. And we took our chances. So fair play to the lads.

Gaby: Yes, the chances. Three goals, five shots on goal in the three matches, and twenty shots off target this season. And of the three goals, two were penalties, and the other one was an own-goal. So maybe not that great?

Welby: Well surely the point is we took our chances when we had them. Sometimes you have to ride your luck, and we were due a big slice of that after having so many decisions go against us in the previous matches.

Gaby: Justin, some commentators are putting the wins down to team selection, and I wondered if you wanted to say anything about that?

Welby: Well, hats off to Steve for this, and me of too of course. We have kept faith the same players despite the dreadful results, and they have repaid our faith in spades…

Gaby: …hmm, I think the commentators were meaning something else by “team selection” here. I think they meant two things. First, they were referring to the teams you were choosing to play. And second, to the players selected to for those teams playing against you, which some observers think might breach UEFA league rules?  You know, the United Ecumenical Fair Attainment codes of conduct?

Welby: This all sounds a bit technical for me, and I don’t think I really know what you mean here?

Gaby: Well, let me explain. The fixture list appears to be set by the owner of your club, Mr. Nye. He seems to be able to decide who to play, and when. Second, the last three wins have all been against other teams he either owns or has a controlling stake in their operations. Third, he does appear to be picking your team, as well as the actual players for the other team. Some people think this might amount to engineering the result in advance of the fixture, and that it might even constitute match-fixing?

Welby: Look, Gaby. I don’t get involved in team selection. That’s for the owner and chairman to handle, and he hand-picks the players who are the most loyal servants of the club. I can only assume that he does the same with all the other clubs he owns, chairs and controls, but I cannot see how this is match-fixing. I mean, the game goes ahead. Everyone gives a hundred-percent…the players, the coaches and all the backroom staff, especially the hard-pressed PR and legal people. The games are evenly matched, and whilst we all know in advance the result we are looking for on both sides, I honestly can’t see how aiming for that and achieving that is a problem, just because the owner happens to have a stake in both teams doing OK, and the results always going his way.

Gaby: …er, well, some might still say that is match-fixing. I mean, how can the fans know that the result is not rigged, so as to help the chairman, owner and his shareholders…?

Welby: The referee hasn’t raised any concerns that I am aware of…and the chairman just watches the game from the stands.

Gaby: Yes, the suspicion is that he knows what the result is before the game starts. Don’t get me wrong. Nobody is suggesting he’s betting money on the outcome. Let’s just say he’s no longer even marking his own homework here. Instead, he’s deciding the result and who gets three points in advance, and then deciding much later what questions he might have fielded to get that result. Don’t you think that’s a bit odd…?

Welby: Well as I say, team selection for Lambeth Palace FC is the prerogative of the owner and the chairman. I mean, he buys the players, so that’s only fair. I sometimes turn up for matches to find that he’s picked players I did not even know were available for selection. But he’s got such wide knowledge and influence in the sport, he knows better than anyone how to make sure the game pans out with the right result. I can’t see how or why it should be different for the teams we play against too – that he gets so involved in their team selection as well. I mean, these are still two independent football teams, right?

Gaby: Yes, but Mr. Nye owns Lambeth Palace FC, Church House Rovers and Synod Wanderers, with those last two clubs in a ground-sharing agreement at Westminster Stadium. The players from both those sides in a  derby game have to share changing rooms, pre-match briefings and post-match showers.

Welby: It is still a nail-biting derby game, Gaby. Nobody in their right mind could argue it is rigged. We might have a pretty good idea of who is going to win the match before kick-off, but nobody can predict the actual result, which could be 1-0, or 2-0. And there will sill have to be lessons learned, and reviews of the previous games on the training ground.

Gaby: …I mean, seriously…?

Welby: Well, it is often been said that “football is a funny old game and just like life: totally unpredictable”. We are just blessed with an owner and chairman who wants to remove all of the funniness and unpredictability. That’s what the fans want too. They want the win in the bag before kick-off.

Gaby: So you deny allegations of match-fixing?

Welby: Yes. The fact that the chairman owns both sets of players and both clubs cannot be a conflict of interest, because the clubs are different, and are still independent of each other.

Gaby: Justin, Thank you. Back to you in the studio, Gary.

And the Epic Fight to Survive Relegation

By Nick Craven, Via-Media Sports Correspondent

Club Motto: Nil Satis Nisi Optimum (“nothing but the best”)

Club Colours: Purple top, shorts and socks (home). Away kit: Post Office Bright Red (Farrow and Ball shade: Angry and Embarrassed).

Club Mascot: Willie Nye and his Crook; a white ferret with an episcopal staff.

Club Chairman and Sole Owner: William Nye esq.

Club Sponsor: Elf-and-Safeguarding

(Our Vision: “Leading Providers of Unctuous Emulsion for the Broken”.)

Head Coach Justin Welby

Ass Coach Steve Cottrell

The famous Twin Towers

Languishing in the National League, this once great Premier League football team of Lambeth Palace FC playing under the twin towers is struggling with performance, team morale, protests from fans and the occasional scandal. Justin Welby clings on as manager, with assistant coach Steve Cottrell at his side.  Now, every fortnight our ace reporter, Gaby Lippy, brings us an exclusive post-match interview. This is a story of a Club in decline, but still aiming for the top!

