On Tuesday, Richard Scorer (Principal Lawyer at Slater and Gordon) wrote on behalf of one of his clients, Gilo, to both the archbishops. This was a follow-up to an earlier letter of 23 June 2023, to which no substantive reply has yet been received.
The full text of both letters can be read here:
Presumably, it will now fall exclusively to the Archbishop of York to reply.
The first letter was concerned with a meeting which included both National Safeguarding Team members, and representatives of Ecclesiastical Insurance, that took place in August 2016, and the handling of an earlier (2020) complaint about that event.
The second letter seeks to discover the outcome of a further meeting held in June 2024 by the Archbishops’ Council Audit Committee to examine how that 2020 complaint had been handled. To date no report has been issued (and the original 2023 questions remain unanswered).
In addition, the second letter refers to more recent questions raised by Gilo in relation to the York diocesan Past Cases Review 2. Again, no answers have yet been received.
It is interesting, is it not, that Welby and Cottrell cannot find time in their busy schedule to answer these letters, and yet can write at length in support of John Sentamu being given a PtO over the head of another bishop. That’s a very telling insight into their priorities: their mates first, corporate protection second, survivors a far distant third.
Yes, what I see here is a love of the institution and abuse of their social capital, rather than love for the most vulnerable in, and affected by, the Church. Shame on them. Time for the Archbishop of York to stand down too…
Richard Scorer has received no response from either Archbishop across 16 months.
Gilo, did Richard even get an acknowledgment confirming receipt of the letter?
Wednesday, September 13, 2023 Dear Mr Scorer, Thank you for being in touch. Please be assured this matter continues to receive urgent attention but the enquiries being made on the Archbishops’ behalf have been delayed by key personnel being on annual leave. I am assured that much progress has been made, but rather than give a partial answer to this matter, especially given the history, it is important that this work is done as completely as possible. I have emphasised to those looking into this the need for a swift response and will be in touch in due course. Kind… Read more »
A very timely reminder of this case.
I recall that asked a Synod Question in November precisely because there was not even an acknowledgment
Gilo will correct me I’m my recollection is mistaken
The Archbishop apologised in July 2024 for having shared information about the investigative process at Synod … without letting us know first. This was in response to a question at the February Synod session. Initially that ‘investigative process’ was to take place without involvement of either Andrew Graystone or myself. We had to argue for a place in the process. Finally BDO acknowledged that I was a key stakeholder. I don’t think Church House wanted us to know that BDO was involved in some kind of audit or investigation. My impression was that they were hoping to keep the process… Read more »
Sorry can you remind me what “BDO” is in this context?
For all their handwringing the archbishops don’t really care about survivors.
The Archbishop of York said that Justin Welby did “The right and honourable thing” in resigning. Will Mr Cottrell now do the same for repeatedly lying to General Synod about the abolition of the ISB and also for failing to provide an answer to Gilo’s solicitor? However, before resigning, could Mr Cottrell tell us why the publication of the heavily-redacted report on John Smyth was delayed by five years and when a timetable was announced for its publication why this was brought forward without consultation and knowing that it would add considerably to the pain of the many, many victims… Read more »
How can a man (or a woman for that matter) sit in the House of Lords or the House of Bishops unless they abide by the Nolan Committee’s Standards in Public Life? Accountability: Public office holders are accountable to the public for their actions and decisions Openness: Public office holders should act and make decisions in a transparent and open manner Honesty: Public office holders should be truthful Leadership: Public office holders should exhibit these principles in their own behavior Selflessness: Public office holders should act solely in the public interest Integrity: Public office holders should not place themselves under… Read more »
The time has come for Disestablishment. The Church must go cap in hand to the Government and ask for a Royal Commission to work out disestablishing the Church of England as a matter of urgency. Christians are now a minority in England and Bishops should not sit in the House of Lords and legislate for the nation when they cannot obey the law themselves. It is ridiculous that the people of Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales are governed by English Bishops who are unelected in the first place.
The Makin Report is itself quite appalling. If it was ‘heavily redacted’ what on earth are we not allowed to know?
IIUC, a draft report was submitted for ‘Maxwellisation’ a process by which folk referred to are given opportunity to ‘put the record straight’. This, and the under-resourcing of the ‘Lessons Learned Review’ added to delay, and may have resulted in excisions and rewordings- we may never know- perhaps ‘track changes’ and email and other exchanges may be revealing ‘in the fullness of time’.
