IICSA has published the timetable for the first week of hearings.
The CofE has published this page, with links to material about the IICSA hearings. Those links includes this Q and A for parishes. This in turn links to another document: Church of England Safeguarding Overview.
Earlier, the CofE published this Church of England statement on IICSA‘s Child Migration Report. The IICSA press release about that report is here.
Mandate Now is a pressure group that seeks the introduction of law requiring staff who work in ‘Regulated Activities’ to report concerns about the welfare of children [and vulnerable adults] to the Local Authority. Mandatory reporting of suspected or known child abuse is a vital component of a functioning child protection system in institutional settings.
Mandate Now is supported by the largest coalition of survivor charities in England, Wales and Scotland which are members of ‘The Survivors Trust’.
Mandate Now has issued a critique of Church of England safeguarding: Church of England Safeguarding is Dysfunctional and Can Have No Reliance Placed Upon It | A Review by Mandate Now.
The full text of the review (224 pages) is available here.
The BBC regional television programme Inside Out for Yorkshire will broadcast an item tomorrow evening, Monday, which relates to the IICSA hearings:
1 Comment…Inside Out hears from a man who says senior clergymen ignored his disclosures of sexual abuse by a parish priest.
The Church Times has a report this morning, which mentions (scroll to end) that:
Ongoing safeguarding allegations. It was revealed this week that The General Synod was misinformed last month about the number of safeguarding allegations being handled by the dioceses, it was revealed this week.
There are in fact about 2600 cases ongoing, not 3300, as previously reported by the Bishop of Bath and Wells, the Rt Revd Peter Hancock, in a written question to a Synod member, Kat Alldread, last month (News, 16 February).
More than half of these 2600 cases involved children, and more than a quarter related to church officers — not 18 per cent as previously reported, the clerk to the Synod, Dr Jacqui Philips, confirmed in a letter to Mrs Alldread this week.
Harriet Sherwood in the Guardian today has a news report: Church of England faces ‘deep shame’ at child abuse inquiry which includes a link to the full text of the letter from Dr Jacqui Phillips, Clerk to the Synod, which corrects the statistics:
…At the General Synod on 8 February 2017 the Lead Bishop for Safeguarding answered your question no 47 about the scale of safeguarding casework. I very much regret to say that part of this answer was incorrect, owing to a human error in compiling the data from which the answer was drawn. The Lead Bishop has asked me to convey his apologies to you for this error and to express his hope that neither you nor other members of Synod will have been misled by this incorrect information…
The corrected answer reads:
“Each diocese is asked to complete an annual self-assessment circulated and collated by the National Safeguarding Team for the previous year’s activity. Our current data relates to 2016 activity. Reporting methods used by the dioceses may vary so the numbers given are an approximate figure.
“In 2016 dioceses reported that they were dealing with around 2600 safeguarding concerns or allegations. Concerns are different from allegations of actual abuse and may cover less serious matters but may include raising issues of neglect or potential vulnerability of children or adults. 53% of concerns or allegations relate to children, and 47% to adults. Around 27% of concerns or allegations raised relate to a church
officer.“The National Safeguarding Team has commissioned further work to analyse data for safeguarding concerns or allegations. The results of this analysis will be reported to the National Safeguarding Steering Group in due course.”
The main part of the Church Times news article by Hattie Williams, which is headlined IICSA hearing likely to prompt more disclosures of abuse, C of E safeguarding officials say previews the IICSA hearings that start next week, as does the Guardian article. The latter contains quotes from survivors Graham Sawyer and Gilo and from Richard Scorer, a specialist abuse lawyer at Slater and Gordon.
3 CommentsThe Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse will start three weeks of hearings into the Anglican Church [in England and Wales] on Monday 5 March.
There is voluminous information about IICSA, its other strands of investigation, and its other work, on its website.
IICSA summarises this investigation on its website thus:
An inquiry into the extent of any institutional failures to protect children from sexual abuse within the Anglican Church.
The Inquiry welcomed the invitation of the Archbishop of Canterbury for the Inquiry to investigate, as a matter of priority, the sexual abuse of children within the Church. Allegations of child sexual abuse within the Church of England, the Church in Wales, and other Anglican churches operating in England and Wales (‘the Anglican Church’) are matters of ongoing public concern.