At present Welby is also the Head Coach for the national team. England haven’t won a game for some time, and comparisons are being drawn between Welby’s time at the helm and the management of Don Revie, Graham Taylor and Steve Mclaren.

Episode One: The Long Losing Streak

Gaby: Well, that was another dreadful defeat away to Synod United, wasn’t it? I know you always hate this fixture. But look, how long do you think you can keep going like this?

Welby: Well, we know we have to start winning games.  To do that, we have to take our chances, score more goals, and not concede so easily.

Gaby: Yes, that does sound simple, but the trouble is you keep losing games, and by large margins.

Welby: Yes, I know. We can only apologise to the fans. We know they deserve better, and we have to get back to winning ways. I’ve said to the team that to win games we have to score goals, and not concede. 

Gaby: Hmmm…do you think you are the right person to lead Lambeth Palace FC? I mean, you have not won a game for months, have trouble scoring, and don’t seem to have much clue as to just how bad this team is performing.

Welby: Look, I’m judged by my results, ultimately. So yes, I think our position doesn’t look good at the moment. But we’ve had a lot of turnover in the team, and many of our best have left. But I have the full confidence of the Owner and Chairman, and as long as he’s happy, I’m staying.  I am fully committed to this club, and getting things right.  We know we have to return to winning ways, and once we start winning, we’ll be back in the top league where we really belong, and challenging for major honours.  I’ve said to the lads, we just have to score more goals and concede less and that’s the way to win games. 

Gaby: In your programme notes last week, before another heavy defeat, you apologised to the fans. You’ve actually done that all season, and all last season when you were relegated. And the season before when you were relegated. In fact, you haven’t won a game for ages. I know you keep apologising, but you play the same way every week, and field the same team. Don’t you think some things might have to change?

Welby: No, I don’t actually. We’ve been unlucky with decisions that have gone against us, and some games that we should have won went against us. But that’s football. We deserved to win against Jay Alexandra, and the lads were gutted when we lost so badly. I thought we played a blinder. We lost to Glasgow Academicals, but that was a cup fixture, so we didn’t really field our strongest team. And yes, we lost badly to Wilkinson Athletic, but we were unlucky, and could have easily won that one.

Gaby: Er…you lost 7-0 to Jay Alexandra, 4-0 to Glasgow Academical and 5-0 to Wilkinson Athletic. I don’t really think you can say these scorelines reflect being “unlucky”.

Welby: Well, as I said to the fans, we are sorry, and we know we have to improve. And to do so we need to score more goals and concede less.  We’ve been working hard in training, and the Assistant Coach, Steve, is really motivating the players now. Our fitness levels are up, and we are heading up the table. In fact, the only way is up.

Gaby: Yes, that’s because you are bottom of the table, and can’t get any lower. There is no relegation from this league.

Welby: I wouldn’t be managing this club if it was easy. That’s why I was appointed!  I always rise to a challenge. The players know that, and so do the fans. The fans just need to get behind us. If they get behind us, we can turn this around. As I said to the lads last week in the dressing room…

Gaby: …Well, can we just speak about the fans? They’re holding placards up saying ‘Sack the Board’, ‘Welby Out’, ‘The End is Nye’ and ‘Give Us Back Our Club’.  The fans chant from the terraces ‘You Don’t Know What You’re Doing’ at you, not the referee. And they also chant, ‘If You’re Crappy and You Know, Clap Your Hands’. The fans have set up a new group, Unhappy Clappy. What do you say to them?

Welby: Well look, we’re staying put, and we’re not going anywhere…

Gaby: Well actually, that was another one of the placards….

Welby: hmm, yes, ok…I really do understand the frustration of the fans. They want to win. Of course they do.  The players want to win. I want to win. So we all want the same thing, so we are united in this, and on the same page. I can say sorry to the fans that results have not gone our way so far, but we are getting there. Despite the results, week-by-week, our performances are actually improving. That is hard to see when you are up against it. This all takes time. Roma FC wasn’t built in a day!

Gaby: …Yes, but you keep losing. Every week. Many fans left at half-time last week, when you went behind 6-0 in the first thirty minutes of the Safeguarding Challenge Cup.

Welby: Yes, that was disappointing. And we have said sorry to the fans, and also said to the fans that we will aim to improve, and are working on getting things right. I mean, you can’t ask for more than that, can you? What we need is more time to turn things around, more investment from the board, and as long as the Chairman has my back, I am staying.

Gaby: You often talk about learning lessons, and lessons-learned reviews after major defeats.  I wonder if you could give us an example of one of these lessons-learned, or perhaps tell us how many lessons have been learned, and what happens to them all?

Welby: Look, I don’t want to put an actual number on the lessons-learned, because, you know, that’s a bit constricting. We’re learning all the time. Lambeth Palace FC teaches other clubs how to play the game, and so of course we’re open to learning all the time. It’s hard to say at any one point which lesson we’re working on, or specify any actual number. All I can say is we keep an eye on what we’ve got to do to win next time, and as long as we do that, things will move in the right direction.  The players know we’re on a journey.

Gaby: Some fans have criticised your team selection in the Safeguarding Challenge Cup. Apparently you insist on playing untested amateurs. Whilst this saves money for the club, the amateurs don’t really seem to be able to play the game in any position, and several don’t appear to understand how the game works at all. There do seem to be lots of yellow cards and red cards, but the players just stay on the field even long after they’ve been sent off. There are lots of substitutions that don’t make any sense, and the team lacks purpose and cohesion. What do you say to the fans here?

