I was recently given a copy of Nobody’s Friends 1800-2000, a biography and historical diary of the Lambeth Palace dining club which featured in the Peter Ball hearings at IICSA. It emerged at the Inquiry that Lord Lloyd of Berwick had cited their mutual membership of the secretive club to Archbishop Carey in one of many ‘letters of influence’ in support of Ball. Nobody’s Friends is a gathering which quietly fosters establishment links between church and Westminster (mostly the Tory bits of it) and meets in the Guards Room at Lambeth Palace. Newly elected members ‘justify’ themselves during congratulatory speeches which honour any advancement in the various pecking orders (episcopal, judicial, political) of its members. It undoubtedly offers a fulcrum of patronage to any senior cleric lucky enough to be elected member, who might aspire to a mitre.

Membership has included many bishops and archbishops, headmasters from a sprinkling of top schools, various Archbishop’s Appointments Secretaries, Prime Minister’s Appointments Secretaries, Leaders of the House of Commons and House of Lords, Tory peers, Admiralty figures, judicial figures and church lawyers. Such heavyweights as Sir Michael Havers (later Lord Chancellor), Lord Pym, Douglas Hurd, Lord Justice Bingham (former Master of the Rolls) have graced its tables. Several of the senior clerics on the board of Ecclesiastical have also enjoyed membership, and one of the headmaster directors of the church’s insurer. The current club President is believed to be Sir Philip Mawer, who was on the directors board of Ecclesiastical when he was also at same time Secretary General of Synod.

Jonathan Fletcher, Archbishop Welby’s friend and a regular participant at the Iwerne camps from the early 1950s has been a member since 1983. His father, Lord Fletcher, was also a member. The club seems to have had a culture of nepotism in which the scion of ennobled members themselves become elected members.

But another name kept ringing bells. Sir William Van Straubenzee, Tory minister in Northern Ireland under Heath and later a prominent Synod member and Church Estates Commissioner, became a member in 1973. In 1988 he was elected Vice President of the club, and in 1991 elected President of Nobody’s – a position he held until his death in 1999. Clearly very well connected, his London home was a grace-and-favour apartment in Lambeth Palace in the Lollard’s Tower. This pied-à-terre gave name to a group of Tory wets, the Lollards, who met there during Thatcher’s premiership.

Straubenzee was cited in government files in relation to abuse at the Kincora boys home in Belfast. Sir Anthony Duff sent an MI5 dossier on Straubenzee to Sir Robert Armstrong (now Lord Armstrong) in 1986. Kincora may have have been run under the watchful eye of the secret services who used it as a ‘dirty tricks’ blackmail operation, although the findings of the Hart report (Northern Ireland Historical Institutional Abuse Inquiry HIA Inquiry 2014-2016) disputed this. The involvement of MI5 in Kincora has never meaningfully been investigated. And although three men who shared in the running of the home were prosecuted and jailed in the 1980s – figures from the political and establishment worlds named in connection with the abuse and trafficking of boys from this and other homes in Belfast did not face questioning.

Armstrong himself was also a member of Nobody’s from 1984, and may be still as far as anyone knows. It’s unlikely that other members had awareness at the time when the senior mandarin from Number 10 received this intelligence from MI5. Armstrong appears to have remained tight-lipped, although it is recorded that these files were passed to the Prime Minister. So two men, one of whom had grounds from the security services to suspect possible abuse activities by the other – both toasted the club’s customs and membership alongside assorted archbishops during coffee and mint thins. It’s a disconcerting image.

Equally as disconcerting, there seems to be no indication that the Church of England shared this information with IICSA. Nor following the Peter Wanless and Richard Whittam QC Review when the material from the Cabinet Office first came to public light in 2015 after their report.

Despite judicial interest in these matters, the suffering of victims and survivors, and the need for transparency – the Church of England did not seem to offer this information to these inquiries? Presumably many current Nobody’s Friends, including many bishops, have copies of this rare publication. It did not occur to any of them, nor to the club Treasurer, that this might be helpful information – not least because it might shed light on the culture of protectionism afforded by these private clubs.

Another Lambeth Palace dining club offers a deeper picture of privilege and protection. In 1993 a former chairman of the Nikaean Club and head of Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge went to court for abusing a boy between the ages of 14 and 16. Canon (later Bishop) Christopher Hill, also a member of the Nikæan Club, accompanied Patrick Gilbert to court. Gilbert was also able to brandish a character witness letter from another Nikaean member – former Archbishop of Canterbury, Donald Coggan. Gilbert, who was also secretary of the wine committee at The Athenaeum, admitted a previous conviction for indecent assault on two 13-year-old school boys in 1962. Despite this and despite the seriousness of the charge, and almost certainly owing to the protecting influence of a Lambeth Palace dining club, he received a suspended sentence and sympathy from the judge for the considerable stress he had endured. As the judge explained, he decided not to jail the bachelor because of his health and ‘very severe punishment’ he had already undergone through loss of reputation. Both Hill and Coggan were also members of The Athenaeum. It’s not who you know… but who you dine with.

Returning to Nobody’s it is oddly disturbing that its members are likely to have their own copies of this book, and many older members will remember Straubenzee as President of the club. They will have presumably been aware of media reports in recent years of the mention of Straubenzee in secret service reports to the Cabinet Office.

A culture of ‘say nothing unless asked’ is a culture still reluctant to move on from subtle complicity and subterfuge. This mindset has already led to the current existential crisis of the bishops and senior ‘management’ of the Church. The time for keeping of secrets Luca Brasi-style to protect the reputation of a Lambeth Palace eliterie should long be over. The Church should no longer entertain disposition to this kind of omerta. A church with secrecy riven in its bones is not a church with a healthy and redemptive future. It is hardly worth the candle.

Incidentally I was interested to find that two senior figures I had told of my abuse – were both members. Stephen Platten, former Bishop of Wakefield, and John Eastaugh, former Bishop of Hereford.

With no little irony, I give the last word of this essay to Lord Lloyd. When questioned at the Inquiry, his description of Nobody’s Friends was that it was a “perfectly ordinary dining club”.

Gilo

CoEditor, Letters to a Broken Church (Ekklesia 2019)

The Terms of Reference released this week, for the proposed John Smyth Review, gives us information about the review process taking place over the next nine months by the Reviewer Keith Makin.  With my readers I have tried to follow Smyth’s story as best I can ever since the Channel 4 presentation in February 2017.  The Channel 4 programme detailed the now familiar story of beatings in a shed in Smyth’s back garden in Winchester between 1979 and 1982.  At the time when this story broke, I was roused into writing a letter to the Church Times.  This was in response to a claim that these beatings of devout school boys had no theological dimension.   It was then quite clear to me that Smyth believed in the redemptive power of pain, which related to his evangelical ideas about the Atonement.  No one then or now would concur with this warped attempt at religious justification.  His behaviour was criminal.  At the time of his death in August 2018, Smyth was facing extradition from South Africa to England to face charges.

