by Anon
It was a pretty depressing meeting of General Synod, even by recent standards. There have now been three expert reports dealing with the harm and trauma caused to safeguarding victims, those who have suffered abuse at the hands of the Church of England’s safeguarding processes, and those falsely accused.
The Jay Review specifically cited those on the receiving end of the “weaponisation of safeguarding”.
The Glasgow Report stated that “actual harm and trauma” had been caused to those left in the lurch by the sudden closure of the ISB.
The Wilkinson Report covered, in forensic detail, how the Secretariat at Lambeth Palace had chosen the day of announcing that closure – 21st June 2023 – as being the cut-off date for trying to prevent Jasvinder Sanghera and Steve Reeves speaking at General Synod. The Report states that “the timing of the termination was affected by the dates of General Synod because the ISB members intended to speak at Synod and to terminate their contracts after they had spoken would be problematic” (565.4).
And the Wilkinson Report went further. There were no risk assessments done: “no risk assessment beyond informal conversations was carried out by or on behalf of the Archbishops’ Council … about the effect of the termination of the ISB contracts on complainants, victims and survivors who were engaged with them, particularly those involved in case reviews” (566.4). Press releases said the victims were contacted and being cared for. Wilkinson found this to be untrue. A lie, in other words. “[W]hen the final decision to terminate the ISB contracts was taken, there was a plan to have a plan to provide interim or transitional arrangements for those case reviews but nothing further was in place” (566.10). “A plan to have a plan” – but no plan.
General Synod were told that Kevin Crompton, the ‘Commissioner’ appointed by the Secretariat, was now looking after victims. The victims issued a statement to say that was another lie.
Three experts on safeguarding, nationally, told the Archbishops’ Council and General Synod that the Church of England lacks the resources, expertise, wisdom and independence (a code for ‘integrity’) to manage safeguarding safely, yet Synod voted to keep hold of the processes it does not understand. This shows little care and attention for victims; indeed, it is reabusive.
Following the February Synod, the whole matter has now been handed over to a ‘Response Group’, a self-appointed group of part-time amateurs, whose agenda is to preserve the privilege that got the church into this mess. This is staggering arrogance. The Lead Bishop for Safeguarding spoke at Synod opposing motions for independence, refusing apologies and denying accountability. Her credibility with victims was zero before Synod began, and now languishes in negative ethical equity, were such a thing possible.
Others appointed to the ‘Response Group’ have misled Synod before. They’ve assured members there are conflicts of interests policies operating. There are not, and Wilkinson highlights that. The claim has been made on Radio 4 that the Archbishops’ Council have all had trauma-training. Where is the evidence that they have? These abusers stay in place, keeping hold of their power and privilege.
Some victims have now requested that those responsible for the harm and trauma caused to them, including the Archbishops’ Council and others leading safeguarding, be subjected to safeguarding complaints themselves. Good luck with that, as they say. When was the last time anyone senior was held accountable for previous mess-ups, cover-ups or stitch-ups?
The Jay, Wilkinson and Glasgow Reports will be material for the shredder. In the unlikely event of any recommendations surviving, victims can be certain that they will be those that empower the Church, and subjugate the oppressed.
In December 2023, after the ISB had been shut down for modelling “the wrong kind of independence”, the journalist and activist Andrew Graystone wrote a letter to the Church Times:
Whatever recommendations emerge from these reports will have to pass through exactly the same defensive and inept governance structures as have brought the Church to this desperate place.
For years, there has been little evidence of willingness in the Church to change fundamentally. Instead, there is a long history of tinkering at the edges: a new safeguarding post here, a new review there. My greatest fear is that instead of immediately implementing Professor Jay’s proposals, they will be sent out for a typical C of E consultation process — and we will still be debating whether to implement some watered-down version ten years from now.
The reality, as expressed by Ms Wilkinson and experienced by many victims and survivors of abuse, is that hardly anyone in the senior leadership of the Church has a deep understanding of abuse and trauma, and what it takes to help survivors rebuild their lives. Mandatory trauma training is one of her key recommendations. Day after day, I hear from survivors whose trauma is met with bureaucracy.
He continued with this compelling analogy:
It is as if the A and E department of every hospital were staffed entirely by overworked senior managers with no clinical expertise and a heap of other problems to deal with at the same time. All of the survivors I know are exhausted, ground down by navigating the Church’s managerial and adversarial systems. So are the senior leaders. Yet still they project an absolute conviction that they know how to run the hospital better than any outside experts.
This is correctly diagnosed. Pain, brokenness, trauma and profound suffering are met by extremely poor processes and evasive bureaucrats who lack proper expertise and empathy. It is tragic. But also extremely abusive, as victims testify.
Yet General Synod voted for more of the same. I wonder how many members of General Synod would opt to have an operation in a hospital with the worst reputation in the NHS, and with a high rate of unexplained deaths? A hospital with a reputation for making your illness and injuries even worse, and intensifying your pain and trauma?
None, I expect. Yet Synod voted to have the same people presiding over this safeguarding debacle make recommendations for improvements. It will end in failure, and more fatalities. Yes, please do remember that people at their wits’ end with Church of England safeguarding processes take their own lives, lose their homes, watch their families implode, and have mental breakdowns.
More recently, Andrew Graystone pointed out that:
Such is the chaos in the Church’s safeguarding structures that not only can the Church not treat survivors with justice and mercy: it doesn’t even have a mechanism to learn from its own failings.
Already, I have been contacted by people alleging that they have been abused in church settings, who have decided not to report their abuse because they have seen how the Church has treated Mr X and others.
We hear that Professor Alexis Jay is going to investigate, issue a report, and then have it debated and implemented. This will take well over a year. This is an emergency, and it requires a well-resourced expertly run emergency response.
And now we have the report, but has it even been properly debated, coming out as it did a couple of days before Synod?
Over £1 million was spent on these reports and on consultants who concluded the Church of England cannot safely deliver such work, and lacks the expertise and resources to do so.
It is just as well that the Post Office is not being run by the Archbishops’ Council, or subject to the oversight of General Synod. Were it so, Paula Vennells would still be in charge, and given another chance to get things right. Alan Bates would be behind bars, and the public would be told that whilst there had been a few errors, and apologies could be considered, the status quo would be maintained.
Any thoughts?