Welby: Look, team selection is my job, though the Chairman obviously gets very involved too. We only select the players who are most committed to the way we play the game. Professionals don’t really understand us. They’re expensive, and want to play the game differently. What we want – what the fans want – are people committed to playing the Lambeth Palace way!

Gaby: …er, but…?

Welby: Look, that’s what the fans want and expect. We are not like other teams, and I think I speak for everyone here at the club, and all the fans, when I say that we’d rather lose well as Lambeth Palace FC than win games, or even draw them, playing like some other club just in order to get a result!

Gaby: Seriously…?

Welby: Absolutely, yes. In the end, all the clubs, even the ones miles up the table and in leagues above us, look down on us as an example for the game as a whole. Nobody plays like we do. When other clubs face loads of difficult decisions about players, team selection, investment, governance, leadership, coaching and the like, most clubs ask, before doing anything else, “How does Lambeth Palace FC do it?”. They all take their cue from that.  We are indeed propping up the whole league – yes, all the clubs are above us. We might be bottom of the table, but that means we are the foundation for everybody else, and we’re committed to that support for all the other clubs.  Few teams can say that they’re propping up the whole league, but we can, and I am proud of that.

Gaby: If you keep losing badly every week, will you still stay on as the manager of Lambeth Palace?

Welby: Libby, I am a fighter, not a quitter. I am committed to this club going forward. We are on a journey at this club! I have the support of the Chairman and the Board. The Chairman picks the Board. We believe in winning ways. We just need to score more goals, concede less goals, and then we’ll start to win games. People who know me know that I’m a winner, and that’s why I am staying on as manager. The fans just need to be patient, and get behind us.

Gaby: Justin Welby, thank you very much. Back to you in the studio, Gary.

Gospel Reading for Lent 3. John 2: 13-22

by Martyn Percy

There’s a lovely moment in C. S. Lewis’ The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, where the three children are introduced to Aslan.  Aslan, let us remember, is a lion. A big one. They eat meat. Including children and other animals. When Aslan is being entertained at Mr. Beevor’s house, Lucy, one of the children, asks rather anxiously and curiously, “is Aslan safe?”. Mr. Beevor replies, “oh no my dear, he’s not safe. But he is good”.  Can you be good, but also carry threat? Well countries manage it. Communities too? I’ve even heard that parents manage it too.

Here are a couple of questions for our time. How do you love and care for a world that mostly enrages you, with all our political failures and social stigmatization and deep social divisions? And how do you care for and love the Church, which far from being that ark of salvation it is called to be, seems to enrage you even more? As the Civil Rights campaigner John Lewis said, ‘there is never a wrong time to do the right thing’.

       But is it ever right to be angry – even furious – at injustice? The gospels answer us: Yes. And John’s account of Jesus cleansing the Temple (John 2:13–22) gives us some clues. Jesus is supposed to be a peaceable and wise teacher. But he creates mayhem in the Temple, and upsets all the people going about their lawful trading in dubious ‘religious tat’ and offerings. He goes the whole hog too, driving them out with a whip that he made himself. That took time, so this is a planned attack.

       The story in John’s gospel is a meditation on Jesus’ manifesting wisdom, and also his alleged foolishness. Because Jesus spends much of his ministry being cast not as a hero, but as something of a loose cannon; and possibly even a deranged prophet. His words and works are prejudged by his critics, because even in first-century Palestine, the social and theological construction of reality seems to prejudice many people’s perceptions of Jesus.

       To casual onlookers, turning out the traders from the Temple is a foolish thing to do: they don’t mean any harm, do they? Why pick on merchandizers selling ‘religious tat’, offerings and souvenirs? Or moneylenders, who we all have need of? We all accept this.  Jesus, in contrast, does not; and as in other cases, behaves ‘rather badly’.  Behold!  He eats and drinks with a bad crowd; he finds himself narrated as a glutton and a drunkard.  So Jesus says, somewhat cryptically, that ‘wisdom is vindicated by her deeds’.

But there is a difference between hot anger and cold, perhaps righteous anger. Jesus actually went away and made the whip of cords he used on the hapless traders. This is a cold premeditated attack; not a rush of blood to the head. He has, as the Epistle of James puts it, ‘been slow to anger’ – but he’s got there. And now he’s meting out some discipline.

Wisdom is key.  Because the second part of the gospel story outlines how the seemingly wise and righteous appear not to be able to see what is front of their noses, whilst the apparently foolish and unrighteous seem to have perceived.  So Jesus’ action in the Temple – reckless, violent and apparently intemperate – contains quite a radical, strong message.  It conveys wisdom.  That sometimes, breaking our frames of reference with such sharpness and anger is the only way to get people to see how foolish they have been. 

This is the key to understanding the incident: it is about breaking a culture, and smashing the prevailing frames of reference.  So, Jesus is acting something out in this narrative: there was really no point at all in trading up from a pigeon to a dove.  Neither sacrifice would bring you closer to God; you are wasting your money.  There was no point in going for the “three-for-two” (TFT) offer on goats; or the “buy-one-get-one-free” (BOGOF) offer on lambs. 

Much of the gospel of John is all about being reconciled to what has been hidden, and looking deeper into what has been revealed.  And to seeing beyond the apparently obvious: to find the wisdom in apparent folly.  And this is why Jesus’ anger in the gospel is so interesting in this story.  For it seems not be a hot, quick irrational ‘snap’; but rather a cold, icy anger. 