The Terms document for this proposed Review contains a so-called ‘factual summary’ of the Smyth story.  Although it cannot be expected to go into detail, the author of the document does not seem to understand the meaning of the word ‘fact’.  I pass over the inaccuracy of the described relationship between the Iwerne Trust and the current Titus Trust.  That is unimportant.  What is important is the attempt to gloss over the relationship between Justin Welby and Smyth.  The document declares as fact that Welby knew Smyth but ‘not substantially’.  This claim may be in fact true but the Reviewer should take nothing for granted.  He needs to ask questions without any answers being decided beforehand.  Only diligent enquiry can establish whether or not a relationship with Smyth was substantial.  Questions, as in a court of law, have to be asked about every aspect of Smyth’s network.  From my perspective, Smyth’s social circle has to be fully understood to make sense both of his crimes and the cover-up that follows them.  The Terms of Reference speak about the response of the Church of England and its officers to the allegations.  The Church of England as a body probably knew nothing but considerable numbers of individuals associated with the Iwerne camps, many of them senior CofE clergy at the time or subsequently, appeared to know a great deal but chose to keep quiet.

This brings us on to a second important misleading claim in the factual summary.  It states that John Smyth subsequently moved to Zimbabwe.  The implication is that he had been ‘encouraged to seek work overseas’ by the committee who had investigated his behaviour on behalf of the Iwerne Trust.  This seems to be a misstatement of what actually happened.  In brief, substantial funds were pledged in England by Smyth’s Iwerne circle to allow him to run a mission in Zimbabwe.  This focused on running Christian camps for young men.  This financial support owed much to the Coleman family and their names appear as trustees for well over a decade.  The question has to be asked as to whether the trust that supported Smyth was genuinely interested in mission work or whether it had another motive – to keep a lid on a major scandal.  Smyth had become an embarrassment to his wealthy evangelical friends in England and so packing him off to Africa was an expedient solution to a problem.  Various problems and complaints arose from these camps and they are well documented.  I have a 1993 document downloaded from the net running to twenty pages which detail complaints by other Christian groups working in Bulawayo.  The question that needs to be asked by the Reviewer is whether the UK Zambezi Ministries trustees took any action in response to these credible accusations.  The death of the young man, Guide Nyachuru, was not the only accusation of harm.  You could characterise the camps as centres set up to gratify the needs of a leader rather than help Zimbabwean young people to grow as Christians.

The problems with the way the facts of the past are recorded is not the only limitation the Terms of Reference reveal.  The Reviewer, Keith Makin, may be a thoroughly honourable person but questions remain how effective his Review can be.  There is, as we have claimed, a slanted ‘factual summary’ of the past.   But, to help him potentially, there are the principles for conducting a good Review which Kate Blackwell QC so ably outlined on the Sunday programme.  She emphasised how important it was to have all the information that was needed.  It was also important for the commissioning body not to set out any parameters, whether of time or perceived relevance.  Although a Church of England review is not one conducted according to strict legal principles, John Smyth’s alleged offences were criminal.  This ought to give a seriousness to everything that is said and reported to the Reviewer.  We can only hope that he can break through various artificial constraints that are already in evidence.  The Church should be asked to find a way round the refusal of two key witnesses, Scripture Union and Titus Trustees to cooperate with the Review.  Can it really be true that legal cases outstanding prevent the Titus trustees from sharing information?  As important stakeholders, the absence of their witness will make the Review less valuable.

Two final comments on the nine-page Terms of Reference need to be raised.  The main concern of survivors and their supporters is an answer to one simple question.  How is it that the nefarious deeds of an important figure in the Iwerne/Titus network was so successfully covered up for over thirty years?  Is no one going to explain to the rest of the church how and why this happened?  A cover-up on this scale must have dragged numerous individuals into its embrace and the corruption necessarily involved is not good to contemplate.  It is in other words not just the reaction of the Church of England that is of potential interest to an unbiased reviewer but all the other people among Smyth’s network who knew and did nothing.  The same question can of course be asked of Jonathan Fletcher and the attempts at cover-up of his misdeeds that are continuing.

A thought for one group that gets a mention but little in the way of understanding or compassion, the surviving relatives of Smyth.  They are victims in a different way from the survivors but they are likely completely innocent of his crimes.  It would be good if they could be treated with respect instead of just having the review shared with them as an afterthought.  Kate Blackwell in fact mentioned the involvement of every concerned party at the very start of the review process. This would include the relatives of a deceased alleged perpetrator as well as the victims/survivors.

The Terms of Reference for the examination of the case of John Smyth are like the curate’s egg – good in parts.  It remains to be seen whether the Reviewer Kevin Makin can overcome the flaws of the Terms and produce a good and valuable Review.  There will be many people watching, aware of the history of the Church in recent years to do everything to cover-up and bury truth if it appears to damage its image.  As Kate Blackwell said in her broadcast, the most important people in a review are those who have been injured.  Their verdict will be the one that matters.  We await it with interest to see what they have to say.

A murder story, widely reported last week in the Press, would not normally have attracted any comment from this blog.  But the recent conviction of Benjamin Field for the murder of Peter Farquhar does have considerable relevance to our concerns.  The victim was said to have been befriended and drawn into a homosexual liaison within the setting of a small church congregation at Stowe.  The dynamic, which the murderer used to draw Farquhar into a sexual relationship with him, was described as a kind of grooming.  Field allegedly used similar grooming techniques not only with the other individuals he wanted to exploit (of whom there were several), but with the entire congregation.  This village congregation was said to be completely in thrall to Field’s influence.  The trust and the power that he exerted allowed him to take a leading role in the congregation as a parish secretary and there were even moves afoot to put him forward for ordination.

The careful reporting of the story by the Times newspaper mentions that, following the murder conviction, the Diocese of Oxford is to hold an inquiry into the way that the grooming of the congregation by Field took place.  The notion of grooming is widely used as a shorthand for indicating the way that certain individuals prepare their victims for acts of abuse.  The word contains notions of influence and control not dissimilar to the old idea of brain-washing.  Here grooming refers to the influence exerted by Field that caught up not just victims but many others. This idea that a single individual can manipulate groups is far from being a novel idea to students of the so-called cults.  It has been recognised for over a century that when people gather together in groups or in a crowd, they become aware of themselves in a different way from when they are alone.  We speak about the different atmospheres created by the presence or absence of other people.  At the end of the 19^th century a number of writers interested in the behaviour of crowds came up with the notion of ‘contagion’.  This is the notion that an idea held initially by a few members of a group can spread very quickly to become the dominant way of thinking by the whole.  It only needs the conviction of a leader with a powerful gift of rhetoric to infect an entire crowd into thinking in a particular way.  Theories of crowd behaviour may not seem particularly relevant to the situation in Stowe.  What is relevant is the idea that any group can quickly normalise a single thought among its members. We have all felt the pressure of a group to think a particular way.  It might be in a football crowd or in a charismatic gathering.  In this situation it is very hard not to sing along or cheer in the same way as everyone else.  Field somehow understood these dynamics and manipulated them to his benefit.  That is perhaps also the secret of Trump rallies as well as dictatorships everywhere.

