Continued from episode 8.
1. The Sunday afternoon session of General Synod was largely devoted to the ISB fiasco, and it did not go as planned. The video recording is available here. There is no substitute for watching it.
2. Church Times Hattie Williams Extraordinary scenes at Synod as sacked ISB members are given a hearing
3. Guardian Harriet Sherwood Safeguarding in ‘crisis’ in Church of England, says archbishop of York
4. Religion Media Centre Rosie Dawson Sacked safeguarding board members address synod in “watershed moment”
5. The Times Kaya Burgess Church abuse watchdog ‘went wrong’
6. Daily Mail Martin Beckford The Church of England has failed in its attempt to set up a watchdog for clergy abuse following a series of scandals, says the Archbishop of York
7. The order paper for this morning’s General Synod session is online here. It contains the text of Gavin Drake’s following motion. His background briefing paper is available here. As expected, there was only just time for him to present his motion, followed by one speech opposing it before time ran out. Although it was agreed to adjourn the debate until later in the morning, when that time came, a vote was then needed to suspend standing orders to actually allow more time than previous allocated, and this required a 75% vote of the whole synod in favour, which it did not receive: 175 voting in favour, 69 voting against, 17 abstentions. The agenda item therefore lapsed.
8. Gavin Drake has announced his immediate resignation from General Synod. His full statement is here: Church of England officialdom determined to block proper safeguarding reform. Another, more legible copy (PDF) is here.
9. Safeguard victims in the Church of England – ask the Charity Commission to intervene now!
10. Church Times Gavin Drake accuses Business Committee of ‘manipulating’ Synod and resigns his membership
11. Anglican Futures has this: Something’s Not Right at Synod
12. Giles Fraser at UnHerd writes Why is the Church silencing victims?
13. At the start of Tuesday’s session, the livestream failed to record the first few minutes, but apparently Martin Sewell sought to move an adjournment of the debate that was about to commence on approval of GS 2295, but was allowed only 2 minutes to speak. The adjournment request was then lost.
The speech which he was therefore unable to deliver is now available here.
14. Surviving Church Archbishops’ Council faces Challenge
15. Christian Today Susie Leafe Gavin Drake’s resignation from the Church of England General Synod
I’ve posted my thoughts on the afternoon session in the Episode 8 thread.
The AC have acted as machine bureaucrats. They wanted to create a regulator along the lines of CQC or Ofsted. They still clearly believe that is what the church needs.
The former ISB members understood what was needed. A sense of humanity. They deserve respect and admiration for their courage.
A dark, dark moment in the life of the Church of England.
The current members of AC must recuse themselves from all future involvement in the development of whatever now emerges from the wreckage.
Well said, Peter.
I should like to thank Jane Chevous for her searing and very courageous speech (2:42).
Because of personal family commitments I was not able to follow the stream live, but I have just finished watching the afternoon’s events, now deep in the night.
Thank you also to many subsequent speakers, and of course especially to Steve (1:43:33) and Jasvinder (1:49:35).
I can’t deny the distress I feel, I don’t have as many words as usual.
Thinking of you Susannah. I preached on the debacle yesterday among people who aren’t obsessed with the minutiae of church governance, as I can be, so were unaware of what has been going on. I also outed myself as a survivor of church-based abuse. Another kind than sexual abuse, which often makes me cautious of calling myself a survivor, as what I endured and the damage poor handling of my situation has done to me are like nothing in the face of that expression of violation. I haven’t said that before on here as potentially it makes it easier for… Read more »
Thank you so much for your post and your bravery in delivering the sermon (I wish I could see the text). Serious sexual abuse is just the tip of a very large iceberg. Looking from the outside the two incidents of clerical abuse I have suffered would seem very minor but the impact on me was severe in both cases. I don’t think priests understand or care to understand how much power they have over ordinary parishioners. Every week we listen to your sermons for spiritual guidance and support but if your behaviour results in the loss of trust, the… Read more »
Thank you for this, Realist, and may I commend you on speaking up about this. I would also identify myself as a survivor of non-sexual church-based abuse, and one of the most prevalent forms of gaslighting that I have found is the minimising of experience, the old get-out of ‘You’re the only person who has ever complained’, etc. A quick scour of Thinking Anglicans would quickly show that this isn’t the case. I am currently on holiday in Cumbria (Note: I am not from Cumbria and have never lived here!), and visited a remote ancient church. At the back was… Read more »
I wonder if AC thought they were going to avoid bad publicity by their actions. If they did, did they not think through the PR implications of their decision? Or were they advised by someone who assumed that the world wouldn’t be interested in this?
They wouldn’t have thought about PR for a nanosecond, as if they had they would not have acted as they did. I don’t care if they acted with unanimity or not; they may have at last come to their senses, akin the prodigal, but simply outsourcing the current ISB work to a trusted third party only solves some of the issues for now. Two years or more has been wasted. An entirely independent charitable company is required. This will contract with a suitable organisation(s). The redress scheme needs to be folded in, and most if not all of the NST… Read more »
They’re used to getting away with it. Even when they found there was a huge fuss about disbanding the ISB, they thought they’d get away with blaming everything on Jasvinder and Steve without giving those two heroes a voice. The fact the SC didn’t intend those two to be able to put their own side shows just how ‘sorry’ the AC were. But they didn’t get away with that either, thank God.
In the Friday session an indignant defence of the existing processes was mounted by one prominent member of the house of clergy (the apologists’ apologist): presumably he felt that attack was the best form of defence. Was he set up to do this as a proxy for the authorities? Somewhat astonishingly, he was met with a round of applause, presumably from the payroll vote. The approach being taken by the authorities in that session was “we did what we believed was the right and necessary thing” or “we don’t know the answer to your question”. There was then the panel… Read more »
Wonderfully put, as always, Froghole. Thank you.
Dear Froghole, I so agree with you, and notably your reference to (my cousin) Lewis Carroll and the well-known Humpty Dumpty quote which exactly chimes with what Steve Reeves (1:45:21) on yesterdays’s livestream said about the meaning of words. The Church of England hierarchy has a problem with this. It also has a problem with power. I commend to you a short speech by Lindsay Llewellyn-MacDuff (Rochester) later yesterday (speaking on redress but it is so relevant to the autocratic use of power by the Archbishops’ Council over the ISB). “The Church of England has a problem with power,” Lindsay… Read more »
Froghole notes the use and abuse of language, and it does mean the CofE leadership ends up promoting a post-truth institution. Two recent pieces on Surving Church capture the essensce of the problem.
https://survivingchurch.org/2023/05/01/new-dictionary-definitions-for-the-church-of-england-no-1-independent/
https://survivingchurch.org/2023/06/26/was-the-independent-safeguarding-board-ever-independent-the-archbishops-set-out-their-position-to-a-complainant/
Trust and confidence has broken down, and it is hard to see how that can be restored, and by whom.