Rather like Arnie (a robot from the future) in the film The Terminator, he’s seen the Temple, and said to his audience: ‘I’ll be back’.  As Harvey Cox noted in On Not Leaving it to the Snake (1968), the first and original sin is not disobedience. It is, rather, indifference. We can no longer ignore the pain and alienation that others in the church experience – and especially when this is because of the church. Indifference is pitiful, and it is the enemy of compassion.

       There are three things to say in relation to Jesus’ emotional temperament here. First, what is Jesus so upset about in the Temple? It seems to me that it lies in assumptions: about the ‘natural order of things’; about status and privilege; about possessions; about prevailing wisdom. This is about, in other words, unexamined lives and practices lived in unexamined contexts. Everyone is blind. Jesus’ action forces us to confront the futile sight before us. His anger forces us to look again. (On this, see Lytta Bassett’s excellent Holy Anger: Jacob, Job, Jesus, London: Continuum, 2007).

       Second, the story chides us all for that most simple of venial sins: overlooking. The trading has been happening for years and years. It is simply part of the furniture; it barely merits a look, let alone comment. Jesus, of course, always looks deeper. But the lesson of the story is that, having looked into us with such penetration, his gaze then often shifts – to those who are below us, and unseen. That is, those with less wealth, health, intelligence, conversation and social skills; or just less life.

       Third, the besetting sin is that the Temple traders accept the status quo. The story has one thing to say about this: Don’t. Don’t accept that a simple small gesture cannot ripple out and begin to change things. Don’t accept, wearily, that you can’t make a difference. You can.

Sometimes the change may be radical; but more often than not, change comes about through small degrees. Reform can be glacial, and adaptationist. We need to stop waiting and start acting. Nigel Biggar writes that:

True prophets are ones who don’t much enjoy playing prophet. They don’t enjoy alienating people, as speakers of uncomfortable truths tend to do. They don’t enjoy the sound of their own solitary righteousness and they don’t enjoy being in a minority of one. True prophets tend to find the whole business irksome and painful. They want to wriggle out of it, and they only take to it with reluctance. So beware of those who take to prophesy like a duck to water, and who revel in the role. They probably aren’t the real thing. (Nigel Biggar, ‘On Judgment, Repentance and Restoration’, a Sermon preached at Christ Church Cathedral, 5 March 2017, and quoted in Martyn Percy (ed.), Untamed Gospel: Protests, Poems, Prose, London: Canterbury Press, 2017)

True prophets can be thoughtful, kind and cautious creatures. And angry. Caricatures of raging fire-storming preachers should be set aside. True prophets are more emotionally integrated. They are pastoral, contextual and political theologians. They care about people and places. They have virtues such as compassion, care, kindness, self-control, humility and gentleness. But they have passion and energy for change too; often reluctantly expressed, and only occasionally finding voice in anger. Pure compassion can be quite ruthless. (Ask any parent who loves their child.)

The scandal of our churches and church leaders is that they prefer to survive rather than be true; they choose optics over justice; they privilege pride our reputation over honesty and integrity. To Jesus, this is a scandal. To the world, it is a scandal. To emerging generations it means a lengthy sojourn in the wilderness of ever-increasing indifference.

This gospel asks us to think hard about how we channel our anger about injustice. Some will call you mad or drunk for doing so. But sometimes, the only response to injustice is righteous anger. Not just shouting and raging. But acting the anger out. “Let the reader understand” (Mark 13: 14).

The Very Revd Prof. Martyn Percy

by Anonymous

This anonymous contribution arrived in the last couple of days. I would normally have elected to hold it over for a few days but the content appears to be relevant to our ongoing discussion about the weaponisation of safeguarding. The author claims to find psychopathic behaviour among those who currently administer safeguarding in the Church. This observation needs to be kept in mind as we watch the reaction and likely resistance to the radical proposals by Jay to remove control of safeguarding from those who currently hold this power. Ed.

Most would readily accept that paedophiles and other psychopaths tend not to thrive in normal hidden places but rather remain hidden in plain sight. Perhaps two of the most chilling examples of this would be Bishop Peter Ball and Jimmy Saville.

The psychology of the paedophile and abuser of vulnerable adults is complex but what is common among them is an absence of conscience about their crimes nor with respect to the devastating effect that they inflict on their victims. Sometimes there even seems to be a large element of personal gratification in seeing the harm they cause. Unwittingly however, the Church of England in its insistence of taking control of its own safeguarding has opened the opportunity for a new type of abuse, maybe not sexual, but every bit as devastating in its consequences.

While it would be very difficult for a sexual offender to be employed in safeguarding by the churches, what we now experience instead is the phenomenon of individuals within social welfare occupations such as social work and child protection who have a sadistic and psychopathic urge to harm vulnerable people. These people are deliberately hiding in plain sight by holding positions of enormous unaccountable authority such as diocesan or national safeguarding officers under the guise of the protection of their victims. This is of course not to say that all such office holders are in this category just as one should never suggest that all clergy, scout leaders, nurses, child protection officers and social workers are either. However, evidence is already available from their behaviours, that these psychopaths are present within safeguarding structures in the Church of England.