This investigation will assess the appropriateness of safeguarding and child protection policies and practices in the Anglican Church. It will consider the adequacy of the Past Cases Review of the Church of England and the Historic Cases Review of the Church in Wales. As a case study, we will consider the experience of the Diocese of Chichester, where there have been multiple allegations of sexual abuse, and numerous investigations and reviews. echoua.com We will also consider the case of Peter Ball, formerly Bishop of Lewes and subsequently Bishop of Gloucester, and investigate whether there were inappropriate attempts by people of prominence to interfere in the criminal justice process after he was first accused of child sexual offences.
A further page gives more detail of the Scope of Investigation and this is also available as a pdf file.
Documentation relating to this particular investigation starts here.
Transcripts of the preliminary hearings can be found here, and this page will be updated with information daily throughout the next three weeks.
We will endeavour to report on its progress regularly.
5 CommentsUpdated
The Chichester Observer reported on Monday 12 February: Church defends its position on Bishop Bell amid mounting pressure
This includes a report of the BBC Radio 4 Today programme item on the morning of Saturday 10 February:
Lord Carlile, having advised in his report that alleged perpetrators, living or dead, should not be publicly identified unless a ‘proper and adequate investigation’ is settled with ‘admission of liability’, has opening [sic] criticised the Church for ignoring his recommendations in announcing this new information.
Speaking on Radio 4 Today on Saturday morning ahead of the General Synod gathering for a third day, Lord Carlile said:
“It’s like a small dictatorial government deciding to go ahead and acting any way it wishes, regardless of due process of the rule of law.
“It flies in the face of the recommendations I made which the Church said it accepted. “The Church has got to get a grip on this.”The programme also reported that the Church has denied Bishop Bell’s surviving family legal representation from their chosen barrister for this new investigation. Speaking on the programme on behalf of the Church, Tim Thornton, Bishop at Lambeth, said instead someone had been ‘put forward to represent the voice of Bishop Bell’ and his family…
On the same day, Martin Sewell wrote an article on the Archbishop Cranmer site, Church of England bullies George Bell’s elderly niece by denying her choice of lawyer. This long article really does need to be read in full, but here is a taster:
…Last December, Mrs Whitley would have taken comfort from the Carlile Report on the simple basis that if the original conclusion of the church’s Core Group is unsupportable through defect of process, then the reputational status quo ante applies. The Archbishop of Canterbury rather publicly does not agree, but in the Court of public opinion he is probably in a minority.
With the new matter placed prematurely in the public domain – against Lord Carlile’s specific advice – Mrs Whitley might have regarded that as simply the church’s token saving of face at a point when its sub-optimal competence in the handling of a historic case had been evidenced and asserted. ‘Look how transparent we now are’ is a way of kidding ourselves that things were/are not as bad as they were/are.
We all thought things would be done better the second time round, including the church putting right one of the more obvious errors of the first set of proceedings. The relevant Carlile recommendation had been: “The Core Group should have, in addition to someone advocating for the complainant, someone assigned to it to represent the interests of the accused person and his or her descendants.”
Those dealing with this new information acted with speed, but they had a problem. The old regulations which contributed to the errors referred to in ‘Bell 1’ were still in place; the House of Bishops have not yet formally accepted the Carlile Report; Church House was hurriedly drafting new regulations to address the need identified by Lord Carlile for a deceased accused to be represented at the Core Group. They wanted to ‘get on with it’, which is to be commended, but under pressure they gave themselves the unencumbered power to appoint the person who should represent that accused. Seeking the opinion of the family was plainly overlooked…
Today Martyn Percy also has a guest appearance at Archbishop Cranmer: ‘Sorry’ seems to be the hardest word: apologetics and apologies in the Bishop Bell case. He gives more detail on the latter point:
…Mrs Barbara Whitley, George Bell’s niece, and now 94 years of age, has made it clear that she wished to be represented by Desmond Browne QC. Yet without consulting with Mrs Whitley or the wider family further, on 8th February 2018, Graham Tilby of the NST informed Bell’s family and friends that he had assigned a Mr Donald Findlater to represent their interests and concerns. Moreover, it seems that Findlater had already attended the first Core Group meeting on 29th January 2018. At the time of that meeting Mrs Whitley had absolutely no idea about the new allegations. She has never met Findlater. So it must have been a strange and somewhat surreal sensation for the family and friends of Bishop George Bell to discover that the Church of England had appointed their defence advocate to represent Bell, without consulting the interested parties, and without anyone knowing what the “fresh information” consisted of…
Update
A correspondent has kindly supplied a transcript of the BBC Today interview mentioned above.
21 CommentsContinued from here.
On Monday, Christian Today reported: Welby under pressure as General Synod members asked to back motion of ‘regret’ over Bishop George Bell case
And Martin Sewell wrote this analysis: Did Lambeth Palace know the ‘fresh information’ about Bishop George Bell before Lord Carlile published his report?