In response to Reverend Nathan, about the shocking treatment of survivors who had put their trust in the ISB, and their notes, and their trauma… only to learn out of the blue that they had been cur adrift and left in limbo… I agree that the Archbishops’ Council behaved unacceptably in that case. It would be good to hear – in General Synod itself – from survivors who were treated like that. The same applies to the victims of John Smyth. If the Church is to be safe, the first people we should listen to isn’t the Archbishops or people… Read more »
Perhaps a special sitting? With the agenda not so tightly controlled by the powers that be that the little people can not have their voice heard?
Following up on my reply to Rev Nathan (above), I guess concern could be expressed that Coltart also failed to do more. I don’t know. My main point is about the Church of England showing real respect for all the victims in Southern Africa and actually demonstrating that, by letting them (or those who knew what happened there) come and be heard. Coltart at least took the trouble to investigate, to draw in other churches, and was the initiator of a legal case against Smyth. The trouble was that Smyth had support in the Zimbabwe government, but effectively thanks to… Read more »
Susannah- I very much support your ‘drift’ that the Church of England was content to have Smyth ‘out of sight’ in Zimbabwe, a country previously coloured pink on the colonial map. Is there evidence to support your contention that ‘Smyth had support in the Zimbabwe government’, even if only that ‘it is likely that …’ or words to that effect. That the Rwandan High Commissioner is able to lay a wreath at the Cenotaph in London on Remembrance Sunday, in the presence of the King, the Prime Minister and the Bishop of London, while there continues to be no representation… Read more »
Makin 13.1.7: ‘There was a great deal of effort expended on the promotion of Zambesi Ministries, including a visit by Anthony Cordle and several UK MPs (including Simon Hughes and Alistair Burt), who are said to have been “whisked” through a full day of appointments, which included a meeting with John Smyth. One of the meetings was with Robert Mugabe, President of Zimbabwe. This demonstrates the strong links with those in leadership roles in Africa and in the UK, with a continuing legitimisation of the Ministry that John Smyth led, enabling his contact with further child and adult victims.’ Anthony… Read more »
Thank you Susannah for all that detail. I agree that does amount to substantial support from the Zimbabwean government- shame on them too.
I hope we won’t hear or read any criticism of David Coltart. I personally found his report more helpful about events in Africa, admittedly limited to Zimbabwe, where he is a solicitor who formerly held government office and has earned the reputation as a distinguished human rights lawyer. I have no idea whether he has additionally had ‘private’ clients in ‘the Smyth matter’. If so, the solicitor’s duty of confidentiality rules out any external discussion of those cases. Although the report was originally confidential, it has been in the public domain for some time: I have had a copy from… Read more »
Yes – I regard him as having saved many more children in Zimbabwe though his investigations and co-ordination with local churches which ultimately precipitated Smyth fleeing the country. Whether he should have notified South African authorities when Smyth moved there, I have no idea. You have more legal knowledge than me.
Deliberately using the most neutral language, Mr Coltart was not having the easiest life himself during the relevant years.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Coltart
With regard to how survivors of abuse in any of the three countries are to be compensated, I am not encouraged by the Cathy Newman interview with Rev Dr Ian Paul on Channel 4 News tonight. Having successfully called for the ABC to resign, he is now putting clear blue water between the C of E and Smyth and placing a question mark over whether the Church could compensate Smyth victims. Did I really hear him correctly or was it a nightmare? If the former, then really unhelpful IMHO. I wonder what motivates his actions.
Would you buy a used car from him?
I might be wrong, but in my experience vicars know very little about cars.
Consider the following; A man is a lay-reader in a church – – he then goes to a local shop and begins to steal money on a regular basis over many years. Eventually he leaves that church and goes to somewhere else in the country. Later he dies and/or loses the money through gambling (so no easy answer of getting it from him). Eventually everyone finds out – but it’s too late for him to stand trial. The vicar may have spoken to the police in 10 years ago, but the police thought what was said was too vague so… Read more »
Should this be read as an attempt to justiify shirking or at least minimising compensation/ redress from the CofE? It is clear that the CofE has admitted ‘fault’ in its dealings over the slave trade, when it did compensate slave OWNERS. this article relates: https://www.leighday.co.uk/news/blog/2023-blogs/what-the-church-of-england-s-new-100m-slavery-fund-tells-us-about-addressing-historic-injustices/. It is right to compensate victims as best we can, generously in terms of finance and of spirit.
