The Church Times reports (under the news story about further delay in the review of the John Smyth case):
Charity Commission appeal. A letter has been sent to the Charity Commission asking it to investigate the Church of England’s safeguarding practices. The 51 signatories include lay and ordained church members, survivors, and some elected members of General Synod.
The signatories express concern about safeguarding policies and practice in the Church of England, referring to “a highly dysfunctional church culture” that is “uniformly poor in responses to allegations of abuse”.
The Church lacks any “functional leadership” in safeguarding, the letter says; “current safeguarding processes, bodies, panels, and their personnel are incompetent, ineffective and unfit for purpose.”
A Church of England spokesperson said: “The Church is committed to the highest standards of safeguarding and this is carried out by professionals both nationally and in its 42 dioceses who support parish safeguarding officers who work in every church across the country. The Church is always open to scrutiny of its processes and will listen and respond to concerns when raised.”
See here for the full text of the Open Letter to the Charity Commission.
The CofE response puts me in mind of Yes Prime Minister’s especially https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x5t4iz7
Well done, Mr Sewell and others. At a recent safeguarding course that I attended in order to have PTO renewed, it was clear that deference to clergy is alive and well, and that clergy participants seemed to find it impossible to see the point of view of anyone other than themselves, and certainly not the victims. This is no criticism of the course leaders who did an excellent job in the face of this blindness.
Thank you. They key issue is that Archbishops’ Council are now, sadly, part of the problem and not part of the solution.
The CofE can be relied upon to successfully exclude flower arrangers from the rota for not completing the requisite training, but I guarantee that not a single abuser bully or negligent bishop is losing a moment’s sleep that the Independent (sic) Safeguarding Board is on their case.
I have two experiences of Safeguarding one nationally one local. One is ongoing and has left me feeling that I can longer attend the only Anglican church in Berlin. in the other case the process became almost worse than the original abuse and it took the intervention of a senior bishop to get it resolved. Both incidents of abuse would probably seem fairly minor to most people but both events caused me lasting damage. Do priests understand the power they have and the damage they can cause ? Abuse is not just sexual abuse but the Church of England doesn’t… Read more »
This is a very common complaint David. One signatory told me she cried when she first read our letter as this was the first time she had seen her feelings expressed so clearly .
John Lees, then Clergy Appointment Advisor at Lambeth, wrote a paper some 10 or 15 years ago in which he pointed out that pastoral clergy rarely shine at competitive interviews. Thus, an unforeseen (?) consequence of the increasing trend for competitive appointments to parish posts was that managers were being appointed rather than pastors. The effect of this has been exacerbated by giving priests more parishes to look after, more paperwork and admin to do, and more pressure to produce visible results in terms of numbers attending and donations made. Spiritual growth and the healing of spiritual and psychic wounds… Read more »
Listen and respond to concerns when raised? Not in any safeguarding scenario I’ve ever come across. If this approach is dismissed, then they will be proving themselves wrong.
On the face of it, as a Christian, it is hard to comprehend that the public facing Church of England could be responsible for what is being written. And I believe that part of the problem of this, is that the loyal congregation *close their ears* to what they fear is true, but if they acknowledged it – it would put a doubt on their own spirituality and religion. Well imagine if you were a child abused under that religion. And further abused by that religion when you sought repair. The (very heavy) criticism – please read the full letter… Read more »
I have recently completed my safeguarding training. As part of that, we were required to watch the documentary on Peter Ball, ‘Exposed – the Church’s darkest secret’. As I watched that I was reminded that assorted bishops had totally failed to respond to concerns raised by various people in the 1990s. The key failing was not that people on the ground weren’t aware and concerned about matters, but that the people in authority wouldn’t do anything about those concerns. One would hope that things had improved by now, but clearly they haven’t.The failure to accept any properly independent scrutiny of… Read more »
It would therefore be helpful if those with complaints about particular dioceses could file them with the Charity Commission.