On Wednesday morning, the Church Times published a preview of an interview with Justin Welby which will appear in full on Friday: Bishop Bell’s accuser cannot be overlooked, says Welby.
This interview is, somewhat oddly, also previewed by Christian Today : Archbishop of Canterbury says George Bell’s accuser is as important as late bishop’s reputation.
ABC Radio (Australia) has a feature: The controversy surrounding George Bell which features Paul Handley, editor of the Church Times. The recording is about 10 minutes long.
9 CommentsSurvivors of sexual abuse in the Church of England are planning to make their presence felt at the General Synod on Saturday of this week, when a presentation on the topic of Safeguarding will take place, followed by an opportunity for synod members to ask questions.
This press release has been issued:
Victims and survivors speak out about their treatment by the Church of England
On Saturday 10th February the Church of England’s General Synod will hear a presentation about the church’s approach to safeguarding. The presentation is intended to prepare synod members for the forthcoming hearings of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (IICSA). IICSA will turn its focus onto the Church of England beginning on Monday 5th March.
Victims and survivors of abuse within the the church fear that their voices are rarely heard. To address this they have produced a booklet called We Asked for Bread but you gave us Stones (linked below) in which they address the church powerfully and painfully in their own words. The booklet consists entirely of victims’ words, collated with an introduction by victims’ advocate Andrew Graystone. The title is a reference to the words of Jesus in Matthew 7:9 “Which of you, if your child asked for bread, would give them a stone.” The booklet will be delivered this week to every member of the General Synod, including every diocesan bishop and archbishop.
Representative victims of church abuse are also inviting the archbishops, bishops and all members of the General Synod to meet them at 9am on Saturday morning at the entrance to Church House, Dean’s Yard, Westminster, and to stand with them for two minutes of silent reflection prior to the safeguarding presentation. By this act they invite synod members to affirm the intention of the church to act justly towards victims of abuse both now and in the future.
A further statement will be issued on behalf of victims at 1pm on Saturday 10th February, following the synod presentation.
Monday 5th – Sunday 11th February 2018 is also Sexual Abuse and Sexual Violence Awareness Week.
For further information please contact Andrew Graystone via andrew.graystone1@btinternet.com
This has already been reported in Christian Today Some serving bishops have been abused, says campaigner in victims booklet sent to CofE synod members.
Earlier this week, there was a report in the Sunday Times about a particular case. The newspaper report is behind a paywall, but the link to it is here: Justin Welby ‘blocked’ payouts to abused pupils.
0 CommentsUpdated again Friday evening
Two press releases today from the Church of England:
Statement on Bishop George Bell case: Bishop Peter Hancock
31/01/2018
Bishop Peter Hancock, the Church of England’s lead Safeguarding bishop said: “There are ongoing queries and comments around the Bishop Bell case and we would all like this matter to come to a conclusion. However, in light of General Synod questions that need to be responded to and the reference to the case in the IICSA hearing yesterday, I would like to draw your attention to this statement from the National Safeguarding Team. I would ask that we keep all those involved in our thoughts and prayers. Due to the confidential nature of this new information I regret I cannot disclose any further detail until the investigations have been concluded. We are currently developing an action plan in response to Lord Carlile’s independent report which makes a number of considered points as to how to handle such cases in future and we have accepted the main thrust of the recommendations.”
Statement on Bishop George Bell case: National Safeguarding Team
31/01/2018
“The Church of England’s National Safeguarding Team has received fresh information concerning Bishop George Bell. Sussex Police have been informed and we will work collaboratively with them. This new information was received following the publication of the Carlile Review, and is now being considered through the Core Group and in accordance with Lord Carlile’s recommendations. The Core Group is now in the process of commissioning an independent investigation in respect of these latest developments. As this is a confidential matter we will not be able to say any more about this until inquiries have concluded.”
See also Church Times report: New Bell material sparks fresh investigation.
In relation to the IICSA hearing yesterday, the transcript of that is available here.
The Church Times report of it is headlined: Independent Inquiry into Child Sex Abuse pores over 75,000 pages about Chichester diocese.
There is also a report in The Tablet.