Who was the ‘prominent member of the house of clergy’?
@racing_reverend and ex naval officer.
When was the “defence” of the existing process mounted ?
It seems such an astonishingly ill judged idea to defend the indefensible.
In answer to both Peters, it was at 3:33 to 3:34 here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rs15RvffClU. Note the applause at the end of the speech.
To save you all having to look, it was Simon Butler, former AC member, speaking in the agenda item relating to the appointment of a new Finance Chairman.
Noted. Jayne Ozanne and Robert Thompson then follow with well made points. The sense one has is of Synod being played, and now that this has become apparent and visible, there is uderstandable pushback – and some hostility too. I am not sure those on the podium are reading the room particualrly well, but it is hard to tell at a distance.
Ah yes, the apologist’s apologist indeed, doing just what he did during the pandemic – attacking those who dare to criticise the great and the good.
Having now pondered something I noted yesterday further overnight, I’m even more disturbed by it than I was. We’ve (rightly in my view) spent a lot of time considering the problems of positional power and deference to senior clergy. But yesterday, it was the lay members of AC who disturbed me most – their well-honed NHS style attempts at slick obfuscation of anything reflecting negatively on them, the disgraceful display of ‘aren’t I clever, and here are all the important things I’ve done in my career’ from Dr Harrison, and, now including one clergy member, the attempts to baffle and… Read more »
A most interesting notion. Realist, concerning NHS managers and former managers. I think there’s something in it. Since 1976 when I stopped being a fulltime hospital doctor I worked with and observed practising doctors and nurses in academic posts who as their careers progressed dealt with fewer and fewer patients and spent more and more time on lab-based work and managing others (or rather not managing). At some point many of them become ersatz civil servants and consultants (not in a hospital doctor sense) travelling the world telling others how to do what they no longer do themselves. The wisdom… Read more »
I forgot to say that these people become multitalented (the ontological change wrought by 4 or 5 years at medical school is remarkable), omniscient, and omnipotent. Condescension oozes from every sweat gland. The truly sad thing is that hoi polloi like us let them get away with it.
I agree Stanley but better an ex nurse than a history graduate who has never treated a patient (CEO of NHS) and better a priest than a Royal Courtier with connections to the security services (General Secretary of Church of England). All these people “work hard”. It’s what they work hard doing that worries me. I don’t want the Church of England run like an oil company. I don’t want victims of abuse treated as an inconvenience. Caring for the vulnerable, damaged and voiceless is what Christians are supposed to do and not just when they are abused by priests… Read more »
Quite so, David. I concur in every respect. The further up the greasy pole these people rise, the further from their roots they travel and the more seduced they become by ego and the trappings of power. I have immense regard for ministers who serve in difficult circumstances and deprived areas. Some occasionally post here. One or two have to their credit been able to tolerate a term or two on GS. But really GS is pretty spineless and utterly unrepresentative of the parishes. I see no hope as long as there are billions in the Commissioners’ accounts. When the… Read more »
Many thanks for the various comments. Further to Susannah’s comment about power, I did see Ms Llewellyn-Duff’s speech when going through the debate last night, after a long journey back from Nottinghamshire, and it did perk me up a bit after my attention had started to flag. She goes to the heart of the matter, which is that Archbishops’ Council are not properly accountable to Synod. There is a missing link in Church governance which is absolutely critical: Synod cannot go on functioning like a Tsarist Duma or Wilhelmine Reichstag. The executive cog has to link up with the deliberative/legislative… Read more »
Whether or not the individual current members of the Archbishops’ Council should be blamed for their actions, I believe that survivors in general, not to mention many other people, have lost confidence not only in the Council as a corporate body, but in the ability of each of the current individual council members to deal safely with any safeguarding matter. That includes of course, but is not limited to, any actions to deal with the aftermath of the ISB’s dismissal, e.g. the planning of further immediate support to survivors, or the planning for a new ISB, both of which topics… Read more »
Oh, I do agree. By abdicating their responsibility for abuse survivors, through their precipitate dismissal of the ISB, Archbishops’ Council has effectively forfeited its ability to determine policy in this sphere. I am not certain that the authorities really get it, even at this very late stage: at one point the archbishop of York referred, tellingly, to the ‘safeguarding of the Church’. He was picked up on this, and admitted the maladroit phrasing, but it was perhaps a revealing Freudian slip. The question is then who is to pick up the reins. Frankly, I feel that the initiative needs to… Read more »
The Archbishops’ Council as a body and as individuals have indeed forfeited any future role in the governance and oversight of safeguarding, and certainly of the ISB. They may not realise this yet, but having consistently made a total mess of structures, staffing, policy, governance and process the time – to say nothing of the impact on victims and those abused by the NST, NSP, NSSG etc – completely independent reviews and outcomes are all that remains. The bodies and individuals must be stripped of all powers, influence and authority and any capacity whatsover to shape or direct the next… Read more »
Many thanks, Dr Percy. I agree completely. I think it is especially important that the new compensation fund (approved nem con) be put under separate trustees with the money being diverted from the Commissioners into a separate escrow account. The trustees (who might be the future ISB) would then order the escrow agents to disburse the funds based on their assessment of particular cases. The Commissioners’ only function would be to effect the BACS payment to the escrow account and to augment the fund if it falls below a certain level following a request from the trustees (i.e., the exhaustion… Read more »
It is worth reminding readers that only a few years ago, Bishop Gibbs told General Synod that there might be over 4000 survivors and victims seeking compensation and redress. If one adds in those abused by NST processes too (i.e., respondents), the safe figure may be around 5000. For some – I’d estimate in the hundreds – the compensation will need to be for loss of earnings over an entire lifetime, and pensions, homes, marriages etc. So 75 claimants could easily mop up £150m. In one US diocese recently, 20 plaintiffs were awarded $120m in a class action. I estimate… Read more »
Many thanks for this too, Dr Percy. I have a strong suspicion that such a paltry budget has been informed by concerns expressed by the Commissioners that the financial scarring of the pandemic is deep and possibly permanent, and the need for increased subventions by the Commissioners to sustain diocesan solvency risk overwhelming the Commissioners in the medium/long term (the subtext being that they have little confidence in decline being halted or reversed). The perennial fear, I assume, is of a return to the 1970s and 1980s in which the Commissioners were drowned by their commitments and forced to take… Read more »
Absolutely, Martyn. What I’ve been going through (mine is still not finally settled) bears a lot of similarities to aspects of your case, albeit not at that level of seniority and without all the safeguarding referrals, thank goodness. I couldn’t agree more with this, and with your comments about the AC Members and the body itself needing to go. I would also like to see the clerical members, if not face removal from office, face some kind of sanction that would impact their ‘careers’ – not for retribution but just to do something to make them realise the damage they… Read more »
Thank you Martyn, your response is clearly stated and I fully support your comments. ( Also, I’m always wary of “ex officio” appointments….. some folks are incompetent in one role, never mind having these shortcomings transferred over to other roles.)