Tim, you have equated the theft of money (in small enough amounts to leave the business still functioning) with ferocious abuse which cost two young men their lives, and left severe and lasting damage on the lives of around 120 more. And you are equating a vicar and choir who made some attempt to report the thefts, with a number of clergy who actively covered up the abuse.
That is really offensive.
I come back to my question above about Ian Paul. On one level his TV performance was a side issue, but it just made me angry at a moment when I really hoped we were moving towards some kind of catharsis. He calls himself a theologian and as such I would like to have heard him wrestling with uncomfortable questions about the role of bad theology about sex and sexuality in shaping abusers like Smyth, Fletcher and Pilavachi, rather than wondering on TV about legal loopholes. If Ian Paul is right to suggest that it may not be possible to… Read more »
A transcript of the interview is below. He wasn’t asked about theology about sex and sexuality so that is why it wasn’t discussed.
He wasn’t looking for legal loop holes, just legal boundaries as the camps weren’t set up by the C of E, but he didn’t deny the C of E may have responsibility for the victims of abuse. Nobody knows yet.
https://www.channel4.com/news/its-impossible-to-say-if-smyth-victims-will-be-compensated-says-member-of-general-synod
Thank you for posting the transcript. But note that I did not suggest Ian Paul was “looking for” legal loopholes. I just regretted his emphasis on abuse not happening within the C of E as opposed to more acknowledging of damage to victims by the Church’s subsequent response to the abuse regardless of where it happened. Also, smart interviewees steer conversations. He wasn’t just a prisoner of Cathy Newman’s questions and could have at least used the public platform to begin to put down a marker to say as a theologian that the Church needed to examine the dark heart… Read more »
I think Ian Paul has some explaining to do. He was on the Archbishops’ Council when it voted to close the ISB, IIRC. In doing this, he shares responsibility for retraumatising the victims whose investigations were brought to a shuddering halt. In doing this, he is culpable as JW is culpable. If James’ understanding is correct (I have not seen the C4 interview) then it is clear that IP’s involvement in the petition was politically motivated, not motivated by justice for the victims. It appears that it is an attempt to maintain the profile of the anti-gay wing of the… Read more »
On the day before the resignation Ian Paul pointed out that Robert Thompson whose views are very different from his also supported the petition calling for JW to go.
Be careful of what you wish for. JW’s resignation has done nothing in and of itself to improve safeguarding in the Church of England.
I am sure that the removal of Justin Welby was highly political and that the turning point was not so much the publication of the Makin Report as the interview-podcast Justin Welby did with Alastair Campbell and Rory Stewart (The Rest is Politics) on 20th October. Makin provided the opportunity for a counter-attack.
Alwyn, what I find hard to process is that Ian was central in media over petitioning for the resignation of Justin Welby because of negligence… and yet he was himself one of the Archbishops’ Council who collectively committed dreadful negligence when they shut down the Independent Safeguarding Board without first forewarning eleven of more survivors whose traumatic cases were being opened up and handled (sensitively) by the ISB. No forewarning. No counselling set up for helping them on the day. They were left in limbo, fearing their intimacies and trauma would be passed on to people they did not know;… Read more »
So it’s perfectly clear from an interview you have not seen….
1, It was politically motivated
2, not motivated by justice for the victims
3, maintain the profile of anti gay wing of the church
4, firm up their opposition to equal marriage.
Lots of explaining to do indeed.
I thought that interview represented a total volte face from Paul whom I had thought on the side of the angels! Had he been suborned? Did the possibility of preferment get in the way?
Thank you Susannah. As one of the ISB 11, I would be happy to address Synod again about this.
I agree that victims should be able to address February Synod, there should be a process for a collective voice. With so many major safeguarding items being debated, our voices should be central.
Indeed Jane. You spoke so movingly the previous time, and you’re right: in all debates on safeguarding, the actual voices of victims/survivors should be front and foremost. It’s not enough to talk ‘about’ survivors.
A number of us have been repeatedly requesting the Archbishops’ Council, NST, Lambeth Palace etc to abide by Nolan Principles. Such requests are treated with contempt and ignored. Victims writing to the NST and Lambeth Palace will be given the Wall of Silence for years. One Archbishop has resigned. We need Cottrell to do the honourable and decent thing, and give us a date for his resignation. On the assumption that the Archbishops’ Council will take no responsibility and don’t think they have any accountability whatsoever, there is no trust left in the CofE. The non- transparency of hierarchical governance… Read more »
One of the fascinating things about IICSA was the sight of bishops and senior church people having to answer questions under oath; intelligent questions asked by qualified people who had the documents they had required to do their job and had hte authority to require the church to produce them.