In relation to the forthcoming General Synod session, the only documents issued relating to Safeguarding are copies of two previously published reports:
GS Misc 1172 An Abuse of Faith relating to Peter Ball
GS Misc 1173 The Independent Review relating to Bishop George Bell
Wednesday Update
Telegraph Church accused of launching new ‘shameful’ attack on memory of Bishop George Bell
…The Telegraph understands the Church has known about the case for at least a fortnight before making it public 24 hours before the Church House debate…
…Lord Carlile said he was astonished that the Church had gone public with the new claim against Bishop Bell. Among his recommendations was that people accused of abuse should remain anonymous until the allegations are proven.
Lord Carlile said last night: “I am not privy to the information that is referred to in the church’s press release. But I think it was unwise, unnecessary and foolish to issue a press release in relation to something that remains to be investigated and which was not part of the material placed before me over the period of more than a year in which I carried out my review.
“During that period the review was well known and it was open to anybody to place information before me.”
Thursday Update
There’s been a further flurry of items during Thursday:
Church Times
Lord Carlile says new statement about Bishop George Bell is unwise and foolish
Christian Today
George Bell, Justin Welby and the perils of navigating a binary argument
EXCLUSIVE: Bishop blasts disgraced priest allowed to defend George Bell at Church of England’s headquarters
“Archbishop Cranmer” Lord Carlile denounces ‘foolish’ Church of England for casting further doubt on the name of Bishop George Bell
Peter Hitchens New ‘information’ about George Bell. A Coincidence Theorist Writes
Friday Updates
Argus Church waited weeks to reveal new claims
31 CommentsTHE Church of England waited six weeks to release an allegation of historic sexual abuse, The Argus can reveal.
The “fresh information” about Bishop George Bell came on Wednesday.
The General Synod is due to discuss Bell’s case next week.A senior Church of England source said the “fresh information” came to light “within days” of a press conference at Church House on December 15 at which Lord Alex Carlile was damning about the Church’s handling of the affair.
The source said internal discussions were taking place “well before Christmas” on how to handle the new allegations…
…The “fresh information” is believed to be an allegation received by another complainant.The George Bell affair hit the headlines in mid-December when Lord Carlile accused the Church of unfairly maligning the legacy of one of the 20th century’s most revered churchmen.
At the time Lord Carlile said the Church investigation of Carol’s complaint had been “deficient in several ways”.
He added: “The statement [of October 2015] was wrong, it should never have been issued. I think if one looks at the process, the process went just horribly wrong.”
Yesterday he said: “My clear view, which I’ve expressed to the Church, is that the press release issued yesterday should never have been released.
“It flies in the face of my recommendations.
“I recommended strongly that there should be a case investigated before any announcement was made.”When informed of the time delay, Lord Carlile pointed out that a demonstration had been planned for yesterday by those seeking an apology from the Church and a full restitution of Bell’s legacy.
Lord Carlile said: “If the timing was deliberate, it’s a disgrace.
“And if it was not deliberate, then it’s incompetent.”
Updated Friday evening
Continued from this earlier post… (Comment pieces are at the bottom of that article.)
Martin Sewell has written at Archbishop Cranmer The George Bell saga evidences a CofE legal culture which is not merely incompetent, but predisposed toward deception and injustice.
This is a very long and detailed article but is well worth the time to study. Here’s a teaser excerpt:
…The problem may be succinctly put: Archbishop Justin has a handful of advisors to guide him in these matters – not one of whom has a credible claim to expertise in this increasingly complex specialism. What is especially ironic is that, in the person of the President of Clergy Discipline Tribunals, Lord Andrew McFarlane QC, the Church of England has the country’s leading expert on Safeguarding Law. The legal tome Hershman and McFarlane’s Children Law and Practice is every child practitioner’s bible: it runs to four volumes and is updated every three months with interchangeable loose-leaf inserts. This is a fast evolving field for the specialist: what major institutions do not need is people from other disciplines doing their incompetent best…
And a second one:
…The Church of England needs to found its Safeguarding on the well-established principles of English Law. It has been off on a frolic of its own, and it has not ended well. Speaking to a very senior figure at Synod I was gently chided: “You want to create a system in accordance with the Law – we are creating one suitable for the Church of England.” Well, just look where that has got us.
Even if it were right for the Established Church to attempt to develop a jurisprudence divergent from that of English and Welsh Law, on what basis do we suggest that we have the knowledge and basic competence to undertake such a project?
There is also a letter from Martin Sewell in the Telegraph (h/t AC)
Christian Today has Bishop of Peterborough breaks ranks over Church’s handling of George Bell case (for full parliamentary text see here).
…Explaining his remarks to Christian Today, Allister said the name of the accused should only be disclosed ‘when there was a substantial body of evidence suggesting guilt’.