The irony of course is that the Standing Committee of General Synod (arguably much closer to the action and things that matter) was disbanded with the creation of the Archbishops’ Council under the National Institutions Measure 1998. It has never functioned well. The new governance proposals (which I have not been following closely) might help, but as with all things Church of England, like a mighty (or now not so mighty – even wounded) tortoise it moves. None of this can be achieved without a huge wrangle and certainly not on a timely basis. Think LLF. However, fresh leadership would… Read more »
Froghole, how is time to be found for laity, and indeed many clergy too, to carve out time to put to this vital development? Bishops have staff with time and inclination to do their bidding. A lot is being asked of survivors to speak up, and step up- that’s alot to ask. Martin Sewell put it well regarding a Survivor’s Guardian, and Bp Conalty regarding the coat and second mile. John Spence spoke previously of generosity. Time to own up and pay up.
(I’ve had stroke so hard and tiring to type- enough said). Troublous archbishops- for God’s sake go.
Many thanks to you and to Mr Archer. I would hope that such a head of steam has built up about this issue that the Church would not slip into anything equivalent to the LLF quagmire. As I see it, the primary impediment to reform would be a rearguard action by sections of the episcopate, but such has been the loss of authority and credibility over the last few days in connection with this issue that I suspect few people would now dare to impede genuine reform. Although I note that there were some ominous abstentions in connection with the… Read more »
Thank you Froghole. Survivors may need majorities in each House if called for. No Pope or Curia or Colonies here. Time to review Synod? Power dislikes dissent as you know- time for members, lay and clergy to take courage not purple.
Thank you for all these comments above. We’ve reached a point now where the Archbishops’ Council has as their primary charitable object to just remain in power, no matter what. This is best achieved by disregarding the needs and wishes of beneficiaries and stakeholders. This is enabled by minimum standards of transparency, scrutiny, accountability and fairness. If needs be, justice and truth are to be jettisoned completely. That is what we have witnessed at Synod. The only way forward here is fourfold: 1. Regulation – letters to the Charity Commission and MPs need to go in thick and fast. Request… Read more »
As a vicar of a church where funds are always tight, I’m more than alarmed about your 4th point. We simply go bust if our wonderful sacrificial givers do as you wish. I am in a diocese that is facing off multi million annual deficits by a drastic cut in local clergy. On the ground we see nothing from the £11billion that those in power dine out on. Are you wanting to destroy my parish? Because it will do so yet make no difference to those in power.
Have you noticed that the Archbishops’ Council has been deploying the classic political mantra of ‘pressing forward’. Their members have said it again and again this past week. They said it to some of us at a survivors’ meeting last week. Kate made mention in another thread, that ‘saying sorry, but not undoing wrong, carrying on as before’ is not good enough. I’d like to touch on this here as well in this more immediate thread. Yes of course, the cause of safeguarding must press forward, but if they really did get things wrong (for example contravening the Terms of… Read more »
What is being successfully obscured is that the AC has effectively delayed the implementation of independent scrutiny because time now needs to be taken, they say, to learn the lessons from the mess AC has created. Notwithstanding all the issues about trust (and what people are saying about trust on this thread is on the mark), we shouldn’t lose sight of the fact that truly independent oversight of safeguarding is now further away than it was before the AC took the decision to sack Jasvinder and Steve. Had Steve and Jasvinder been retained, work on defining Stage 2 could have… Read more »
Kate you are so right over what has been achieved- which is not a lot as far as clipping the wings of the AC is concerned. I watched the live stream late last night and wished I hadn’t. My overwhelming feeling at the end was to query what on Earth the proceedings had to do with God. It felt like three real people Jane, Steve and Jasvinder against the machines ( ‘concerned about lack of collegiality’- WHAT!!!) The national news today is full of another belated enquiry into substandard maternity services- the first contributors on PM describing total lack of… Read more »
Thanks Susanna. Having read Gavin Drake’s account of today, I can only conclude that I was (unusually for me) taken in by a cynical performance. I can usually spot actors, fakes, and charlatans a mile off – if anything I’m less inclined to give benefit of the doubt than more. But…on this one, I got it wrong. I’m embarrassed and ashamed by that, and apologise to my sister and brother survivors. I feel violated once again. Job done, your Grace. I won’t post anymore on the subject, but will still be with you all in spirit, and indeed lurking behind… Read more »
Dear Realist, I didn’t set out to embarrass you by disagreeing with you in my post and on Sunday so many of us ( including me) desperately wanted what XX York said to be true, however cynical we may be- and the Church of England needed it to be true if it is to survive . In one of my former roles I had a great deal of contact with a certain type of offender -often very charming- and so have probably had more untruths told to me while unflinchingly looking me straight in the eyes than most folk will… Read more »
Thank you Susanna. I wasn’t going to post on TA again, but your kindness can’t go unremarked. I didn’t think you had set out to do that, but thank you for writing it anyway – your kindness matters hugely. If I’m absolutely honest, I’m still not 100% sure which side of the line I come down on over ++York’s performance. Like you, I’ve seen the charming manipulator or good actor who tries to convince you they’re on your side while all the time scheming for the institution, many many times. In my own situation, I’ve sat opposite them in meetings… Read more »
‘Archbishops’Council got everything they wanted out of Synod. It is worth letting that sink in.’ Sadly, I think that you’re spot on, Kate. I predicted that Gavin Drake’s new motion would be placed too late on the agenda for there to be time for it to come to a vote. The clue that alerted me to this was the speed with which it was agreed to put his motion on the agenda. But I was shocked by the tactics that were deployed to scupper the vote. This could only have been planned in advance. What now? The NCIs, even if… Read more »
Trustees have a legal duty to seek and follow advice in relation to areas outside their field of competence. Furthermore, “competence” does not mean “done something similar at some point in the past”. A retired civil litigation solicitor who is a trustee cannot act as an “expert” in the field criminal law in the context of their trusteeship. There are clear grounds for believing that the AC trustees have acted beyond their competence and ignored expert advice. What is worse – if that is possible – is there is every indication the same people still think they are “experts”who are… Read more »
Sorry this is the wrong place, but where is the recording of the LLF discussion on Saturday afternoon? Did it actually happen?
I am not aware that there ever was any recording of that LLF discussion.
It may depend on what the live stream captured – someone noted that the live stream had been halted and there was an expectation that it would have been restarted. Because the normal rules had been suspended for this item I think there was some confusion about what should be done. But some of the later questions and answers may have been captured. Whether they have been published and where I don’t know.