The capacity of groups to become one in their thinking and feeling is one part of the way that congregational dynamics worked initially in Field’s favour.   The group consensus was that he was to be trusted and also was thoroughly reliable.  The other part of the dynamic of the congregation were the actual methods available to Field to sustain this common belief.  There were various motivations that were in operation in Field’s plan but they are perhaps the least interesting part of the story.  What is important is the way that the congregation were so mesmerised by him that no one was able to see that something was not quite right in his close association with Farquhar.  Field was not, of course, an official leader of the group but in many respects he seems to have been able to act in this capacity.  From his upbringing as the offspring of a Baptist minister he had considerable knowledge of the Bible and this was superior to anyone else in the congregation.   A facility to quote scripture easily gave him power and influence in a congregation where reverence for scripture was highly esteemed.  The theological conservatism of this particular congregation meant that there was little appetite to question any decisive use of bible quotes to further an authoritarian agenda.  My article in Letters to a Broken Church, explores the variety of bible passages that can be and are used to boost the leadership credentials of an official (or in this case unofficial) leader.   In short, the fundamentalism of Field’s church facilitated the kind of exploiting of human weakness that ended, in this case, in an episode of desperate tragedy.  Youth, charm and the skilful use of bible texts seemed to been able to perform the task of group manipulation over a considerable period of time.

The grooming of the congregation to which Peter Farquhar belonged was, as far as we can see, deliberate and planned by Benjamin Field.  That he was able to go as far as he did in abusing the trust of good and intelligent people ought to alarm the leaders of all our churches.  The story at one level is extraordinary and exceptional.  At another level it reflects a reality on the ground in many churches where people are inveigled into trusting leaders who may not be worthy of such trust.  The dynamics of power in this particular congregation were probably not so different from the way that many congregations operate up and down the country.  Narcissistic leaders, whose motives for being in charge involve their own emotional, financial and sexual gratification, are still found in our congregations.  Whether the system is able to spot such people before they are let loose on vulnerable trusting congregations remains to be seen.  The Church historically has been extremely reluctant to let go priests (and bishops) whose behaviour has shown that they are a danger to potential parishioners.  Is it the acute shortage of clergy within the church part of the reason that dangerous individuals are still found within the system because those in charge are unwilling to spot the dangers? 

The story of Benjamin Field has many aspects.  There was among those involved with him a mentoring priest who had spotted the fact that he was showing severe psychopathic tendencies, including a total lack of empathy or feeling for others.  This encounter was voluntary on Field’s part and we are left to wonder whether, apart from this, the selection process would have penetrated through the personal charm that he had used to endear himself to his home congregation and his abuse victims.  Are all ordinands required to examine the part of themselves that relates to personal power and its management?  Recently we have seen, at the highest levels of the church hierarchy, some extraordinary examples of empathy failure.  If the church is indeed becoming more focused on efficiency and structure, will it also be more likely to miss out on such pastoral issues and the preservation of integrity among the clergy?  Field, having learnt the ropes of how to do ‘church-speak’ got dangerously close to beginning the path to ordination.  One is forced to ask the uncomfortable question.  How many other malignant narcissists have got through the system and are even now preparing, if not to murder people, at least to harm them in the cause of satisfying narcissistic hunger and their drug-like craving for importance and esteem?

Every once in a while, I ask myself the question as to why I write a blog.  Among the answers that come back to me, some indicate that there may be some selfish reasons; others indicate a more altruistic motive.  The writing that I enjoy doing helps me to clarify ideas that I have in my head and allow them to be out there for scrutiny by others.  As a clergyman all my working life, I always had the privilege of teaching the faith while at the same exploring out loud ideas about God and the state of the Church.  Preaching regularly is not something I do now, so the sharing and exploring of ideas has to be done in this format.  Writing a blog may well be somewhat self-indulgent, but it does exercise the same parts of the brain that used to be used to write sermons.

A second reason for blogging is that it has created for me quite a substantial online social life as well as a pastoral role.  After years of being in charge of parishes, the role of the retired clergyman is quite different.  This online world of blogging allows me to make contact with complete strangers.  Although I never get to meet them in the flesh, these contacts are fascinating and rewarding.  Some people complain that being open to online communication from all and sundry opens you up to ‘trolling’ and other unpleasant interactions.  So far, I have managed to avoid anything that would make me want to run away from giving my email to anyone who wants to get in touch.  The contacts I make, because they are made on the basis of a common interest in the themes of the blog, are always interesting.  People write to me with their stories.  Sometimes I respond by email, sometimes by phone.  Stories of bullying, abuse or control are of course widespread and there is very little I can do to help beyond listening.  The task of being a listener is of course what I as a clergyman have been used to doing over the years.  The situation of retirement means that I perhaps do now have a different perspective on power issues, backed up by my reading and current exposure to the safeguarding scene right across the country.  What people seem to value is my complete independence from the structures.  I have learnt very strongly that being part of a structure, whether diocese, national church or safeguarding committee, can have a detrimental or negative effect on the individual.  It can make the task of preserving complete integrity when dealing with survivors of abuse or bullying quite difficult.  Working for an organisation, which demands your complete loyalty as well as making you obey a line manager or boss. can create severe problems for the integrity of many people today.  The particular group who seem to suffer the most in this area are those at the top of our Church, the house of bishops.  Speaking generally, I am sensing that the church has become sometimes a toxic environment for many of those who ‘manage’, whether a diocesan or at national level.  They have to follow the instructions of others, the impression managers, the communication officers and others who control things behind the scenes.

Recently the focus of this blog has been dictated by the topics in the news.  Sexual abuse of minors and cover-ups by senior churchmen are obviously important topics and they need a commentary such as those provided by this blog.  The central concern of this blog has never in fact been about sexual misbehaviour.  It is about power in the church.  In a wakeful moment last night, I came up with an eight-word description of what this blog is really about.  It is about ‘power, its use and abuse in the Church’.  One of the biggest problems that I have discovered in studying power issues is that there is little proper awareness of how the phenomenon of power functions in an institution like the Church.  A failure to understand the nature of this power is a failure that allows it to be far more dangerous and harmful.   Of course, power has to exist but it does not have to be so hidden and unacknowledged where it can wreak so much more havoc.  At every level of the church, power processes are at work.  Whether it is a PCC of six people in a small village or the Anglican House of Bishops there are always ‘games’ taking place.  The problem about these power games is that those involved are often completely unaware that they are taking place.  The moment that the dynamics of this power are exposed, their power to harm individuals can decrease dramatically.  Suppose a Vicar is challenged by an older parishioner for bullying the organist, his interjection may at first be met with fury.  But if the parishioner gives a calm analysis of the situation, citing knowledge of issues on both sides of the dispute, the temperature of the dispute may be quickly reduced.  As long as power disputes are only ‘fought’ by rival factions, heat but very little light is visible.  The Church needs to train itself far better to forensically dissect power problems that take place all the time.  Individuals need to be confronted with the human tendency to dominate and control whether as bishop, Vicar or church warden.  Bullying, grooming or dominating in a variety of ways are all examples of power play that goes on everywhere.  When it becomes normalised and cannot be called out, then it is set to make a church or whatever organisation toxic for years, even decades.