Taking refuge in their autonomous positions of trust, the new abusers exercise a control never dreamed of in the past by paedophiles when it comes to exercising maximum harm on their victims. This is manifested in parishes too where the local church safeguarding officer is sometimes someone who knows most if not all the people in their congregation and can consequently exercise huge damage entirely in a hidden way on people they choose to target. Long held resentments and vendettas are held by those with minimum training or supervision and while under the cover of being in plain sight and although charged merely with the apparent obligation to report rather than investigate, the parish safeguarding officer can cause immense harm to individuals without any accountability whatsoever.

In the past those who wanted to cause harm to their opponents would resort to accusations of heresy, now it is with vexatious allegations regarding safeguarding: this phenomenon has accurately been described as the weaponisation of safeguarding. (Please read the excellent book Letters to a Broken Church edited by Janet Fife and Gilo). However there is another aspect to this weaponisation of safeguarding and we see this also in the increasingly alarming behaviours of some of the diocesan and national church safeguarding personnel who although in theory are responsible to church bureaucrats (CEOs, diocesan secretaries, the Archbishops’ Council et al), these latter people have no relevant professional training or qualifications to make expert and informed decisions about the probity of their safeguarding personnel: this means that usual professional supervision is largely absent.

I am one of the so-called ISB 12 who was directly impacted by the brutal and sudden abolition of the Independent Safeguarding Board. It was said at the time that we were all told beforehand of the abolition but I am forced to write that this was a lie – I never was and nor was anyone else in the group of us that meets regularly for mutual support and planning. Alas, telling untruths often seems to be a pattern of behaviour with statements from the Church of England.

General Synod document 2336 states: “We do now have in place, through independent commissioner Kevin Crompton, a means for those seeking reviews under the terms of the ISB to continue with this. We are glad that several people are taking up this offer and working with Kevin to set in place reviews. We remain open to listening, to conversation, and to attempts to find resolution with all those affected.”

This was misinformation and dishonest on the part of the authors. As a result of this there was a request for a Survivor/Victim to read a statement from us to General Synod, but this was not accepted. Several people felt that our group should be clear that this statement contains a “lie” and it should be called out as such; in the end this was the statement to which we agreed unanimously and is now in the public domain as a consequence of the attempt to silence us:

 “GS 2336 states that the ISB 11 have a means in place to continue with their reviews – this is untrue. The necessary conditions such as data sharing agreements are not in place. It is also inaccurate to imply that the group are happily working with Kevin Crompton. The ISB 11 have instead expressed no confidence in his brief, role, or readiness to conduct our reviews on the same basis as the former ISB.  Not one survivor is currently having their review progressed with/by him. We are deeply concerned that the General Synod has been fed misinformation which we assume is designed to appease Synod members. This has exacerbated the ‘significant harm’ to survivors as evidenced in the recent Glasgow Report.” This statement has been agreed unanimously by those present.

On so many occasions Church of England safeguarding personnel and central secretariat officers engage in corrupt, dishonest and bullying behaviours towards those who have already suffered sexual and other abuse. It is also well known that some of those who wield the most power in Church House, Westminster regularly brief the press “off the record” spreading malicious untruths without their victims having any recourse to reply.

The alleged increasingly cruel, mean and bullying behaviour of members of the Interim Support Scheme office, part of the National Safeguarding Team and ultimately the Archbishops’ Council, also indicate serious questions of alleged bullying in many different forms perpetrated on some of the most vulnerable people among the Church of England’s many victims of abuse in all its forms. They are however also signs pointing to the individuals who are perpetrating the bullying: people who have perhaps been involved in safeguarding and administration in the church for many years, people who (hidden in plain sight) have exacted psychopathic cruelty on the very people that the Church of England has abused most and continues to abuse most: this is the same pattern of behaviour of the paedophile and other sex offenders.

I have often asked myself and others the question why some of the people in safeguarding in the Church of England, people with immense power, behave so badly towards the church’s victims: is it profound incompetence or is it profound cruelty? The answer invariably is that it is incompetence, not being “up to the job” and that they are “basically innocent” (to quote a former Archbishop of Canterbury about Bishop Peter Ball). I believe however that this is mistaken: some of the people concerned are far more likely to have deliberately placed themselves in their positions, under the cover of plain sight, so that they can inflict as much damage as possible on the most vulnerable of those that the Church of England has already abused.

The new abusers in the Church of England are the very same people who have been charged by their episcopal and lay leaders to offer protection: these cruel people are all in plain sight. The only solution now is for the Church of England to remove itself from all safeguarding and to put everything in the hands of an independent safeguarding board or body that will not be compromised either by the narcissistic psychopaths in safeguarding or the narcissistic sociopaths in leadership (lay and episcopal) – both who perpetrate the toxic increasing and serial assassination of souls. These safeguarding psychopaths must be finally driven out of the Church of England.

When the unclean spirit has gone out of a person, it wanders through waterless regions looking for a resting-place, but it finds none. Then it says, “I will return to my house from which I came.” When it comes, it finds it empty, swept, and put in order. Then it goes and brings along seven other spirits more evil than itself, and they enter and live there; and the last state of that person is worse than the first. So will it be also with this evil generation.’ Matthew 12: 43-45

May our prayers ascend to you, O Lord, and may You rid Your church of all wickedness. Amen

One of the “ISB 12” (although writing as an individual).

Safeguarding activity in the Church of England is currently a shambles; the Church needs to hand over all its power in this area to two new and independent bodies.