The official Twitter account of General Synod apologised on Saturday to say that it would be posted shortly. Later that evening it was updated to being tomorrow, it was being processed. Tomorrow would have been Sunday. Today is Monday 14:27 still not posted!
Just found it! Not on the GS Watch Live listing but searchable on YouTube
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CamIXZ_gL4o
Thank you
Could someone explain what the Archbishop of York meant when he spoke about ‘safeguarding the church’? I thought it was supposed to be about safeguarding survivors.
Also, I note the subtle manipulation of emotions to try and make people feel sorry for him – I’m familiar with this behaviour having witnessed it in the debates about women priests many years ago. Never a good idea to try to usurp the pain of others – most unethical.
He was taken to task for this wording by a later speaker, and he did apologise for his error.
He used the phrase twice & so it is at best a Freudian slip.
But then he did it again later in the discussion…
I too was not sure what the Archbishop intended by his (repeated) use of the term ‘the safeguarding of the church’ but I was put in mind of the speech of another high priest: ‘‘You know nothing at all! You do not understand that it is better for you to have one man die for the people than to have the whole nation destroyed.’ He did not say this on his own, but being high priest that year he prophesied…’
The argument from the Archbishops Council is essentially that there was a strategic job to do about the structure and organising for safeguarding in the future, and the ISB did not, they say, deliver this – and that (implicitly) they got too much involved in detail rather than strategy. The fact that the strategic work of building a better relationship with survivors (in short order) has not been recognised as being strategic and has been radically undervalued is truly tragic. As the Archbishop of York noted, this is clearly not something we are capable of doing ourselves. We had people… Read more »
I have a question, as a foreigner. In the Anglican Church of Canada, our General Synod meets once every three years. In between synods, the work is guided by the Council of General Synod, made up mainly of members elected from the four ecclesiastical provinces of our church, but also with some ex officio members and appointees. The majority of the membership is elected. See https://www.anglican.ca/about/ccc/cogs/ Is the Archbishops’ Council the C of E equivalent of our CoGS? And if so, what proportion of its membership is elected and what proportion appointed, and who are the appointed members appointed by?… Read more »
The work of the Archbishops’ Council is governed by the Council itself, a board of trustees comprising: Joint Presidents The Most Rev and Rt Hon Justin Welby, Archbishop of Canterbury The Most Rev and Rt Hon Stephen Cottrell, Archbishop of York Prolocutor of the Lower House of the Convocation of Canterbury The Venerable Luke Miller Prolocutor of the Lower House of the Convocation of York The Revd Kate Wharton Chair of the House of Laity Canon Dr Jamie Harrison Vice-Chair of the House of Laity Mrs Alison Coulter Elected by the House of Bishops The Rt Rev Mark Tanner, Bishop… Read more »
Simon: Okay, I’ve now found that page on the C of E website, and in fact it seems you have omitted six appointed members. My tally (correct me if I’m wrong) is as follows: Elected (6) The Rt Rev Mark Tanner The Rt Rev Paul Butler The Rev Dr Ian Paul The Rev Tim Goode Dr Rachel Jepson Mr James Cary Ex Officio (7) ABC Justin Welby ABY Stephen Cottrell The Venerable Luke Miller The Revd Kate Wharton Canon Dr Jamie Harrison Mrs Alison Coulter Jenny Jacobs (administrative secretary) Appointed by the Archbishops (6) Mr John Spence Mrs Maureen Cole… Read more »
There is no other body. But it is an executive, not an interim legislative body. Jenny Jacobs is not a trustee. Sorry for my incomplete reply.
The General Synod in Canada meets once every three years as you have said. In the Church of England the General Synod meets on two occasions each year and in some years three times.
I get that, Philip (I’m sure our GS would meet more often if travel weren’t so darned expensive in a country this big! And most of our standing committees meet electronically now, because of the cost of travel). I was just trying to get clear in my mind whether the AC was an equivalent body to our CoGS.
Dear Friends Let me share with you all, a few thoughts that were going through my mind as I watched on my laptop yesterday the unedythying display that went on a General Synod yesterday where Safeguarding was concerned and saw the Archbishops Council trying to cover their own backs. If I was being very un-diplomatic and being very politically incorrect, what we were witnessing in front of us from the powers that be in the Archbishops Council was downright lying. This should have no place in any kind of Christian discourse. For theologically as we understand the nature of God… Read more »
Jonathan. This was my concern also – but I wanted to put it in the language of governance and not theology. There is a danger that the powers that be will explain what happened with story of “we were inexperienced and made mistakes, so we need an enquiry to learn lessons and move on and do better”. The implication being that those involved may have made mistakes, but were basically well intentioned. But amongst the emerging reports of what happened, there appear to be allegations of actions and behaviours which go beyond unfortunate mistakes, but might be much better described… Read more »
The key is trusteeship. In English law the obligation on trustees goes beyond being “well intentioned”. They must hold a reasonable estimate of their own competence. Nor are they free to treat their role as a learning experience. Trustees must seek and act on appropriate expert advice. The AC have rejected expert advice. That is a really serious step for Trustees to take. Furthermore, Trustees should not seek to “wear two hats” at the same time, because of the conflict of interest. In other words, They can listen to advice. Or they can offer advice, if asked to do as… Read more »
Well I guess that depends who defines the terms of reference for such an enquiry, and what its parameters are.
The General Synod has been proved to be almost powerless to effect change. So there are 3 responses. 1. Fight 2. Flee 3. Keep your head down. I can see that if you are a priest with a dependent family, keeping your head down may be your only option. I am an isolated layperson in Berlin and I am not able to lead a fight but I would most certainly join one. My personal decision is to flee to the Church in Wales via YouTube. I can’t trust my local clergy because their abusive behaviour doesn’t correspond with what they… Read more »
While I can perfectly well understand where you come from, as a parish priest, I feel I have to say we are not all tarred with the same brush. However, each wrong done, horror committed and power abused, amongst other things, makes it harder for those of us ( the great majority?) trying to faithfully work in the vineyard, to do just that. I have striven for 35 years across four parishes, plus my curacy to be true to both my calling and my ordination vows. Like many, I think, i am heartily fed up with our church, the further… Read more »
Thank you for devoting your life to the service of God and the service of others, and all the cost involved in your calling. Who knows what lives have been touched by God’s Spirit because of your fidelity? Well the answer, of course, is God sees it all. I feel humbled and grateful by the lives of so many priests/ministers who have poured out themselves for their communities.