Where this blog makes a claim to rise above the selfish need of its editor to articulate opinions and prejudices, it is in this act of calling out power games.   Naming abuse when it occurs is an important social function.  People who write to me sometimes express pleasure that they have now found through the blog a language to describe their situation as they struggle to make themselves heard in a situation of power abuse within their churches.  Long term readers of this blog will remember how I helped a woman called ‘Maria’ in the States stand up to her minister who was feeding her typical patriarchal nonsense about submission in the face of real practical issues to do with her marriage.  Giving real personal power back to Maria was an important high-light in the history of this blog. Sharing her story on this blog was part of her journey to recovery.

In summary what I feel called to do is provide a platform to articulate for myself and others to understand the nature of power as it functions in the church.  There are many people who simply do not see how failures to understand how power operates in the church can make the entire institution toxic and not fit for purpose.  There have been some lamentable failures by the Church of England recently in the area of public relations.  The instinct to protect the centre, at the expense of the many who are and have been damaged by power and bullying, is short-sighted and ultimately threatening to the long-term survival of the institution.  It is only when these toxic games of dominance and control are ended, that the Church can begin to recover and possibly offer a lead to our broken society.

4 August 2019

Yesterday the BBC broadcast in its Sunday programme two significant interviews. The first was with Matt Ineson the abuse survivor whose courage has inspired us all. The second part was with Kate Blackwell QC whose experience of Reviews embraces both those around Hillsborough and the Gosport Hospital. She sets out clearly the legal principles that she believes should be part of every review process. By placing both these interviews on Surviving Church we hope to give them a degree of permanence. Anyone interested can refer back to see Matt’s testimony and the legal opinion of an experienced lawyer which impacts on the Church of England’s own safeguarding reviews in the future.

William Crawley          A survivor of clerical abuse says he will not take part in an independent review commissioned by the Church of England claiming the process is worse than useless. Matthew Ineson was 16 when he alleges he was raped by the Revd Trevor Devamanikkam in 1984. Mr Devamanikkam took his own life the day before his criminal trial was due to begin 2 years ago. The Church is proposing to hold a “lessons learned” review to identify both good practice and any failings in the Church’s handling of the allegations. It will also look at the actions taken by senior bishops, including the Archbishop of York, when Matthew disclosed what had happened to him. Matthew has waived his right to anonymity and he told me why he believes the Church of England’s review could not be truly independent

Matthew Ineson            Firstly the review itself is not, as the church keeps saying, independent. They’re doing it themselves. And they’ve told me that the review will go ahead even if I don’t participate, and I said ‘how could that happen?’ and they said ‘because we will do it ourselves from our own notes.’ So the very people who are being investigated write the terms of reference. They want to do it from their own notes and come up with their own version of it. In regards to being published, they said that they will decide what is published, when is published, as she says, I’ve got the review in front of me “the Director of Safeguarding will share the review with the National Safeguarding Steering Group and the Director will, in consultation with the lead bishop and the deputy director for Communications take all decisions regarding publication of the review.” So I’m not even given an input into that.

William Crawley          So what are you going to do now?

Matthew Ineson            We’re looking at establishing our own investigation inquiry to look at what has happened and invite the church to participate with us, work with us. I will sit down with anybody, and work with anybody, to get to what actually happened. Yes, people need to learn lessons, but there must also be transparency and accountability. You know, the Church I will happily work with. I hope they will work with me. It doesn’t seem to be that case at the moment.

William Crawley          But if you do that Matt, if you have your own review, than don’t you face the same issues that you raised for the Church that you wouldn’t be independent in doing that?

Matthew Ineson            Well I would use, and I’ve spoken to, totally independent people to do it. People who are not connected to the Church of England at all, don’t really know me at all, apart from an initial conversation, don’t know Mr Devamanikkam, totally independent people who are experts in this field. The church cannot do its own. It’s wanting to do its own homework, it’s wanted to mark its own homework and then say “Oh, we’ve learned lessons” and put it in the bottom drawer. I want it to be truly, truly independent.

William Crawley          Matt what’s been the effect of all of this for you personally, going through this rather bureaucratic process but at the centre of it is the story of appalling abuse which you have experienced?

Matthew Ineson            It’s been, if I’m honest, devastating in my life. It is now seven years since I first disclosed to the bishops and they ignored it. I’ve had to go through the rejection from the bishops, I’ve had to go through all the thing of them imposing a one year rule and refusing to investigate the abuse, I’ve had to go through — they even wrote to my abuser and asked my abuser if he thought he should be investigated or not. And then the whole bureaucracy I’ve had to put up with Bishops not being truthful, the impact upon me really has been devastating and I know from talking to other victims that it has the same impact. It changes life for ever. Justin Welby himself has described this as a form of reabuse and it never never ever goes away. I did say that when I’d been to IICSA that was it. I was done. I would go give my evidence and I needed my life back. And suddenly I’m drawn back in again, and the Church are trying to control me again. That has a massive impact on anybody’s life. It’s changed my life. In terms of practical things, I’ve lost my home, my living, my vocation, my everything, because of the Church.

 William Crawley         Matthew Ineson. No one from the Church of England was prepared to come on the programme this morning to respond to Matthew’s concerns, but a spokesperson from the National Safeguarding Team told us “all aspects of the case will be looked at and we are in ongoing contact with Matthew about his involvement and feedback. The report and the Church’s response will be published in full once it is completed.”

                                       So what is the best practice when you are holding an independent review? Kate Blackwell is a Manchester based QC who’s a regulatory expert and has served as counsel for two independent panels, including the inquiry into the care, treatment and deaths of patients at Gosport War Memorial Hospital in Portsmouth. We asked Kate Blackwell to outline current best practice for all independent reviews.

Kate Blackwell QC       Well the starting point is to consider the purpose behind setting up an independent review, that something has gone wrong or someone has been wronged. And it’s a search for the truth to shed light on what has gone wrong both for the benefit of survivors of the tragedy and also for organisations to learn lessons. The duty of an independent review is to scrutinise often complex issues and recent inquiries such as the Hillsborough disaster and the deaths of patients at Gosport War Memorial Hospital have demonstrated that this is best done by a panel of independent experts, each bringing levels of excellence from varying perspectives, examining the issues together, and in a way not before contemplated, in order to reach the truth. And it almost goes without saying that the panel or individual reviewer must have complete independence from any party who is involved. And any such review needs to be done as transparently as possible to engender faith amongst survivors that those conducting the review can be trusted and that the review (and its end product the report) have integrity. So there must be maximum possible possible public disclosure of documentation which should take place in a two stage process. First in terms of the provision of all relevant material to the inquiry by all relevant stakeholders, interested organisations, in order for the panel, the reviewer, to consider the widest possible range of relevant material, but thereafter ensuring the greatest level of onward disclosure upon publication of the report. And this means no redaction of any content of the published report except within limited legal frameworks. But the most important aspect perhaps of one of these types of independent reviews is the involvement of survivors from the outset. A principle that has come to be known as ‘family first’ or ‘survivors first.’ It’s imperative for the review to obtain and then maintain the confidence of the survivors.