A 26/9/20 C of E statement: “The ABs of C and Y said: ‘Today the Council discussed the safeguarding challenges that face our Church. We acknowledged how we have responded badly to survivors, and what that means for the Council as a trustee body. It was a long, honest and soberingly frank discussion. There were some very personal reflections and comments, including from both of us. This reflects the seriousness with which the Council took the proposals under discussion. The issue of independence is something we have taken a personal lead on and are very committed to. We are glad… Read more »
What is striking from the piece you quote, is the faux urgency. The first point “the issue of independence is something we have taken a personal lead on”. Well, how is that going ? ISB disintegrating, and not even designed yet in final form. “We are now going to make that happen”. And second point “Along with providing redress for victims and survivors this is the next step we must take” when we have announced that the Redress Scheme will not be up and running for another two years. “Today’s meeting and these decisions feel like a turning point”. Well,… Read more »
Thanks for the reminder of these past speeches Adrian. I am sure that much good work does go on in some dioceses at local level but many parish churches remain a source of deep pain to abuse survivors. Victims are ‘othered,’ stigmatised, isolated and even threatened when they disclose their abuse. I have been spat at, had a shopping trolley rammed into me, been shouted at and received anonymous letters by members of a congregation after reporting abuse. Of course the DSA thought this was all fine and ‘lost’ the notes when she handed over to her successor. People need… Read more »
Well done on this initiative and thanks to all its supporters. I agree with Holly that the statement put out by the church is a narrative that is without any foundation in the truth. Reading it is so hard when they have treated, and are still treating, me and my family so abusively. Lives continue to be ruined, vocations destroyed and belief in God annihalated. Wake up Mr. Welby and see the devastation around you. After this exposure an online petition may be good to allow those that didn’t sign but feel they would like a voice a chance to… Read more »
I agree entirely.
Personally I only sign petitions on the Parliament site but seeking statutory oversight may be the right way forward. If the signatories to the letter decide to start a petition there, I would sign it.
Thank you Martin (and all who signed this letter) for speaking up about the way adults and evidently children are treated in the CofE when reporting safeguarding matters. The processes are not fit for purpose, unless the purpose is to destroy the esteem of the victim and to provide an elaborate cover-up for the CofE. There needs to be proper scrutiny of what is currently happening as the promised change post Peter Ball just isn’t happening. Out of interest, what is the latest with the Independent (?) Safeguarding Board? Is the Archbishops’ Council going to replace the Chair who was… Read more »
Was the ISB functioning with three members……….
The Chair of the ISB has been asked to ‘stand back’ rather than to leave; nor has she been suspended as far as I’m aware. This situation has been dragging on for some months now, and it’s high time searching questions were asked at General Synod.
https://independent-safeguarding.org/
Does anyone know – is the ISB a charity in its own right? What exactly is its status in law, or is it an arm of another organisation?
Those are good questions, and there is some difficulty in getting answers. What is pretty clear is that the ISB isn’t independent of the C of E.
Echoing also what Janet says about uncertainty, I think the answer to your question whether the ISB is a charity in its own right, the answer must be ‘no’. The ISB claims to be independent, but functions under the auspices of the Archbishops’ Council, Registered Charity No 1074857 and the ISB is not named there as a linked charity.
There is an answer in General Synod Questions two weeks ago. The ISB has no free standing, legal or charitable status. “The ISB does not form part of the constitutional structure of the Church of England. In its initial phase (phase one) it comprises three individuals who are engaged to provide services to the Archbishops’ Council, acting not as its agents but as independent service providers at arms-length.” So, the ISB has no status whatsoever and the three are just three contracted individuals. See Q48 if this link works
[link deleted, Ed.]
That link doesn’t work, but here is the text of Question and Answer 48 Mr Martin Sewell (Rochester) to ask the Chair of the House of Bishops: Q48 In its only published report to date (‘Don’t panic, be pastoral’), the Independent Safeguarding Board (ISB) included a definition section for the Church of England, Archbishops’ Council, and the National Safeguarding Team (NST), but not the ISB itself. Can Synod now be provided with a similar clear description of the ISB and where it sits constitutionally within the structures of Church of England with particular reference to its constitutional status, powers, oversight… Read more »
My understanding is that at present ISB has no separate legal (as distinct to organisational) identity but if I am wrong hopefully someone will correct me.