The sentences above are probably an unhelpful summary of Professor Alexis Jay’s skilled overview of the current state of safeguarding in the Church.  For her report, The Future of Church Safeguarding published today (Feb 21^st), Jay has spoken to dozens of individuals involved in this area of work.  While she is impressed with the work and dedication of many of them, her overall conclusion is that the procedures and protocols that are in place for church safeguarding are not fit for purpose.  She sums up her finding by saying, ‘the Church’s system of operational safeguarding is not compatible with best practices …’  A striking finding from her questionnaire data states also that 69% of the victims and survivors were unsatisfied or very unsatisfied with the outcome of the safeguarding process as it applied to them.  With only a mere 16% declaring themselves satisfied, it is clear that the Church is involved with a system which creates many unhappy customers.  In spite of spending huge amounts of money, the Church authorities are presiding over procedures which let people down.  In the process they inflict considerable reputational damage on the Church itself. 

One important feature of the report is that the reader is allowed to listen to anonymous voices of some of the many involved in safeguarding.  Some are those who are responsible for operating the protocols, while others are the victims and survivors.  This focus on the lived experience of individuals caught up in the system is an aspect of the total picture that Jay wants to share with her readers.  Her report is independent, and thus there is no attempt to gloss over some quite serious claims of institutional cruelty or incompetence being used as a way to protect the ‘system’.  One major problem across English dioceses is the inconsistency of practice.  One member of the clergy described the safeguarding instructions emanating from the centre as ‘opaque, confusing and complex.’  Different dioceses may treat an identical issue in quite different ways.  Line management of Diocesan Safeguarding Advisers (DSA) can frequently prove to be a problem.  Also, not every DSA had worked in a profession previously which valued a sensitivity to trauma.  An absence of the skill of working with old-fashioned human kindness has the consequence that some of these survivors are forced to retreat into a hidden place where they are out of reach of the help of others.

One important way that Jay shows her helpful understanding of the negative dynamics of some safeguarding activity, is when she refers to ‘weaponisation’.  This is the habit of making an otherwise lightweight issue of behaviour into a ‘safeguarding matter’ so that it attracts to itself a disproportionate weight of process.  Most disagreements between colleagues or within a parish setting can be resolved by mediation.  Instead, we hear that clergy can now be intimidated to the point of breakdown by lay people threatening a safeguarding process against them.    Jay is clear that safeguarding is an area of church life which is about offering protection to children and vulnerable adults.  It is not a method for disgruntled individuals to settle scores against others by defining the word vulnerable in a loose way.

Some of Jay’s report concerns itself with incompetent and less than professional breakdowns of communication and understanding between safeguarding officials.    She notes the highly variable structure of personnel across the dioceses in England.  Some employ up to six full-time staff (Chester) while others (Carlisle) have a single Safeguarding Adviser with some secretarial back-up.  The key proposal in the report is to set up two new independent organisations, A and B.  These would be to coordinate all the national safeguarding work and would have the effect of removing the ‘post-code lottery’.  Organisation A would serve all the safeguarding work of the dioceses in a even-handed manner.  Local Diocesan safeguarding committees would disappear.   Organisation B would act as a supervisory body overseeing the work of Organisation A, thus removing responsibility from bishops to act as the place of last resort.  Jay had noticed, not infrequently, that crucial decisions were expected of personnel who did not have either the interest or the professional skill to make such decisions.  A house of Bishops, such as the one we have in the Church of England, which finds it difficult or impossible to nominate a Lead Bishop for Safeguarding, should surely not want to protest if the responsibility was removed from their control.  It would be a popular change among the survivors I know.  Most recent Lead Bishops for Safeguarding have appeared to become demoralised by the tasks placed on them.  Some have responded to their role by becoming invisible while others have demonstrated all too clearly in their words and demeanour something of the toll that this responsibility has placed on them.

The basic message of Jay’s report is to indicate to the Church of England that it is out of its depth when seeking to provide safeguarding for those who need it.  I have not attempted to give the detail of Jay’s Organisations A & B in this short commentary, but suffice to say, it is a radical departure from what is in existence at present.  The suggestions of Jay would appear to be based on good common-sense, but, likely, they will be firmly resisted by those who exercise power in the Church of England.   The power that has accrued to senior lawyers and senior church civil servants will not be surrendered easily to two independent bodies that cannot be controlled and bent to the will of William Nye and his circle.  The management of safeguarding in the C/E currently seems to be all about power. We must hope that the evidence of mishandled power in the Church up till the present, will allow parliament and public opinion to force these necessary changes on the C/E.  We need a safeguarding regime which will allow transparency and justice.  Such a new system may help to provide healing for all who have suffered power abuse or institutional re-abuse at the hands of their fellow Christians.

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 16^th 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 6^th 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 8^th 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.

               by Janet Fife

It’s a year since Brandon died. That was the first time in 36 years I hadn’t felt afraid of him.

The Very Rev. Brandon Jackson was Provost of Bradford Cathedral when I first met him. He was visiting the theological college where I was in my final year and he was a trustee. He was charming, and I warmed to his vision of a cathedral for working people. I was ordained there on 5 July 1987, to serve a curacy as congregational chaplain. The first warning that something darker lay behind the charm came early, when Brandon said to me, ‘People here will go for the jugular, and you’ve got to get in first.’