William Crawley          Well what you’ve laid out there really is the best practice approach to a review. Given what you’ve seen of the terms of reference of this review and what you’ve heard from Matthew there about his very grave concerns about independence, do you think this church review meets the ambitions that you’ve just articulated?

Kate Blackwell QC       It’s very difficult to see how any of the strict and important principles which I have set out in best practice are achieved in either what I have seen in the terms of reference or what I have heard from Matthew’s complaint.

William Crawley          So you think this falls short of an independent review

Kate Blackwell QC       Yes, I do.

William Crawley          And you’ve also said it’s very important that the complainant the aggrieved parties in these kinds of reviews be involved in shaping the terms of reference. What would your advice be to the Church at this point, if you are concerned about the independence of the review they’ve established in fixing that?

Kate Blackwell QC       Given what Matthew has said it’s difficult to see how at this stage the church can turn back time, can really seek to engender any sort of faith or confidence that he may have in what they’re doing. However if they were to say “well we’re prepared to start from the very beginning again” and to seek Matthew’s engagement and to seek his consultation in terms of the identity of the reviewer (or a panel of reviewers) and to sit down with him and to meaningfully involve him in drafting the terms of reference, then he might be able to say that he’s prepared to engage in those circumstances. But unless he feels that he has faith and confidence going forwards that this is going to be an independent review, drafted in terms which are wide enough to cover the issues which he feels need to be addressed, then it’s, so far as he is concerned, not going to be close to successful.

William Crawley          That’s as far as he’s concerned. Already he’s already expressed his concerns about the review and he has no faith and confidence in it but given the best practice principles you’ve laid out for us is this review compromised?

Kate Blackwell QC       It’s compromised before it’s even started because it’s not being conducted by a truly independent reviewer, it’s not engaged with Matthew in any meaningful way, there is nothing within the terms of reference to ensure maximum possible public disclosure (either in terms of provision of material for the reviewer or indeed in terms of publication of the report) because although I understand from what I have heard today that the church indicates that there will be publication of the report the terms of reference also include a provision that before that publication takes place it will be considered by a member of the church who sits high up in the organisation in order for him to assess whether or not it will be published in an unredacted form (or not). And that’s simply not good enough.

William Crawley          We asked the Church of England for a response to Kate Blackwell’s very serious criticisms and they said the prospective reviewer is independent and they’re taking the review seriously.

When I was a very small child, I learnt my first joke.  ‘When is a door not a door?  When it is ajar’.  It was the sort of joke that merited a groan rather than laughter but it helped me to realise that words could subtly change their meanings according to the way they are written and understood.  I was reminded of that childhood exchange as I listened to the Sunday programme on Radio 4 this morning.  A question was at the heart of the latter section of the programme.  When is an church independent review not a church independent review?  The answer according to Kate Blackwell QC, a senior lawyer, seemed to be that such church reviews about crimes and past failures are not fit for purpose when they are overseen by the Church of England.

In preparation for the interview, Kate spoke to Matt Ineson and looked at available paperwork connected with the proposed independent review by the Church about his case.  He had strongly maintained that his opposition to the Church’s review of his case was because of the way that they were controlling its scope and terms of reference.   Kate took his side on this and was also critical of the way that the Church was seeking to close down discussion of some aspects of the case, thus compromising its ability to preserve complete independence and the full truth.  Any independent review, and she referred to the Hillsborough enquiry and the Gosport Hospital scandal, needs three components.

1 It needs a panel of totally independent experts to review the material under consideration.   The complete independence of these reviewer(s) has to be ensured so that they can gain the trust of the injured parties.  The freedom to ask whatever questions the reviewer wishes is also a requisite of pursuing and discovering truth.

2 Access to all relevant written documents must be guaranteed.  No withholding of information can be tolerated and any redaction of material can only be accepted for very good reasons.

3 An involvement by the inquiry with the survivors is to be nurtured and sustained.  These survivors need to feel themselves to be right at the heart of what is being done.  The terms of the review will also be responsive and even shaped by the contribution of these survivors.

Through this legal opinion by a top lawyer, the Church of England, as represented by the National Safeguarding Team, has been given a reprimand.  In spite of the statements by the NST, Matt’s review (and the other promised reviews) will need to return to the drawing board if they are to be considered legally and ethically adequate.  Reviews of past crimes and reactions to them need to involve and inspire confidence in those who are the centre of these cases.  Matt’s claim all the way through the process, has been that Church’s approach to reviews and inquiries has always been to put the reputation of the Church first and never the actual victims.  If we are to see this strongly expressed legal opinion by Kate Blackwell enacted, it will mean that survivors will always be at the centre of reviews.  The nonsenses of the past week, Matt being turned away from meeting safeguarding officials at Church House, will be no more.  The Church will have to start welcoming survivors, even honouring them, if reviews are to reach an adequate standard of competency.  They need this if they are to gain public respect for the Church’s procedures and ability to deliver justice for those it has wronged.  The three qualifications for what a review should consist of, as I outline above, will no doubt be refined and improved but they will surely become part of the way that the Church thinks it should conduct itself.

How did the Church of England get into this mess?  I cannot of course answer this question completely but I want to share some observations from the margins.  Back in 2015 when the National Safeguarding Team was set up in Church House, there was a sense that the Church was responding to a crisis.   The crisis that was identified seems to have been, not the widespread suffering of countless individuals who were by then starting to come forward reporting past abuses, but reputational damage.  The focus on staffing the new Team was to enable the training of clergy and others to become aware of the crisis.  Such training would lessen incidence of abuse and thus continuing damage to the wider church.    Rigorous vetting and training for all members of the church was the priority.  The NST staff were chosen from professions who were good at delivering this kind of training and all the administration and management involved.  No one on the new 13.5 staff team of the NST was given the responsibility for caring for or reaching out to existing survivors and victims.  No one, in other words, had the task of representing victims, their needs and their perspective within the huge and expensive 2015 effort.  All the efforts were to make the Church a place of safety for all.  What was done was valuable as far as it went, but there was an apparent indifference within the structure to thinking about meeting the needs of actual survivors.

Since 2015 the situation does not seem to have improved by much.  The NST culture still seems to preserve the one in with which it was set up – the preservation and protection of the institution in the face of a crisis.  The people at the very top of the Church, whether Archbishops or senior Church civil servants like William Nye and Jacqui Philips also seem to breathe the air of this same culture.  The ignoring and shunning of Matt over the past week reflects the absorption of these painfully inappropriate and unhelpful attitudes.  Thankfully another culture exists outside the church in society and is represented by Kate Blackwell.  This knows about the values of openness, transparency and justice.  Now that these two cultures have been brought alongside one another, as they were on the Sunday programme today, we can make a choice.    Do we side with the Church in making the institution and the reputations of its senior leaders the focus of our loyalty?  Do we by contrast side with the cause and needs of the survivors, like Matt, the Smyth survivors and the victims of Bishop Whitsey?  For me, in spite of my continuing membership of the national Church, there is no choice but to side with and identify with abuse survivors.