‘I suggest that if a complainant is allowed to be anonymous, there should be a presumption that the respondent should normally be afforded the same right,’ he told Christian Today.
‘I am simply asking for a public debate and for the government to review this matter. I’m not suggesting that I have all the answers, merely that I believe such a review is necessary.’
Updates
Church Times has a leader Saint, tarnished which concludes this way:
…It is because innocence is harder to prove than guilt that the UK legal system insists on assuming innocence until guilt has been proved. It is this assumption that Bishop Bell is being denied, and it is for this reason that Lord Carlile and others have advocated anonymity for those accused of abuse. Sir Cliff Richard, at the end of a successful fight to clear his name, remarked: “It hurt me so much I don’t think I can ever recover personally.” Of course, Bishop Bell knows nothing of the accusation. Instead, it is the Church of England’s own history and reputation that is being harmed, despite this talk of heroes.
It is clear that the Lambeth psyche has been seriously bruised by the Peter Ball affair. Archbishop Welby named the disgraced former Bishop of Gloucester three times in his short statement about Bishop Bell on Monday. Possibly, too, there are personal scars from the John Smyth cover-up. But an unwinnable wrangle over an unprovable case undermines the Church’s efforts to construct a credible response to present-day instances of abuse.
Andrew Brown in the Church Times press column covers the subject: Newspapers circle as Archbishop Welby digs in
…When you have The Economist, The Times, the Telegraph, The Guardian, and The Mail on Sunday all attacking you, it is safe to say that you have lost the press. And it is really hard to see what is gained as a result.
Economist The case of Bishop George Bell
14 CommentsUpdated again Wednesday
Media Reports
BBC Bishop George Bell not to be cleared over ‘abuse’
Guardian Archbishop refuses to retract George Bell statement
Telegraph Justin Welby under fire over refusal to say sorry over ‘trashing’ of Bishop George Bell’s name
Church Times Welby declines to lift the cloud hanging over Bishop Bell
Christian Today Archbishop of Canterbury stands by statement saying there is a ‘significant cloud’ over Bishop George Bell’s name
Press Association via Daily Mail Archbishop of Canterbury refuses to clear late Bishop Bell of child sexual abuse
Premier Radio Justin Welby: ‘I cannot with integrity rescind my statement’ on Bishop George Bell
Updates
Express Fury as Archbishop Of Canterbury refuses to clear innocent Bishop of child sexual abuse
Times I won’t retract statement on Bishop Bell, says Archbishop Welby
Chichester Observer Archbishop refuses to lift ‘significant cloud’ left over Bishop Bell
Comment
Peter Hitchens What Does the Archbishop Think He is Doing?. This is a lengthy and detailed rebuttal of Welby’s statement which needs to be read in full. Here’s an extract:
…Mr Welby, in his very thin responses to the Carlile report, has never really addressed this. He has said that the report didn’t rule on Bell’s guilt or innocence, an almost childishly absurd response, since Mr Welby had told Lord Carlile in his terms of reference that he could not rule on this. In any case, Lord Carlile has repeatedly said since, in response to media questions, that no court would have convicted George Bell on the evidence which has been produced against him. It is clear that had Lord Carlile been asked to rule on George Bell’s guilt or innocence, he would have pronounced him ‘not guilty’. So what, precisely is the evidence on which the Archbishop of Canterbury, supposedly spiritual leader of millions, guardian of the foundations of truth and justice, maintains that there is still a ‘cloud’ over George Bell’s name? Does he have second sight? Does he know something he is not telling us? If so (though I cannot see how this can be so) , why will he not say what it is? If not, why is he of all people exempted from the good rule, surely Biblical in origin, that if you cannot prove that a man is guilty, he is innocent and you shouldn’t go round saying that he is guilty just because in some way it suits you to say so. Some miserable rumour-monger in a pub might be entitled to drone that there is ‘no smoke without fire’, but not the inheritor of the See of Saint Augustine, I think. I doubt Mr Welby is familiar with the catechism in his own Church’s Book of Common Prayer, it having fallen rather out of use since that Church became happy and clappy. But I am sure the Lambeth library can find him a copy, and point him to the passage in which the candidate for confirmation is asked ‘What is thy duty towards thy neighbour’? I commend it to him…
Separately, a Question was asked in the House of Lords yesterday about this matter, and the full Hansard record of what was said, by Lord Lexden, Lord Cormack, and others can be read here.