If by “on a different side of many issues from most of the posters here” you mean same sex marriage, it’s important to remember that marriage is, what, 5% of the role at most? And same sex marriage would be a fraction of that. My guess is that, worship style aside, you pretty much agree with most people here for the other 99% 👍🙂 40 years ago I wanted to get ordained but I knew that I wasn’t called. For much of my life that was a sadness but more recently I have come to be grateful that service wasn’t… Read more »
Apologies Kate. I meant ordination of Women. However, my main point which I put badly, was that despite differences on many issues, we are united in the awfulness of the situation and how rotten CofE LLP has become. Apologies again for not being clearer.
Graeme
Dear Fr Graeme,
Thanks for your reply.
I’m sorry I think I’m so entangled in my own pain that I forget that there are so many priests like you who work hard to tend their flocks. Unfortunately we are all failed by a hierarchy who want to manage their flock.
If you felt I took your dedication for granted I’m really sorry that wasn’t my intention.
I understand the pain. I just thought I would mention, we try to work through it. Nothing to apologise for.
The real low point for me was one which hasn’t been mentioned much. The Archbishop of York was asked by Alex Frost (48:30 in the video if anyone wants to watch) what he thought Jesus would make of what if going on. He replied “I imagine Jesus weeps…”. I don’t understand how one can say that then do so little about it. If something is making Jesus weep then shouldn’t the Archbishops’ Council have been meeting through the night over the past couple of weeks to try to solve the issues? Or maybe I am just an idealist. https://www.youtube.com/live/nYu3MDRecUY?feature=share (The… Read more »
Agreed, Kate. This was one of the lowest points in the debate. I also think Mr Cottrell selected the wrong bible passage by way of reference. Jesus isn’t sad at what the Archbishops Council have been getting up to. Angry and furious, maybe? Certainly there are some choice gospel words to be quoted in relation to scribes, rulers of the law, and those who strain the gnat but swallow the camel. Or overturn tables in the temple by way of protest. Weeping Jesus? I don’t think so.
I agree with you Kate so much !
“Abject apologies” that mean nothing are the very worst. It is a cruel tactic to deflect criticism. So what the Archbishop is saying is this “I am so, so sorry my actions caused Jesus to weep. I’m on my knees asking for forgiveness Lord ! Forgiven ? Back to business as usual.”
I am very disappointed that Mr Drake’s motion was not carried and that he felt it necessary to resign. He was treated abysmally in February 2022 and again today. His departure is a great loss. One of the striking things about Synod is the influence which the bewigged clerks have over the chair, and how often recourse is had by the chair to the clerk (unlike clerks in the house of commons, clerks to Synod continue – pretentiously – to wear barristers’ clothes; a painful reminder of the largely pointless and pharasaical legalism which continues to afflict the Church). The… Read more »
Froghole puts his finger on a key concern and other unresolved issues. The legal officers have multiple conflicts of interest, and there is of course no conflict of interests policy to oversee these. For example, it is not clear if the lawyers are: 1. Representing and supporting the policies of Archbishops Council and enabling the executive to drive their changes through Synod. 2. Serving General Synod as a whole in a facilitating role for the purposes of the gathering – advising. 3. Enforcing a party line over and against Synod, if requested to do so by the Council. I think… Read more »
Many thanks for that. Those are surely the right questions. This thicket of actual or potential conflicts might have been excusable in 1919 or 1969-70 (when there was a rather greater degree of overlap between the three branches of the civil government, especially at its apex), than now, when theories of the separation of powers have gained considerable traction. It might also have made sense when the legislative power of the Church was in its comparative infancy. After all, convocations were typically summoned prior to 1534 to raise taxes on the clergy and their debates were typically confined after the… Read more »
The standing orders do provide a useful framework for the orderly processing of business, and have to be used creatively to enable change. What we saw in the safeguarding session was yet more evidence of the Abps’ and AC’s inability to read the situation and strength of feeling. True contrition and a sense of justice would have resulted in them prior to synod inviting J+S to speak, and the ABoC giving (if in absentia) a written presidential consent to allow them to speak. That way at least a grain of trust in the Abps’ leadership and might have been preserved.… Read more »
I agree, but I was deeply dismayed by Mr Drake’s account of his experiences at the hands of the chair (which I also saw on Youtube). My take on this painful episode is that a confident chair – one who was not a slave to rigorist interpretations of the standing orders – would have indulged Mr Drake, noting that standing orders ought to facilitate good conduct, and that what was at stake was the credibility of Synod itself. What I saw looked very much like procedural gamesmanship of a pretty low order which damaged the credibility of Synod still further.… Read more »
I think you might underestimate the problem. As the voting figures will demonstrate Synod members would not have voted for a vote of no confidence: the assessment was that they would have voted for a proper independent review – which in turn might deliver either Charity Commission intervention or a vote of no confidence. This is why there is such in-house resistance to losing control of the process.
Martin, can members of Synod in November call for an Independent Review, with the terms and parameters agreed by Synod, not by the Archbishops’ Council? And if so, could the action be carried out on the basis of a ‘whole synod’ vote, rather than by Houses (where the bishops might be pressured to block it)?
Alternatively, could all General Synod members be contacted with a proposal, and asked to participate in a demonstrative online vote to illustrate the need for recall or the compelling case for the Synod-proposed Independent Review to be a priority item in November?
Just floating a concept, but… might there be a case for a working group of 12 people to draft the terms and parameters of an Independent Review, so as to pre-empt the predictable moves of the Archbishops’ Council and team to control this agenda and ‘re-direct’ the focus away from their own actions? What I’m imagining is a collection of known and recognised people in Synod and the wider Church, deliberately drawn from across the usual divides: people like yourself, Anthony Archer, Martyn Percy, Simon Sarmiento, Jane Chevous and other survivors, possibly Julie Conalty, Steve Reeves, and others from socially… Read more »
One could argue Martyn that if the General Synod is meant and is constituted to be a democratic institution, then the very existence of the Archbishops’ Council undermines the democracy of the General Synod and is deleterious to it and it could be argued that if this is the case, then the Archbishops’ Council needs to be dissolved and disbanded altogether and should never have been instituted in the first place. It is almost trying to ape the Roman Curia of my church on a more smaller scale. Jonathan
The Archbishops’ Council is a creature of Synod and accountable to it. Trouble is the Council does not see itself as accountable (that would be inconvenient) and the Synod doesn’t know how to, nor have the tools to, hold it to account. Double whammy really, which explains the torture that is going on, with no one taking responsibility for anything. Hard to see what will break the deadlock, especially as regards the urgent need for a properly independent safeguarding and redress system. The advice to the nation at present must be, steer clear if you can.
One possible next step could be a PMM at the November Synod establishing what ‘independent’ means de minimis. I saw on Twitter (but can’t now find it) someone criticising Gavin Drake’s motion because it was “expensive”. Simply defining a de minimis of independence can’t be said to be “expensive”.
I am sure that the AC would resist it saying that independence ought to be set by the review, or external advisers which is why the PMM only defining the de minimis of independence is important so that counter- argument can be prevented.