At the conclusion of a very well-written piece about the Matt Ineson affair https://archbishopcranmer.com/shabby-and-shambolic-the-cofe-still-conspires-against-truth-and-justice-in-historic-sexual-abuse/, Martin Sewell asks a pertinent question.  Who is in charge of the Church of England?  Who, to be more precise, issues press statements through a spokesman at very short notice offering to explain the terms of the review about Matt’s case?  I have a personal interest in this press release as I decided to put Matt’s statement (with his permission) on my blog early on Wednesday morning.  This did seem to help circulation and provoked supportive comment on Thinking Anglicans and elsewhere.  The Church Times on-line on Wednesday quoted a ‘spokesman for the NST’ as saying ‘The Church is committed to an independent lesson-learning review into its handling of the Trevor Devamanikkam case, and the terms of reference and reviewer are soon to be announced……’  This statement to the Church Times, incorporated into Hattie Williams’ article, appeared within 12 hours (including hours of darkness) of the press statement from Matt.  At one level the statement is a typical piece of press-release speak; at another it contains a statement of policy which belongs to and affects the Church at the highest level.  Both Archbishops of our Church had become openly involved in the Ineson case through the IICSA probe and it would seem that every official statement on the topic has the potential to help or possibly harm the interests of the Archbishops themselves.  We can say that the person who made the decision to issue the outwardly anodyne statement was a person of great influence within the structure.  You do not give the task of issuing press statements to a junior member of staff when major policy is being spelt out and indirectly the reputations of both Archbishops are at stake.

Martin, in his article, helpfully lists all the potential candidates for making this official statement about how the review (and presumably all similar reviews in future) is to be conducted.  Was it the Archbishops, the House of Bishops, the Archbishop’s Council, the National Safeguarding Team, the National Safeguarding Director, the incoming National Safeguarding Director, the Lead Safeguarding Bishop, the Secretary General of the Archbishops’ Council and General Secretary of General Synod?  In surveying this impressive list of potential candidates, it is not unreasonable to exclude all the official groupings as there was simply not enough time for them to have gathered to discuss how best to respond to Matt’s press release.  Matt made his journey to Church house on Tuesday, hoping to see Roger Singlelton to discuss the way he had been faced with an effective ultimatum requiring him to agree to the terms of his review.  Matt was given till Wednesday 31 July to acquiesce in the terms of the review which had been laid out by Church House officials and the Safeguarding Team.  He issued his Press release on Tuesday evening and I published it on my blog the following morning.  Hattie Williams on the Church Times was given the Church’s response the same day.  The ability to respond with such alacrity had surely to be the work of a single person working alone or with a very small consultative group.  He/She had to be important enough to have been entrusted with the oversight over the whole process.  The press release was effectively made on behalf of all the stakeholders mentioned above.  The one person that probably did not have any hand in making the statement is the incoming National Safeguarding director, Melissa Carslake.  As a new broom in the process of Safeguarding, many people are welcoming her considerable experience and fresh eye.  They hope this will make a difference to the way safeguarding decisions are made right across the board.  The one thing that will, in all probability, put her on the back foot is this early discovery that there exist in the Church of England people or groups who, with a minimum amount of consultation, can take authority to make or reiterate policy on behalf of the whole.  I understand that she was in Church House on Tuesday when Matt was trying to speak to someone over the conditions being laid down for his review.  What does she think about an individual/small group deciding off their own bat that Matt’s issues could be brushed to one side?

Matt’s complaints about the process of review of past cases cannot be brushed to one side.  Neither can the power to decide on possible changes to the way reviews are conducted be devolved to mysterious unnamed individuals or groups operating in Church House.  It is commonly asserted that the Church of England is supposed to be ’episcopally led and synodically governed’. …. however is this true? Given that the  collegiate bodies cannot react swiftly this leads us to the key question. Where does the effective  day to day power lie, and are we sure this is a safe repository,  given recent events?    We are forced to conclude that the powers that rapidly make important decisions in Church House are neither the bishops nor elected members of Synod.  The decision to ignore Matt’s protest required a statement of church policy which is far more than a point of minor administration.  We need, in other words, to ask this question of the Church of England.  Are you sure that your Church is being governed and managed in the best possible way when decisions about such things as review processes are being made in dark corners beyond proper scrutiny?  Are you happy that the reputations of the nominal heads of the Church, the Archbishops and Bishops, are being sometimes damaged by the decisions of unelected advisors and officials secreted in Church House?  The two decisions we know about this week, the refusal to speak to Matt on Tuesday and the issuing of a press release attempting to override his earlier press release, were both wrong.  The consequences of both decisions could yet be fateful for the reputation for the Church.   If these errors are eventually acknowledged, as they may well be soon, who will be held responsible?   Will the Archbishop of Canterbury show true leadership in offering an apology to Matt both for past failures and the shambles of this week?  What is stopping him now?  Is it the same apparent influence that prevented him turning around in his seat at IICSA and speaking personally to Matt?  The question out of all these events is the one we began with.  Who has the real power in the Church of England?

Readers of my blog posts will not need to have much by way of comment on the Statement below. It is an expression of Matt’s criticisms of the official Church of England’s conduct of Safeguarding business and his case in particular. We would hope that his refusal to co-operate with the review into his case will result in some change in the ways these reviews are done. We can hope so and we and many others will be watching. The way out of this failure to protect and care for survivors will surely involve radical changes in leadership, both in the safeguarding industry and the episcopal oversight that is supposed to be in force. Whether this will will happen is unclear but the status quo is now so flawed that we all should be clamouring for change so that transparency and justice can be found.

This statement is issued on behalf of Matthew Ineson on Tuesday 30^th July 2019

STATEMENT FROM MATT INESON 

The Church of England has announced a “Lessons Learned” review into my abuse. I will not be cooperating with the review.   

At General Synod in July 2019 the Bishop of Bath and Wells announced three ‘independent’ Lessons Learned reviews into the Church of England’s handling of the disclosures of abuse by The Revd Trevor Devamanikkam, Bishop Victor Whitsey and John Smyth QC.  All three reviews had in fact been previously announced, but all three have been delayed by the church for almost two years. 

I am a victim of Revd Devamanikkam. On the basis of my evidence he was charged with three counts of rape and three counts of indecent assault of a child. He took his own life in June 2017 on the day before his trial. I had disclosed my abuse to Archbishop John Sentamu, Bishop Steven Croft, Bishop Peter Burrows, Bishop Martyn Snow and Bishop Glyn Webster. None of them took appropriate action on my disclosure. The re-abuse I have suffered as a result of the negligence of some of these bishops since my disclosures can only be described as wicked. I recently testified under oath about my abuse, and the church’s appalling response, at the IICSA Inquiry.

The Lessons Learned review into my case was originally announced in September 2017, but the church has repeatedly made many excuses for not starting it.  This month, under pressure from the IICSA Inquiry, the church announced that it was ready to go ahead. After waiting for two years I was given a matter of days in which to comment on the Terms of Reference and the chosen reviewer.