Lord Lexden asked:
I urge my noble friend to study a recent report by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, into the way in which a group within the Church of England investigated a single uncorroborated allegation of child sex abuse against one of the greatest of all Anglican bishops and a prominent Member of your Lordships’ House, George Bell, who died 60 years ago. While the noble Lord was precluded from reviewing the Church’s decision to condemn Bishop Bell, it is clear from his report that the case against that truly remarkable man has not been proved, to the consternation of a number of Members of this House including my noble friend Lord Cormack. I ask my noble friend to consider the recommendation from the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, that,“alleged perpetrators, living or dead, should not be identified publicly unless or until the Core Group has … made adverse findings of fact, and … it has also been decided that making the identity public is required in the public interest”.
Should there not be a legal requirement in all cases to ensure that that is met before anyone, alive or dead, is named publicly? Does my noble friend agree that institutions of both Church and state must uphold the cardinal principle that an individual is innocent until proved guilty?
And Lord Cormack said:
My Lords, I urge my noble friend to think again on this. It is a deeply shocking case. The reputation of a great man has been traduced, and many of us who are Anglicans are deeply ashamed of the way that the Anglican Church has behaved. This can surely be a spur to the Government to review the law to try to protect the anonymity of people who are accused of something years–decades–after their death with one uncorroborated alleged witness. Please will she take this on board and talk to the Secretary of State about it?
The Bishop of Peterborough said:
My Lords, this has been a very difficult case, but Bishop Bell is not the only person whose reputation has been severely damaged by such accusations–some are dead and some still alive. I urge the Minister and the Government to take very seriously the call for a major review of anonymity. In all cases where the complainant has a right to be anonymous, there seems to be a case for the respondent also to be anonymous, and in cases until there is overwhelming evidence to suggest guilt, it seems reasonable for people’s reputations not to be damaged in this public way.
Updates
Tim Wyatt in the Spectator The Church of England’s Bishop Bell battle
“Archbishop Cranmer” Justin Welby has staked his reputation and legacy on the maintenance of a profound injustice to Bishop George Bell
14 CommentsUpdated Saturday
First, Dr Irene Lancaster wrote in Christian Today Bishop George Bell was a hero who saved Jewish children. It is time his reputation was restored.
Then, Bishop Peter Hancock replied to this with Why the Church insisted on transparency with the George Bell case.
Meanwhile, the Telegraph reports that a letter has been sent to the Archbishop of Canterbury from seven academic historians criticising his comments in response to the Carlile report: Archbishop’s claims against Bishop George Bell ‘irresponsible and dangerous’.
The full text of the letter is copied below the fold.
Earlier criticism was reported here, here, and here. and there is another item not previously linked.
Updates
A further letter has been published in The Times:
Sir, As individuals much involved in the international ecumenical movement for Christian unity, we have written to the Archbishop of Canterbury welcoming the review by Lord Carlile of Berriew of the investigation by the Church of England into allegations of child sexual abuse by the late Bishop George Bell. We believe that in the light of the review Bell’s reputation should now be fully and unreservedly acknowledged and restored by the church.
Bell was a tireless worker for Christian unity and international peace and reconciliation. He belongs as a prophetic figure within the ecumenical movement just as much as he belongs as a bishop in his own church. The way in which the allegations against him were dealt with has shocked people well beyond both the Anglican communion and Britain. There has been a miscarriage of justice for one who himself fought so earnestly for the victims of injustice.
We with many others of different churches all over the world will now expect that the Church of England will acknowledge its responsibility to that wider community of which it is part and renew the respect due to George Bell, to the benefit of Christians everywhere and all who believe in justice and humanity.
Revd Dr Keith Clements, former General Secretary, Conference of European Churches;
Professor Jaakko Rusama, Lutheran Co-Moderator, International Anglican-Lutheran Society;
Professor John Briggs, former member, Executive Committee, World Council of Churches;
Dr Ferdinand Schlingensiepen, Pastor Emeritus, Evangelical Church of Germany, Dusseldorf;
Revd Canon Dr David Thompson, Emeritus Professor of Modern Church History, University of Cambridge;
Dr Guy Carter, Roman Catholic theologian and writer, York, Pennsylvania;
Bob Fy]e, General Secretary, Churches Together in Britain and Ireland;
David Carter, former secretary, Theology and Unity Group, Churches Together in Britain and Ireland;
John W de Gruchy, Emeritus Professor of Christian Studies, University of Cape Town;
Revd John W Matthews, Senior Pastor, Grace Lutheran Church, Apple Valley, Minnesota;
Dr Jacob Phillips, Theology and Religious Studies Programme Director, St Mary’s University, Twickenham
Both letters are reported on in the Church Times Welby is urged to withdraw George Bell ‘cloud’ statement after Carlile report:
9 CommentsTHE Archbishop of Canterbury faces gathering international opposition and criticism over his response to the Carlile review of the Bishop Bell affair.