Contrast that with the prospect of yet another round of ‘questions to the House of Bishops / Archbishops’ Council’ at the next General Synod …
Exactly what I thought. A secular inquiry particularly effective in unraveling the Peter Ball scandal and exposing in forensic detail how the establishment closed ranks to protect one of its own.
I am now in touch with two journalists regarding my attempts to urge the Archbishop of York to take the ‘York file’ seriously and lead transparency across the Church in PCR2.
Good luck
Good. I know of a case in the diocese which was not properly dealt with.
Without a Doubt with Bishop Justin Welby’s departure from the See of Canterbury and the mess Safeguarding is in there is certainly now a crisis of authority within the Church of England. Jonathan
Not to mention the inherited and increasingly dubious idea of a 80 million member Anglican Communion somehow being under his unique tutelage. This Canterbury-centered idea is just question-begging, more so now, and given the decline of the CoE and its unique established status. Many commentators are now noting this. The idea of including non CofE provincial input looks like an effort to hold onto something and make it look like something else.
Response to Alwyn Hall, asking about the Archbishops’ Council, Ian Paul, and the ISB: Yes, in answer to your question, Ian was a member of the Council at the time that the ISB was shut down (with disgraceful lack of care for the survivors involved with the ISB). I believe it was shameful and autocratic, but the problem was not just one person. It was the whole Council. As for Ian, he was opposed to the ISB continuing, long before it was shut down, long before the mayhem caused by parachuting in a new Chair (without consultation, without advertisement, without… Read more »
(…continued…) I believe there were a few divided views among the members of the Archbishops’ Council about the closure of the ISB. I know that because a few of us were addressed by one member of the Council in a Zoom call arranged a week or two after the event. This person was apologetic and stated “Appointing her was a mistake.” I omit the new Chair’s name because arguably she was also badly treated by the Council who ended up firing her as well. And the same Council member with reference to the summary closure of the ISB without taking… Read more »
This helpful letter arrived today. From Synod member, Clive Billenness, with his permission that it may be posted onto any media. Thank you Clive.
Seems there may be quite a few different ‘audit committees’ operating inside Church House – which makes it harder to know what is going on.
All I know is that the BDO audit/investigation into the Nye complaint ended months ago. And we’ve heard nothing.
Thank you for sharing. I am coming to the view that a problem behind many problems is that we have a system in the CofE which means there is no “Church of England” – instead there are 1000s of independent groups, many independent charities/legal-bodies, all with a very vague loose network of linkages and overlapping responsibilities. But whenever the question is even slightly difficult, the responsibility seems to be with a different group that seems independent of the one you first thought of…. I think it’s high time for a major re-think. Maybe we need to ask big questions –… Read more »
As an auditor Clive Billenness must be prepared not to be the most popular person in the room, but I wonder how his revelation will go down in Church House and how many other parallel systems there are being used to obscure the truth? Big questions clearly need to be asked and ‘business as usual’ prevented.
One of my siblings remarked that he keeps thinking of the line from ‘The Lord my pasture shall prepare’
‘Thy friendly crook shall grant me aid’ in relation to the running of the Church of England….
Except that when it came to locking churches during covid it was suddenly one CofE. On the say-so of the Archbishop of Canterbury, apparently. When someone in leadership takes a line like that, and applies it to all churches, that person is being identified as a decision-maker for the CofE.
I think that’s a bit of an exception. If I recall – it was the Government making the rules and/or making the lockdown enforceable by police; and ++Justin was going along with it / encouraging /etc – – rather than opposing.
If the Government hadn’t already been imposing such strong rules I don’t think ++Justin could have closed anything.
But I appreciate it’s a very sensitive subject as many people don’t think it was the right move and can point to many negatives. Any positives are very difficult to point at (whether or not there are many or not).
I dont know where to put this post, but I will put it here for now.
There has been much play about the irony of the timing for the church with last Sunday being Safeguarding Sunday. But we need to have 365 days dedicated to Safeguarding – not just one day… oh and please dont turn it into a festival because there is nothing to celebrate. Everyone is providing resources for one Sunday – as if a liturgy will fix this. Rather than helping every parish to turn every day into a safeguarding day.