I have decided it is not possible for me at present to engage with the review. These are my reasons: 

• The entire process seems to have been constructed so as to avoid proper scrutiny. The so-called “core group” set up by the church to investigate what happened consists only of representatives of the bishops against whom I had complained, together with communications professionals from the church.  Neither I or my abuser are represented. Nor are there any external authorities or professionals. 

• The “independent reviewer” proposed by the church is in fact a contracted employee of the church and therefore cannot be seen as independent.  This is clearly unacceptable, but appears to be a growing pattern. The recent review of the case of Bishop George Bell was also conducted by a church employee.

• The terms of reference proposed by the church have been written in such a way as to limit the information available to any reviewer.  A time limit has been set on the scope of the reviews that deliberately precludes the investigation of individuals who were at the very core of wrongdoing. Again, this is a growing trend. The proposed review of John Smyth QC has been designed to exclude three quarters of his victims.

• The church’s National Safeguarding Team have said that they will only give the reviewer evidence that they judge to be relevant.  That means that the parties under investigation are controlling access to crucial material.

• The church has not given a commitment to publish the review. This is another unacceptable trend. The church decided that the recent review in Birmingham Diocese should not even be shown to the victims. How can lessons be learned if the review is not published in full?

Along with many other victims of church abuse I regard the church’s Lessons Learned review process as worse than useless. The overriding motive is clearly not to learn lessons but to protect bishops. This repeated cover-up happens at the expense of victims of abuse. We can have no confidence while the church seeks to mark its own homework.

The purpose of a review should be to investigate what has happened, thoroughly and transparently, and to bring to account those who have done wrong. The Church of England’s view is that it must be ‘seen’ to have done something, whilst in reality doing absolutely nothing. I cannot agree. There must be accountability. Lessons cannot be learned if no one is held to account.

I have repeatedly asked the church’s Director of Safeguarding to meet me to discuss my concerns, but he has refused to do so.

For all these reasons I regard the proposed review into the abuse by The Revd Trevor Devamanikkam as a sham and I will not participate in it.  Instead I plan shortly to commission a truly independent investigation into my abuse and the subsequent failings of bishops and others.  The Church of England will be invited to take part, and the results will be published so that lessons can truly be learned.

For further information please contact Matthew Ineson on 07780 686310 or castellan6@aol.com.

Matthew Ineson gave evidence to the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse on 10^th July.

The transcript of his evidence is available at https://www.iicsa.org.uk/key-documents/12767/view/public-hearing-transcript-10-july-2019.pdf

In recent public statements, the Archbishop of Canterbury has spoken about the problem of deference.  In complaining about deference, he is, no doubt, referring to the distinctive way that he and other bishops are treated by clergy and people alike.  People at the top of a tree, here the bishops, are looked up to and there may a situation of complete or partial paralysis as the ordinary person feels overawed by being in their presence.  This experience of deference thus leads to a state of inhibition of communication so that the one with power is unlikely to hear the true opinions of those ‘below’.   It is perhaps not the fault of the ones who have the power which causes this kind of inhibition in the other.   All of us recognise this phenomenon.  We enter the presence of someone important and we have a tendency to feel our own unimportance.  Our opinions also feel small and we may well, in our state of littleness, not give a good account of ourselves or our real opinions.

I have been trying to reflect on why the Church has a problem with deference and how the effect of this non-communication is so damaging to the church at large.  Clearly it is important for people of importance to listen to the widest possible range of people when making decisions which may affect the welfare of the same people.  If  people routinely feel overawed into silence or formulaic responses, then something is lost in the process of communication and decision making.

From an historical point of view, deference can be understood as a by-product of the mediaeval feudal patterns of ordering society.   The king occupied that highest position in the land and he could command the loyalty of the nobles below him.  These held land on his behalf.  In turn other ranks found a place in that society, right down to the landless peasants and slaves.  There was no social mobility to speak of in mediaeval society.  The power of custom and tradition kept most people firmly stuck in the rank into which they had been born.  There was however one anomaly in this society, the Church.  By maintaining a respected role within the whole, the Church has schemes of education and social advancement not known elsewhere.  Through cathedral schools, a bright boy could advance up the hierarchy of rank to occupy a place in court or among the great families where education and literacy was valued. 

The exact relationship between church and state in mediaeval society was a subject of contention.  Without getting into deep historical detail, I can mention the work of an 9^th century French bishop, Himcar of Rheims, who had much to do with the compiling of coronation rites for the early French kings.  He established the principle that a bishop was involved in the crowning of the King.  This quasi-sacramental act gave the bishop/pope an arguably higher place in the hierarchy that everyone acquiesced in.  Since that time bishops have inherited an intangible exalted status in the eyes of many people.  The word bishop can for some evoke centuries of influence and power.

Today the bishops carry what is regarded by many of them as the burden of being exalted within a hierarchical system.  Traces of these hierarchical ways of thinking are found in many parts of our society beyond the church.  One place of significance where we find it alive and well is in the English public-school system.  The boys at these schools could be said to be trained to live and breathe the values of mediaeval hierarchy.  The control and command structure find expression within the prefectorial system.  It has also been fed into the church through establishment influences like the Iwerne camps, about which we have heard so much recently.  Our whole society in the UK has in different ways learnt to live within and accept the values of deferential hierarchical society and way of doing things.  Bishops are right there in the middle of it, both as the result of history and to conform with an establishment that has grown up with it and still ‘enforces’ it.

It is hard to know what to recommend to Justin Welby as the antidote to deference.  One thought that comes out of a recent conversation, is to go back to the 7^th century in England when the Roman (hierarchical) traditions defeated the local Celtic traditions at the Synod of Whitby in 664.  What was defeated was not just a different date for Easter but a whole distinct way of doing church.  There is a lot that we do not know about the churches of the Celtic period.  Many of our current ‘rediscoveries’ may be based on complete misunderstandings.  But the one thing we do glimpse is a church that rooted itself in the life and witness of its monastic communities.  Because these communities, especially in Ireland, were opened ended, learning and monastic spirituality flowed out of them and permeated the whole of society.  Celtic ideas are also perhaps responsible for an intuitive connection between creation and faith.  The greater emphasis on community and the holistic vision of living more in harmony with the created order certainly seem values that Justin Welby is sympathetic with.  The community of St Anselm represents a vision for doing church which is quite different from the hierarchical strands of church life that we find elsewhere in the church. 

With this thought about the values of Celtic Christianity (whether or not they are based on fantasy), I would urge the Archbishop to speak far more about these gentler values from the past.  We would ask him to speak to us about the values that emerge out of community life, especially as they are being rediscovered in his own religious community in Lambeth.  To free the church of deference we need to see him challenge more openly the hierarchical structures that permeate the Church in so many ways.  The failure to listen and speak to survivors is an example of old-fashioned hierarchical values that demand control over the structure at every turn.  The other great perceived value of Celtic Christianity is the constant awareness of creation.  Living more in harmony with the seasons, the forces of nature is an effort that demands humility and patience.  Being still before God is a sentiment that captures the mood of the twenty first century far better than the many words that are used weekly in the pulpits of the church.