Two letters — one from seven academic historians, and another from 11 correspondents associated with the wider Church internationally and ecumenically — have been sent to the Archbishop. A third, from a group of theologians, is understood to be in preparation…
Updated yet again Friday afternoon
This critique by Martin Sewell at Archbishop Cranmer needs to be read in full by anyone who has concerns about the way the Church of England has treated Bishop George Bell:
Carlile Report: Bishop George Bell has been traduced, and the blame lies squarely with Church House and Lambeth Palace
There is also this piece by Peter Hitchens in the Mail on Sunday:
PETER HITCHENS: If a saintly man can be branded a sex abuser, none of us is safe.
We linked previously to the Telegraph article by Charles Moore:
Archbishop Welby’s response to
the George Bell inquiry is shocking
Ian Paul has asked
What is missing in the George Bell case?
Martyn Percy at Christian Today
Why the Church’s response to the George Bell inquiry is so shocking
Peter Hitchens has now written an open letter to the Bishop of Chichester:
Acquitted and Vindicated – but his Reputation is Still in Prison. The Church’s Duty to George Bell
The Telegraph reports: Bishop Bell’s niece: Welby should resign
Church Times Letters to the Editor: Inadequate episcopal response to Carlile report includes two: one from Professors David Brown and Ann Loades, and the other from Dr Ruth Hildebrandt Grayson, who had written previously on 17 November (scroll down to second letter).
27 CommentsThe review referred to in the previous post was reported on earlier.
15 March 2016 Church of England publishes part of Elliott report into sexual abuse case
At that time it was reported that both the Guardian and the Church Times had seen the full report.
The Church of England has today published portions of the report that was commissioned in September 2015 into a particular case of alleged sexual abuse by a member of the clergy.
The materials published by the church do not disclose the names of any of the persons involved. However, the Guardian newspaper carries a report by Harriet Sherwood which names the perpetrator and states that the Guardian has seen the full report. The Guardian has also interviewed the survivor in this case.
The Church Times has also seen the full report…
Links made in that article to the CofE website no longer work but here are new ones:
Response from Bishop Sarah Mullally on Elliott Review findings.
…”This report has published a series of important recommendations. The Archbishop of Canterbury has seen these recommendations and will ensure they are implemented as quickly as possible.
“How we respond to those who have survived abuse in any form, whether as a child or an adult, is a measure of our humanity, compassion and of the Church’s mission in the world.”
A year later, on 31 March 2017:
Elliott Review progress report
The Church of England’s National Safeguarding Team has today published a progress report, one year on from the Elliott Review, which recommended a range of safeguarding proposals for the Church, particularly in the areas of handling disclosures and accountability…
The full text of the progress report is here.
1 CommentThe BBC Radio 4 Sunday programme this morning carried an interview with Ian Elliott concerning the Church of England’s response to the review he carried out into the case of Gilo, about which we have reported previously, here and also here and earlier here.
The radio programme can be found here. The interview starts just before 29 minutes in.
The full text of the statement prepared by Ian Elliott is published below the fold. Further comments by Ian are in the following press statement.
Press Statement from Gilo
Ian Elliott is an internationally recognised safeguarding expert and reviewer, who led the Elliott Review for the Church of England nearly two years ago. He has worked at national church and government level around the world and is highly regarded for his work in Ireland and Australia and elsewhere.
Ian Elliott’s comments following interview with Ed Stourton for BBCRadio4. Ian has given permission for these comments to be quoted in addition to anything from his statement.
“Archbishop Welby’s letter in response to the thoughtful and in my view, helpful open letter, is misplaced. Kind words are not adequate. What is needed is action. Survivors need to see the church letting them know what changes will be made, when changes will be made, and how the church can be held to account in terms of those changes. The survivors I have spoken to want to feel that what’s happened to them is of enough concern to the church that it is keeping the hierarchy awake at night. They don’t see enough real concern or impetus for action. Survivors just don’t see that at present. So many of the problems the Church of England face are of their own making because of the inertia and resistance to any change.”