I told an anonymised version of my curacy at Bradford Cathedral in Letters to a Broken Church; the chapter titled ‘The Deacon’s Tale’. That was an account of the sexual harassment and indecent assaults I endured. I didn’t then feel safe to  identify myself, the offender, or the place. Nor was I alone in my fear of retribution from Brandon. I have spoken to people who were experienced clergy when they knew Brandon, hadn’t seen him for 30 years, and were still terrified of him. ‘He is a dangerous man,’ one told me. Well, I knew that. In my two years at Bradford I watched Brandon set out to destroy one person after another, with no scruple as to the methods he employed. Some were pursued on false criminal charges. Some never recovered, either professionally or psychologically.

Nor was I the only woman to receive unwelcome sexual advances from him. He was blatant about it and his reputation well known. A young woman, a recent convert, had a wardrobe malfunction at a cathedral meeting. She said Brandon peered down her cleavage and said, ‘you look a million dollars’. Another told me Brandon had asked her intimate questions about her sex life. The wives of civic dignitaries seated next to Brandon at functions would find his hand on their thigh. Speaking to the cathedral youth group, Brandon referred to an elderly man with Parkinson’s as having ‘w*****’s hands’.

When I went to the bishop to ask him to move me, therefore, I didn’t expect any difficulty. But Bishop Roy heard me out, then said, ‘I’m not going to move you. And I’ll tell Brandon you’ve been to see me.’ After that an already intolerable situation became impossible. Brandon instructed the Cathedral treasurer not to refund my expenses, and the bullying grew worse. If York Diocese hadn’t stepped in to offer me a post, I think I might have had a complete breakdown, and would probably have left Anglican ministry permanently. Bishop Roy strongly objected to my move:  ‘If you leave now, the scent of failure will follow you throughout your career.’ He told me he had written to the Archbishop of York, the Bishop of Selby, and my new incumbent to complain. Already badly damaged by two years of extreme bullying and sexual harassment, that didn’t make it easier to start in a new ministry.

Brandon moved too, to become Dean of Lincoln, and immediately became embroiled in what became known as the Lincoln Wars. The conflict between him, the subdean, and the cathedral chapter was headline news; an internet search will find some of the coverage. It was tragic for all concerned, and for the reputation of the Church, but I no longer had to worry that people would think I had failed in not being able to work for Brandon.

In 1995 a young female verger, Verity Freestone, claimed to have had an affair with Brandon. He was tried in a consistory (church) court on a charge of ‘conduct unbecoming a clerk in holy orders’. It was a cumbersome but sensational procedure which dominated headlines not only in the UK but also abroad. (It was this case, and the whole Lincoln Wars saga, which prompted a review of clergy disciplinary procedures and eventually resulted in the Clergy Discipline Measure being passed by General Synod.) Brandon was found ‘not guilty’ – a verdict which surprised most of those who had followed the case.  Verity had been traduced, made out to be a fantasist and a liar.

I was immediately stricken with guilt. I had felt I ought to come forward to give evidence of Brandon’s highly sexualised behaviour, but I couldn’t bring myself to do it. I was still very much afraid of Brandon, and the thought of describing his indecent assaults in that adversarial public forum appalled me. It was only a year after I and other women had been priested, in a blaze of publicity and after a bitter conflict in the Church. In Manchester Diocese, where I was then working, the battle had been particularly fierce. The DDO admitted giving us women a hard time ‘in order to placate your opponents’. To cap it all, my married parish colleague had been outed by the News of the World after advertising for sex. I had seen what the tabloids could do, and didn’t want it happening to me.

I phoned the Bishop of Lincoln, Bob Hardy, speaking first to his chaplain.  They were kind and I felt I had been taken seriously; both told me they had been contacted by other women with similar stories. A few months later the Archbishop of Canterbury, George Carey, announced an Archbishop’s Inquiry into the situation at Lincoln Cathedral. Bishop Bob rang to ask if I would put my complaint against Brandon into writing, to be submitted to the Inquiry. I did so, at considerable psychological cost – but only after arranging with a Prioress that any of her order’s houses would take me in without notice in the event my letter leaked and I was doorstepped by the press. Thankfully, that didn’t happen.

When the Inquiry concluded Archbishop Carey found both Brandon and the subdean to be at fault, and asked them both to resign. That was the limit of his powers. The subdean stayed in post; Brandon hung on for two more years, and retired early only after negotiating a large payout. I felt that my evidence had made a small contribution to the Inquiry’s findings and some of my guilt for not having spoken out earlier was assuaged. I also had considerable respect for Bob Hardy and George Carey, the only two in authority who had the guts to stand up to Brandon. However, Verity’s reputation had not been restored and she had not been vindicated. I felt partly responsible for that.

In November 2017 Gilo and Jayne Ozanne wrote to Archbishops Welby and Sentamu regarding sexual abuse in the Church of England and poor treatment of complainants. I wrote to support them, mentioning my own experience. Neither of the archbishops replied. Instead, I was phoned by a member of the National Safeguarding Team (NST) at Lambeth Palace. Thus began a saga familiar to survivors, and justly termed ‘re-abuse’. I actually find it more difficult to write about this than the two years of sexual harassment, indecent assault, and bullying I endured from Brandon – excruciating though that was.