See answer above
When sued, a defence was filed that it was not a “ body in law” so could not be held accountable. Who therefore instructed the solicitors to file that defence is being pursued with considerable obstruction by the CofE Establishment. It is not independent, has safeguarded nobody and is not a Board.
Thank you, Chris. The ‘I’SB was never going to be independent. If the Church had been serious about independence, it would have set up and funded a charity to employ and to oversee the work of the Board. The ‘I’SB (and its lawyers) are directly funded by the Church. There are a number of indicators that the ‘I’SB is completely compromised. For example, despite the claim that the staff wrote the Terms of Reference, narrative analysis suggests that they were actually written by external lawyers who do a great deal of work for the Church. Church officials were present when… Read more »
Could you apply for the job when Maggie Atkinson moves on, Josie??!!!
You are, of course overqualified for the liking of those in charge … whoever that may be.
Well indeed, who makes the appointments? There has recently been an advertised vacancy for a Business Support Manager with the ISB. It’s advertised with the details on the Church of England website, to which the rather moribund ISB website directs people. The deadline for applications has now passed, but the thought crossed my mind. Who was/is on the interviewing panel to select the ‘right’ candidate, and was that panel independent of the Church of England? The same concern might apply over the appointment of any successor to Maggie (if any). There is something that does not feel right, if there’s… Read more »
To pick up the question “Could you apply for the job” — are applications even taken, or is it a tap on the shoulder? Was there a public competition for the posts on the current ISB? Does anyone have a copy of the job specification? Who made the appointments? Will public competitions be held in future?
The new “Safer Recruitment” procedures ought to be followed. Safer Recruitment and People Management Guidance | The Church of England
The official church response is “the Church is committed to the highest standards of safeguarding.” But that simply isn’t true…and the leaders of the church know it. The church is NOT committed to the highest standards in safeguarding. I see this every day. The church doesn’t even know what the highest standards of safeguarding look like, as it won’t take advice from external experts. At what point is real safeguarding expertise meant to enter into the church’s processes? The expertise is not in the House of Bishops. It is not in the Archbishops’ Council, which is not led by anyone… Read more »
Amen to all that.
So true, every word
Excellent, Andrew. Thank you very much for these words.
I agree that in my experience asking “What are they afraid of” is a helpful way of understanding otherwise inexplicable behaviour on someone’s part.
The Church says that it has “the highest standards in safeguarding.”
20+ survivors say it is “highly dysfunctional…uniformly poor.”
They can’t both be right, can they? So which is true?
Is the church accusing the survivors of making it up? What became of “the importance of listening to the voices of survivors?” (Welby, 2019.)
To be fair to you Andrew, the final question you ask was answered in the Feb 2018 booklet ‘We asked for Bread, you gave us stones’ that you distributed to every GS member. What’s so depressing is that the Church’s response to whistleblowers and survivors over 2021 & 2022 has actually got worse since 2018. As I think we all know by now, after the multiple ‘handwringings’ (post Gibbs/Elliott/IICSA/C4 on Smyth etc etc, the ‘importance of listening to the voice of survivors’ is a sound bite used by the Church Leadership to either (delete as appropriate). get through the next… Read more »
I have my own (minor, but significant) poor experience of national safeguarding structures to add here. Over the last few months I have written successively to my local DSA, to the Chair of the National Safeguarding Panel and to the recently appointed National Director of Safeguarding requesting clarification of the status of neurodivergent conditions, principally autism and ADHD, as possible categories of adult vulnerability, alongside mental illnesses and learning disabilities. I have not received so much as an acknowledgement from any of them.
Update: I have been invited to meet the National Director of Safeguarding, but only after self-disclosing as autistic and a victim of multiple episodes of bullying in church settings, which I was aiming to avoid.
Catherine, I too was forced to disclose far more than I felt comfortable with. After a promise in October 2022 of a one on one meeting, I have finally (just before Christmas) been offered one on 13th Feb, despite there being no constraints on my side. Does not exactly reek of ‘top priority’.
I do hope you managed to achieve a much faster turn-around.
In context I am even more tempted than I might be to wonder if the number of dioceses is a Douglas Adams’ Hitchhiker’s Guide reference!