Regarding the core groups with EIG presence, Ian wishes to add, as this was not covered in the interview:
“I attended two Core Group meetings when undertaking the Review. A lawyer representing EIG was present at both of these meetings which struck me as being unusual. I would have thought that the survivor could have been invited as well, and contributed usefully to the meeting but this does not appear to be usual practice. In my experience, affording the subject of the meeting, the survivor, the opportunity to contribute to it, makes for much better outcomes. The Core Group meeting should have a pastoral focus but this was not my assessment of the ones that I attended. It is rooted in attitudes towards survivors which are totally misguided, misplaced, and unacceptable.”
Phil Johnson, chair of MACSAS says: “These core groups demonstrate the extent to which the church is more interested in financial considerations than the well-being and care for victims. Survivors haven’t known or been invited with their own legal representative and this is a huge imbalance of power. It gives the insurer massive informational and strategic advantage and potential opportunity to cover its tracks”
Gilo says: “I’ve been raising questions to the Church about its relationship to Ecclesiastical Insurance for 2 years now, but saw the questions discredited and ignored by their National Safeguarding and National Advisor. Yet all this time they’ve kept quiet about these core groups. I’m not the first to raise questions about the church and insurer working in close tandem. Survivors have been raising the skewered relationship in person to Archbishop Welby for the past five years.
So it is disturbing that the church has been sitting on this embarrassing information in this way – hoping it will not see the light of day. My impression is the operation is heavily controlled by William Nye (Secretary General of Synod) who the National Advisor directly reports to. I tried to get answers from William Nye as to why my questions were discredited two years ago – but got nowhere. And despite the growing media interest in this scandal, they still do not provide answers.
So I have asked Bishop Peter Hancock and Bishop Sarah Mullally to instigate a review to establish how many pastoral core groups have had this presence under quiet stealth of the insurer. It’s the stuff of Spotlight! (the movie) I have also asked them to examine the NST’s culture of gaslighting and discrediting. These core groups are a major piece of the jigsaw in the church’s moral illegitimacy of response to all survivors, and probably a long term pattern. It is time the Church of England came clean on this. And it’s astonishing the extent to which they’ve shielded and protected Ecclesiastical’s deception across the past two years.
I was shocked to discover recently they did have input into Mr Elliott’s review, despite so many public statements to the contrary. EIG have been allowed by the church to be consistently dishonest, which has caused distress, confusion and deep mistrust. I’m glad that Mr Elliott has finally been able to put the record straight. I am aware that the Elliott Review has been openly trashed by caseworkers of the NST and also in Lambeth Palace at very high level. I feel they should put up or shut up – and get on with real action, real change and real justice instead of seeking to discredit survivors, and discredit independent reviews. In my view the church has been acting in ways bordering on corrupt. Time to stop discrediting and pretending the questions away. Church House in Westminster needs to be brought into daylight. And I hope this is what the lead bishop will now do.”
5 CommentsDavid Ison the Dean of St Paul’s has called for a radical overhaul of safeguarding in the Church of England.
This is reported here: Dean of St Paul’s calls for ‘compromised’ bishops to lose responsibility for safeguarding.
The full text of the dean’s remarks can be found here: “Cassock Chasers” and Compromised Clergy. Please read the whole of it.
4 CommentsUpdated
A further exchange of letters between the Archbishop of Canterbury and Gilo, an abuse survivor, has been published today.
We reported earlier on the open letter to the archbishop that Gilo had sent.
The response from the archbishop to the open letter from Gilo is now available.
Gilo’s further response to the archbishop is also available here.
And there is a press release, copied below the fold.
This material is also published on the Ekklesia website.
Media coverage:
Church Times Survivor keeps pressure on Archbishop to bring in mandatory reporting of abuse
Christian Today Justin Welby under pressure to overhaul approach to church sex abuse survivors
13 CommentsChurch of England press release
Timing of publication of independent review of the processes used in the Bishop George Bell case
A spokesperson for the National Safeguarding Team said: “We received the draft of Lord Carlile’s report in October and now, according to the Terms of Reference of the review, are at the stage of responding with feedback from those who contributed. This is quite an intensive process and includes issues over factual accuracy and identification of ‘Carol’. As the review website notes, the final version of the report will then be presented to the National Safeguarding Steering Group before publication. This is the process with all independent reviews, there is a period of a few months between receiving the first draft and final publication.”
Background:
Appointment of Lord Carlile on 22 November 2016
Full text of his terms of reference
Extract from Frequently Asked Questions on the Carlile Bell website:
14 Comments…When will the review be finished?
It is planned that the Review will be completed by end of July 2017 and published as soon as possible after that.
Who will see the final report? Will I get to see it?
The report will first be presented to the Church of England, National Safeguarding Steering Group. It will then be published in full.