Perhaps calling it the ‘Archbishops’ Council’—rather than the ‘Council of General Synod’ or something similar—gives a misleading impression as to who the council is responsible to? Not to mention reinforcing the ‘top down’ model of leadership in the C of E.
One potential questions for the next Synod
(addressed to the Presidents of the General Synod) who precisely is the client of the clerk to Synod and, if the client is Synod itself, why is all the clerk’s advice not made available to Synod as a whole when they are consulted?
In my experience, when a lawyer is asked directly whom the lawyer is acting for, the lawyer usually discloses the client.
In the rare situation where the client has requested that the client’s identity be kept confidential, the right question then is, “Well, do you represent me, in any capacity?”
Every lawyer should be able to answer that question.
The answer should be “Not without specific instructions from you which do not conflict with my duties to my existing client or (in the case of a solicitor) as an officer of the Court”.
Just to clarify. The Clerk sits on the Chair’s right and is not a lawyer. The lawyer who sits on the left of the Chair is the Legal Adviser, and is a member of staff, not part of any private law firm. When I chaired Synod, I always found the advice that I got to be fair and impartial within the parameters of the Standing Orders. I think we should be careful not to follow the example of the Tory Party in blaming those who serve in the legislature for bad outcomes – look elsewhere if you wish to identify… Read more »
It’s interesting, isn’t it, that legitimate concerns in Synod get blocked because of the importance of sticking to protocol and due process… and yet… When it came to the parachuting in of the AC’s chosen candidate – an action that precipitated the crisis of the ISB – protocol and due process no longer apply to the people at the top. They contravened the ISB’s Terms of Reference for formal appointment processes. Advertisements to attract wide field of candidates: NIL. Number of other candidates: NIL. Formal Interview Panel with a survivor representative: NIL. Consultation with the ISB: Nil. Rules for some,… Read more »
Also, pointing to ways the Archbishops’ Council flouted the agreed protocols, parameters, and principles of the ISB… The 2021 Phase 1 arrangements stated (in section 4): “The appointment process of ISB members needs to communicate the commitment of the Church of England at the highest level to the principle of independence and, at the same time, demonstrate that the appointment process is not being manipulated in favour of “safe” candidates.” Was the new Chair imposed on the ISB a “safe” and favoured candidate? Was the formal appointment process, as stipulated and required in the Terms of Reference “manipulated” (or indeed completely ignored)?… Read more »
I must apologise. The link to the 2021 Phase 1 Arrangements is in fact this one:
https://www.churchofengland.org/sites/default/files/2021-02/independence-in-safeguarding.pdf
The principles for formal appointment processes (to avoid safe candidates and manipulation in favour of the organisation being overseen) are in Part B section 4.
These principles are strongly re-iterated in the finalised ISB Terms of Reference, and were totally ignored in the parachuting in of Meg Munn.
Incorrect link for the Anglican Futures article. This is the link:
https://www.anglicanfutures.org/post/something-s-not-right-at-synod
Sorry, will fix shortly
Many thanks, Simon.
There is so much manipulation at work in this dark shenanigans. Tim Goode and Stephen Cottrell both claimed in the “debate” at Synod (in reality it was a disingenuous presentation from the Archbishops Council) that Steve and Jasvinder “initially welcomed the appointment of Meg Munn as Chair”. How true was that? Their “welcome” was a pre drafted press statement from CHW/LamPal that they were given notice of an hour or so before it was released to the media. They did not write it, nor did they give those quotes. They’d had no part in Munn’s selection. They were informed by… Read more »
The Church Times coverage notes that Tim Goode’s speech was very, very close to the narrative that Mr Nye was promoting as the “official” line. Stephen Cottrell largely stuck to that line too. As did Jamie Harrison. There is a “party line” being taken here. But as Synod has now discovered, politburos may do as they please in what is, in effect, a one party state. One, moreover, that controls the legislature, democracy, finances and executive-political action. Really felt for Mr Sewell today. You prepare a speech on the basis that you’ll be heard in a democratic chamber, and debate… Read more »
It will get worse. The life of this Synod is going to be dominated by a) same sex marriage b) safeguarding – both failures and the failure to set up independent oversight and c) the accelerating decline of the church. It’s by no means clear that either the prayers or pastoral guidance will secure approval but, even if they do, there will be legal challenges. One can see survivors giving up on fairness from the Church of England and resorting to the courts instead. There are several fractious years ahead and the response will be to clamp down even more… Read more »
I would like to refine and re-affirm the terms of the controversy. It isn’t a Safeguarding crisis so much as a governance/ integrity/ trust crisis. Across the country the Humble Church is doing its job perfectly well and our children and grandchildren are no less safe there than in schools or sports clubs. But in “elite” “successful” institutions if the project becomes threatened by scandal, cover up is the order of the day. And when we try to call this out the Old School culture fights by all means, fair and foul to prevent accountability. Archbishops’s Council and its Secretariat… Read more »
So, it is as though the procedures of General Synod are set up to prevent the Synod as a whole getting its own way, and to ensure that certain vested interests get their own way. Can we identify who those vested interests are?
Who has a pecuniary interest?
Who has a non-pecuniary interest?
Whose interests are served indirectly?
Whose interests are not served, either directly or indirectly?
While I might have my own answers, I think asking the questions is more important.
I have been profoundly shocked by the events of the last few days at Synod, and am wondering if and how I can remain a member of a church which is led so very badly, and if I can continue to support it financially. From my point of view, Sunday afternoon was quite encouraging, with Synod, helped by some determined members with knowledge of its procedures, overriding the wishes of the Archbishops’ Council and ensuring that the voices of the sacked members of the ISB could be heard, countering the arrogant and dismissive views of the AC members who were… Read more »
How can it change – by getting more members on side.
It was very close to 3/4 needed for Gavin Drake.
Getting more attempts like that would be good.