I am not sure what the slogan of the Church should be to bring us back from the possibility of collapse and irrelevance in the coming decades.  One thing I am certain of is that it will embrace these Celtic values of humility, stillness and new forms of communal living.  As I said in a previous blog, we expect from leaders a vision for the future.  That vision will not be about the management of decline but about new possibilities, hopes and dreams for the future.  The Christian faith has the capacity to cause ‘young men to dream dreams and old men to see visions’.  We need our leaders to show us the way.

Among the many documents attached to the recent IICSA hearings was an email correspondence dating back to 2015 between a survivors’ group and the Archbishop of Canterbury.  I would not have picked up on this exchange but for an alarming article last Friday in the Church of England Newspaper by Sheik Muhammad Al-Husseini.  Al-Husseini has core status in the IICSA hearings and although he is not directly involved in the Anglican side of the hearings, he seems remarkably well-informed about the detail of what is going on in our church.  He has also spoken to several survivors and their lawyers.

The correspondence, to which Al-Husseini refers, mentions that in 2015 one of the things that survivors were complaining about to the Archbishop was the use by some dioceses of a particular company to protect their interests, Luther Pendragon, a specialist in crisis management.  Without knowing anything further about this firm, one is immediately concerned to discover that at least two dioceses are spending considerable sums of money on this kind of advice.  If any institution brings in professional help to protect its interests then it means that this institution has decided that it needs to ‘circle the wagons’ to protect itself against a perceived enemy.  Who is this enemy?  The enemy is evidently none other than the survivors themselves.  These are the same people, whose interests the Archbishop of Canterbury has promised to put right at the centre of the Church’s concerns.

The letter addressed to the Archbishop on the 12 June 2015 claims that ‘scandal management companies like Luther Pendragon Limited  .. are known to have acted to obstruct, apply pressure and threaten survivors, whistleblowers and others who have spoken out about Anglican clergy abuse’.  Even without reading the letter detailing the techniques used by this firm, we seem to be entering a very dark place. A diocese of the Church of England (two are mentioned, London and Winchester) has felt it right to use the services of what can only be described as professional bullies to protect its reputation.  The victims of this bullying are among the most vulnerable group in society – the sexually and spiritually abused.  How can this be ethical, let alone Christian?  One survivor I know was informed that it was normal practice for the Church or its agents to collect personal information about complainants to assist in the potential legal defence processes which might lessen the potential liability of the Church.  A particularly nasty attack that survivors have had to face is the suggestion that, before their abuse, they were in some way already mentally fragile.  Thus, any symptoms of post-traumatic stress they may now be suffering, were already present. 

Al-Husseini’s article also mentions the fact that the Church of England nationally employs one particularly aggressive law firm to protect its interests.  A particular lawyer in this firm has acquired from survivors the nickname the Pitbull on account of her techniques of intimidation and merciless interrogation of survivors.   The article overall gives us some insight into a thoroughly unpleasant culture.  On the outside there are pleasing soft words, tears of remorse and apology.  Inside we find a ruthless machine full of hard-headed professional reputation people aligned to aggressive lawyers desperate to defend, at all costs, the institution.  

It is to be hoped that this inclusion by IICSA of the 2015 document naming, and hopefully shaming, the underhand methods of Luther Pendragon, shows that the Inquiry is fully aware of hypocritical goings-on in the Church.  A further area of injustice remains to be resolved.  This is the way that the Church has tried, through its professionals, to discredit a highly respected international expert on safeguarding, Ian Elliott.  In 2015 Ian produced a comprehensive report about the treatment of one particular survivor, known to IICSA as A4.  In his report which has not been published in full, Ian criticised the advice given to the Church by lawyers and others to withdraw pastoral and other support from A4.  The Church, after initially enthusiastically receiving the report and promising to implement its findings in full, started to draw back from this support.  We do not know of course what was said behind closed doors at meetings of strategists and advisers but evidently senior people desperately wanted to discredit the report’s recommendations.  Within six to nine months it became just another report to be shelved and forgotten.  By that time the bishop who had been asked by the House of Bishops to oversee its implementation, Sarah Mullally, had been promoted from Crediton to London.  Here her new responsibilities made the task of overseeing the implementation of the Elliott report impossible to fulfil.  The criticism that Elliott had made in his report about the withdrawal of pastoral care for A4 was not picked up by the Church or responded to.  Nevertheless, there were enough denials and rumours around to suggest that this was not a true record of what had happened and this allowed the Church to wriggle out of any obligation to implement any part of the report.  No one in the leadership of the Church attacked Elliott, but neither did they, in the end, do anything to support him or put his recommendations into practice.   

The doubts which had been cast over the Elliott report were finally confronted as the result of detective work presented to the IICSA enquiry.  Documents were uncovered which showed that there was, as he had claimed, written advice in circulation which gave clear advice to dioceses that A4 and other survivors were to be cut off from all communication with the Church if they made civil claims against it.  This included the withdrawal of pastoral support just as Ian Elliott had accurately reported.  This whole story was explored in the BBC Sunday programme on July 21st.

When we take an overall view of the way the Church has been behaving in regard to the survivors of sexual abuse it is hard not to use a series of adjectives which would include the words murky, disreputable and dishonest.  The gall needed to spend the Churches’ money on a company such as Luther Pendragon, which has made its name on defending tobacco companies and the nuclear waste industry, suggests that there are a considerable number of senior clergy who are in danger of losing their moral compass.  Every time a lie is told to a survivor, or a committee listens to ethically doubtful advice from an expensive lawyer, corruption enters in.  Individuals may have arrived at a meeting decent and honourable.  By the end of a meeting when they may have colluded in a blatant piece of expedient management of a survivor, there has been a slippage into colluding with evil activity.  This makes them participants in the evil themselves.

The saga of Jonathan Fletcher rumbles on.  Many people are asking how an individual with a history of doubtful behaviour and no PTO was able to access many pulpits in Britain and abroad over the past 2 ½ years.  Every such invitation involved another person in authority defying the rules of the Church.   Were these invitations made in conscious defiance of church rules or is it a case of information not being shared?  Then there is the deliberate ‘cleansing’ of mentions of Fletcher on various websites.  Who had the authority to perform such an act?  One author of a piece which had mentioned Fletcher in his original piece, only to see the name disappear, protested to me personally about this underhand and unauthorised editing.  The censorship shows every sign of being coordinated.  Thankfully no one has access to my blog posts so that my, no doubt provocative, posts on the topic remain up for anyone to read.

The Church at the institutional level and through its non-official manifestations seems to be going through a crisis of morality.  In spite of thousands of sermons preached each Sunday, the response to abuse survivors is apparently sometimes mired in shady, often shameful activity.  At the heart of this activity, as we have said many times before, is the need to preserve the good name of the structure.  How long will it be before this reputation polishing exercise collapses in total failure and the questionably ethical behaviour of so many church people becomes manifest?  That will be possibly the beginning of the end for our national Church.