In a series of phone calls with the NST in late 2017 and early 2018, I was:

– Asked to describe the indecent assaults (always a harrowing experience)

– informed that my written complaint of 1995 was not in the files of the                                      Archbishop’s Inquiry, nor in any other files at Lambeth Palace

– Told that I was right in saying ‘everyone knew Brandon couldn’t keep his hands           off women’

There was no more contact after that. It seemed my case had been dropped. But I was now in touch with other survivors and with survivor advocates. That was a great help.

When it became clear I was going to get no further with the NST, I sent data subject access requests (SARs) to every C of E body that should hold data on me and my case against Brandon: Bradford Cathedral, the office of the Bishop of Bradford, York Diocese, Lincoln Diocese, Lincoln Cathedral, and the office of the Bishop of Lincoln. Bradford Cathedral charged me a search fee, but then said they had no information on me in their records. That was odd, since I had worked there for two years, and had attended or chaired numerous meetings of which there must have been minutes. I had also, of course, signed the service register a number of times. The Bishop of Bradford’s office said they had nothing in their files either. York Diocese sent me my entire clergy file. That turned up a few surprises, both good and bad (the lies that are told!) – but nothing on my complaint re Brandon. I had no reply from Lincoln.

Eventually I followed up on the Lincoln SAR, and finally began to get somewhere. But it was not easy. The Lincoln DSA (Diocesan Safeguarding Adviser) was good – empathic and conscientious. She left. I was referred back to the NST, while continuing to be in contact with Lincoln. I was advised to make my complaint to the police, and did so. A bobby in a marked police car came round to interview me, prompting questions from my neighbours. I was having to deal simultaneously with two officials from Lincoln, several from the NST, and the police – and having to recount the story of my abuse with each of them.

The police dropped my case because too much time had passed. Lincoln could find no trace of my written complaint from 1995, nor of any other complaints against Brandon. The NST told me they couldn’t progress my case. Then they took it up again, setting up a core group. I was not represented on the core group, but was asked to submit all my evidence over again. A staff member assigned to support me phoned with what I thought was a pastoral conversation – only to tell me after half an hour that she was gathering information for the core group.

I was told that it was not their role to investigate cases, then that they were investigating. When after some months I hadn’t heard the result of the core group, I chased it up – only to be told they had dropped it again, without letting me know. Safeguarding staff would set up a telephone appointment, then fail to ring, leaving me waiting by the phone in distress. None of these people were bad, but they were too often incompetent and seemingly unaware of the trauma they were causing me.

Despairing of making progress with the C of E, I decided to pursue a civil case. I was lucky to get Richard Scorer, a highly competent abuse lawyer, to act for me. Richard is Vice-President of the National Secular Society, but I found in him a compassion, integrity, and passion for justice I had sought in vain from the Church. Going to law is a gruelling procedure, but after several years I at last obtained a result. The case was settled out of court.

Now at last, I thought, I might obtain from the Church of England an admission that I had been mistreated by Brandon, and an apology. I had proved my case was credible, providing evidence to back up my account, and since the case had been settled the Church was at no risk of incurring further liabilities. Accordingly I wrote to Bradford Cathedral asking for an apology. There was a delay, partly due to there being no Dean in post at the time, but eventually I did receive a reasonably satisfactory apology.

Stephen Parsons kindly wrote to Archbishop Cottrell, asking him to apologise on the Church’s behalf for the original abuse and the Church’s mishandling of my case over more than 30 years. I didn’t get a response from Archbishop Stephen, who is my diocesan and in whose province the original abuse occurred. Instead I had a phone call from a member of the NST in a different city. The Archbishop’s reaction had not been a pastoral one, nor had he kept the request confidential. It had been discussed by a number of safeguarding personnel, and presumably also by diocesan lawyers and communications advisers. After some months, and a number of further contacts, I received a letter from Archbishop Cottrell which was not a real apology at all. I stopped considering myself a member of the Church of England.

In one respect at least I had some limited success: Private Eye and the Church Times ran short items reporting that an unnamed female cleric had received a settlement for sexual assault and harassment by Brandon Jackson while serving as his curate. It was on the record that he had indecently assaulted a woman; that was some vindication of Verity, whose reputation I had been belatedly trying to restore. However, press coverage was limited. Brandon had been out of the news for too long for the media to be interested. (As an aside, I have noted that the cases of women sexually abused in the C of E seem to gain less attention than those of the men. Is that a reflection of the Church’s deeply ingrained misogyny, I wonder? Or do some people feel, as my father did, that abuse ‘is worse for boys than it is for girls’?)

The coda to my story came in the aftermath of Brandon’s death on 29 January 2023. A journalist researching for Brandon’s obituary was told that Bp. Hardy, on retiring in 2001, had committed his entire file on Brandon Jackson to the Lincoln County Archive and placed a 25-year embargo on it. I duly passed this information to the Lincoln safeguarding team, who worked on recovering the file. It took several months of legal manoeuvres and bureaucracy, but eventually they succeeded. And there, sequestered out of sight and out of knowledge, was the complaint it had cost me so much to write 28 years before. It had never been submitted to the Archbishop’s Inquiry.

How do I feel now? I’m thankful for the real fellowship among survivors, many of whom no longer call themselves Christians. I am deeply grateful for those survivor advocates who, at considerable cost to themselves, continue to fight our cause. I thank God for a good lawyer. But I regret giving 27 of my best years to the ministry of a church which I now recognise to be institutionally corrupt, and whose leaders are without compassion or even a mild concern for justice.