If a majority could be on side to next-business/defer every item that isn’t relevant to safeguarding that could help…
Not being on general synod myself does limit what I can do…
Is how members of Synod voted made public ? I think we need to know who prevented a 2/3 majority being achieved. Secondly we need to identify the person most responsible for this debacle and organise a petition calling for their resignation. Motions at every PCC would also help. Thirdly we could organise a petition to Parliament calling for a debate and if enough people sign a debate must take place. Fourthly we need a petition calling for Jasvinder Sanghera and Steve Reeves to be be reinstated. I think I should be able to find a way of making their… Read more »
The voting lists for all counted votes are published on the General Synod page relating that group of sessions on the C of E website. They normally appear about two weeks after the close of each Synod. Incidentally, the majority required to suspend any standing order is ¾, not 2/3rds: see SO 39(4), which provides that a motion to suspend a standing order is carried “only if… at least three-quarters of the members of the Synod present and voting have voted in favour.” For this purpose, those members of Synod registering an abstention are ignored. On the motion proposed by… Read more »
Having Read Giles Fraser’s article and some of the comments there seems to be a confusion as to what safeguarding means. It actually means two separate but related things. Firstly there is the prevention of abuse. This has spawned a huge and expensive industry filled with compulsory training and regulations. The centre is very happy with this kind of safeguarding because it reinforces their managerial approach and it takes money from parishes and spends the cash on an extra centralised bureaucracy and thus increases the power of the centre. Who could possibly object to the prevention of abuse ? Nobody… Read more »
My (all too brief) speech on safeguarding reviews made a similar point – every review should report (as a basic matter of fact) whether the survivors/victims have been treated appropriately. It should be undertaken at a point where the answer to this question should be a clear “yes” – but we need to know. But there is a further aspect – the healing of communities within which abuse has happened, which have their own pastoral dynamics (as I know from personal experience – catch my speech on the safeguarding review code of practice – Tuesday Morning). The learning about leading… Read more »
There is much in this – but forgive me, I need a little R&R before I return to the fray and refining your basically correct analysis.
Be sure to get your R&R, Martin. You deserve it. It must be exhausting and dispiriting trying to hold the AC to account and subvert their iron grip on proceedings.
Many of us are profoundly grateful to you and your like minded colleagues for all the work you do in synod.
And be sure to get an answer to who changed your questions and inverted their meaning. It was utterly shameful and deserves the highest censure.
The bureaucracy doesn’t want to pay off victims, provide counselling, and give apologies. It wants to keep messing us about until we give up and go away.
On Sunday night I thought that, at last, there was a possibility of genuine reform and redress. Silly me! Victims have been fobbed off with an underfunded compensation scheme (time barred at that) and a wordy new code. There is a risk that the compensation scheme will be hedged around with various conditions and outsourced to a commercial enterprise which will rake off much of the fund to secure its profit margins. There is a risk that the new code will be another load of verbiage which devolves responsibility and cost to the parishes but permits the centre to retain… Read more »
This is probably very sensible and practical advice but I find it seriously uncomfortable because once again the onus is on the survivors to do all the heavy lifting to achieve any kind of justice . ‘Something is wrong in Synod’ is horribly true, especially the last line suggesting that most people didn’t even notice the non- apology. Does anyone know whether any survivors have ever complained to their personal MPs about their treatment at the hands of the CofE and if so whether the MPs took the complaint up? Waiting for the AC to set up their favourite flavour… Read more »
I completely agree with Froghole regarding the ‘redress’ scheme but go further in my concerns. I have already been told that the scheme cannot interfere in diocesan process so my request for having my abuser moved away from my community as my redress would not be possible. As financial rewards are likely to be a fraction of a diocesan secretary’s annual salary (as the Bishop of Truro said this is not about compensating lost salaries) so merely an insulting amount that will have to go on missed NI payments in order to receive the full state pension, it would not… Read more »
As I’ve argued before, the amount earmarked for the Redress Scheme is likely to a mere fraction – 7-10% – of the total required. Class action by victims could result in bankruptcy for some dioceses. The reform of the upper chamber would hopefully trigger a number of the measures that Froghole suggests. But more would follow. The major change to work for is to ensure the CofE is subject to the law of the land, rather than being “a law unto itself” with its silly and highly partisan “legal advisors”. Nolan Principles for conduct in public life should apply to… Read more »
These are legitimate concerns, and there are others, of course. The fringe meeting on the Redress scheme was better than I expected, and the Survivor Reference Group is clearly taking its role seriously and having an impact on the scheme design. Some of the money for redress is likely to come from existing insurance (eg public liability) and the church money is additional to that from other sources. Whether the funding might be sufficient is unknown as the need has as yet not been scoped. We were told that the amount now committed was not a ceiling. It is desperately… Read more »
Even if the church hierarchy was motivated by a desire for power rather than ministry, it’s hard to see how they would think that this is the way to hang onto their established power. The optics are so bad that we can take the statement that ‘we can’t afford to get it wrong again’ at face value, whether the motivation is the aid of survivors, or their own survival as the established church. This has obviously been the case for some time, in which case there must be another rationale (they are not stupid) for their apparently self-defeating approach of… Read more »
For clarity, my previous comment is in response to the general question of safeguarding and governance in the CofE following recent events, but also in specific response to the Unherd article by Giles Fraser linked to above, ‘Why is the Church silencing victims? The Archbishops’ Council has given up on safeguarding’. My thoughts are also informed by another recent Unherd article, https://unherd.com/2023/07/is-the-catholic-church-evading-justice/ ‘[US RC] Dioceses faced with abuse allegations are declaring bankruptcy’. For anyone charged with managing a national church, that kind of scenario (including class actions involving legal and financial agents not necessarily ‘survivor-focused’ themselves) must seem an existential… Read more »
The dam is going to burst, although it is a brave person (or someone with the foresight of a Hebrew prophet) that will say when. I think the publication of the Makin Review will be the next key moment. A (smallish, but more than a handful) number of clergy (priests and bishops) will be in the firing line and this time the lessons learned will have consequences. I joined the General Synod in 1993 and served not quite continuously until 2021, including six interesting years on the CNC. The standing of the Church of England in the eyes of the… Read more »
I can’t prophesy when, but I can’t remember a time when the trust in the Archbishops and their Council was so low. Nor can I recall an issue (series of issues) that has united clergy and laity of every persuasion as much as this.
I think this is clearly a resignation issue for both archbishops and all the AC.
Here is a direct link to the speeches by Steve Reeves and Jasvinder Sanghera https://www.youtube.com/live/nYu3MDRecUY?feature=share&t=6239 These two five minute presentations are for me by far the most important 10 minutes in the entire Synod. But please look behind the speakers and you will see displayed for all to see what is wrong with the Church of England, The chair of the meeting and a bureaucrat (I don’t know their names) carry on a whispered, jokey conversation completely ignoring Steve and Jasvinder. This says to me “we will let the infants have their playtime but us adults, us smooth talking members… Read more »
Thank you for these, David. I noticed the people behind Steve and Jasvinder too. Also, am I right in observing that William Nye had been sitting behind there, but walked out when Steve and Jasvinder were about to speak? I would make one other observation, not wishing to sound critical at all because I appreciate what you’ve done, but as a further improvement: I think the voice of a survivor needs to be included in this collection, and to add weight and evidence, and further raw emotion, to what Steve and Jas said. I believe that Jane Chevous’s speech, which… Read more »
Here is a direct link to the speech by Jane Chevous:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nYu3MDRecUY&t=157s
Just watched the clip. I wonder who they are – at best they need some manners given the subject matter. I can’t imagine whatever they were discussing was urgent. Very rude to say the least. The guy looked a bit shocked by Jasvinder describing her personal experience but only a little bit. If this is an example of synod it explains a great deal about the state things are in. The sooner this corrupt and nasty organisation collapses and is reformed the better. Thank you Steve and especially Jasvinder for a very personal and costly explanation. The lies and vilification… Read more »
David- ‘The management’ in flagrant disregard of the previously expressed view of Synod continues to fail to ‘attribute’ names to the Chairs of Sessions, and similarly the ‘legal bods’ stay anonymous. ‘Known’/ familiar speakers are called by Christian names, ‘lesser folk rather like BBC’s Fiona Bruce: ‘yes you in the pink’ Is there a record of who was called, if not who was not? How many laity (and clergy?) have yet to be called to utter a word. I seem to recall a study have been made- have things changed? Are there ‘Rotten Dioceses’, Rotten Chapters?? Something rotten … alas… Read more »
Thank you for that. We have some very expert contributors so I hope someone can identify the chair because I would like to write to her. She is chair of the session and to sit there and chat and joke while Steve Reeves and Jasvinder Sanghera were speaking is utterly disgraceful. Not only does it disrespect Steve and Jasvinder but it adds disrespect to the disrespect already heaped on the survivors by the Archbishops Council. Why can’t Synod appoint the chairs of its own meetings ? Chairs have a lot of power to control how business is conducted. I cannot… Read more »
Chairs are not anonymous. Their names are published in advance, see here
https://www.churchofengland.org/sites/default/files/2023-06/chairs-of-debates-july-2023.pdf
I am happy to be corrected- I still don’t see name plates, and my other points, and David’s, stand I think?
Does a long serving Clergy husband spot a disproportionate number of women acting as Chair? In a long life, I have never experienced a disproportionate percentage of women in apparent positions of authority unless there is an ulterior motive. (Women as NSMs?) Could it possibly be that some control freak might think that women chairs might be more amenable to control from the Legal Advisers, and might not be challenged as fiercely in Synod debates as male counterparts?
Sounds like the chairing has come in for some severe criticism, which I cannot comment on with precision without spending hours on YouTube! I was on the Panel of Chairs from 1999-2004. I am sure we knew the standing orders better then. We certainly knew the faces two years into a quinquennium. I was only once seriously criticised, and that was by Colin Buchanan. I refused to call him in an Anglo-Methodist debate in York because he had already spoken four times in that group of sessions. He recalls the event in his memoirs. He probably had something serious to… Read more »
I read Mr Sewell’s speech at the end of this thread. Please can this simple question be answered. He continues to argue that the review of safeguarding procedures of the Christ Church/Oxford situation was ‘a complaint BY Dr Percy’. If that is the case, why do the TOR have ‘the complainant’ as the woman who brought the complaint against Dr Percy? The review is to look at the whole picture and see what went wrong and how things can be improved – there are many who have been badly treated over this, not least her.
I am puzzled by the seeming indifference to the scandalous changes (they are nothing less) to Martin Sewell’s questions to GS made without his consent, totally altering them to produce the result which you identify above. It was equally an abuse of Martyn Percy. It may be that people are so enured to what we see daily in public life that comment is simply felt unnecessary, but how can such happenings be possible in Christ’s church.
In my view the change to questions demonstrates a disrespect for synodical government (which perhaps is seen as laborious or ineffective, and better bypassed?). It might also carry elements of (1) ‘the end justifies the means’, and (2) it will demoralise opposition to see that their own words can be changed and they will be powerless to do anything about it. If so, scary stuff.
I can’t accept ‘disrespect’ or ‘end justifies the means’. I think it bordered on illegal for reasons which I set out in earlier comments. I emphasised that I did not think the strict criteria of forgery were met, but instead of what seems to me to be an unduly tolerant and laissez-faire response to this, I invite others to read section 9 of the Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981, linked below: 9 Meaning of “false” and “making” (1) An instrument is false for the purposes of this Part of this Act— (a) if it purports to have been made in… Read more »
Rowland, I think the suggestion that the ‘doctoring’ of Martin Sewell’s two questions may involve an offence of forgery (or a related offence) under the 1981 Forgery and Counterfeiting Act, is not helpful at this time. What is required is a fully independent and speedy inquiry into how the changes to Martin’s questions were changed without his knowledge or consent. As I have stated in a separate comment on this thread, that inquiry must be conducted by a person completely independent of the Synod secretariat, Church House staff, and the C of E Legal Office. Archbishop Stephen, in his answer… Read more »
I simply cannot understand how my comments get misunderstood: I try to write with clarity. There have been far too many of them on this subject, but they have consistently said that I do not consider this to have been a forgery. More baffling still, David, is that in the comment to which you are replying I stated “I think it bordered on illegal for reasons which I set out in earlier comments. I emphasised that I did not think the strict criteria of forgery were met”. That, surely, could hardly be clearer. I don’t think, or at least it… Read more »
Rowland, so why, if you do not consider the ‘doctoring’ of Martin Sewell’s two questions to have been a forgery, introduce that subject and then set out extenso the text of section 9 of the 1981 Act for people to read?
Let’s now wait to see the outcome of, what must be, a thorough independent investigation, including full disclosure and publication of all relevant (or potentially relevant) e-mails and other (eg WhatsApp) messages.
Simply to draw people’s attention to the seriousness of falsifying a document which in other circumstances could amount to the crime of forgery. My comments have to be read in sequence. They are consistent. I don’t see this as confusing people, but rather hoping that they will realise that it is not something trivial to be accepted or passed over. See my comment above to Clare Hayne. It could hardly be clearer.
I think Mr Sewell is arguing that Dr Percy’s complaint is not yet the subject of any review, in that much of what Dr Percy was complaining about was not included within the terms of the review that was announced (but has not commenced).
I think I can answer your question, Clare. The position is that Dr Percy asked for an inquiry “into the deliberate weaponsisation of safeguarding allegations, with intent to cause harm to me, perpetrated by senior clergy, church lawyers and church PR“, with a timeframe of 2018 (the year of the Christ Church Governing Body allegations against the Dean that led to the Smith Tribunal in 2019 which rejected all the 27 charges against him) to 2022 when a settlement was reached with the College pursuant to which he received a substantial compensatory payment. However, the ToR of the review that… Read more »
Having watched on You tube some of the General Synod Sessions, particularly those concerning Safeguarding, and bearing in mind all we have been hearing, listening and reading lately regarding the whole Debacle of Safeguarding from the top, certain questions come to mind for me as a past Anglican, as well as a Crisis of Authority within the wider Anglican Communion, and now also an identity crisis about what constitutes and Anglican could it not also be strongly argued that there is now a serious crisis of authority within the Church of England itself? Jonathan.