Sunday, 17 December 2017

Elliott Review - background

The review referred to in the previous post was reported on earlier.

15 March 2016 Church of England publishes part of Elliott report into sexual abuse case

At that time it was reported that both the Guardian and the Church Times had seen the full report.

The Church of England has today published portions of the report that was commissioned in September 2015 into a particular case of alleged sexual abuse by a member of the clergy.

The materials published by the church do not disclose the names of any of the persons involved. However, the Guardian newspaper carries a report by Harriet Sherwood which names the perpetrator and states that the Guardian has seen the full report. The Guardian has also interviewed the survivor in this case.

The Church Times has also seen the full report…

Links made in that article to the CofE website no longer work but here are new ones:

Elliott Review Findings

Response from Bishop Sarah Mullally on Elliott Review findings.

…”This report has published a series of important recommendations. The Archbishop of Canterbury has seen these recommendations and will ensure they are implemented as quickly as possible.

“How we respond to those who have survived abuse in any form, whether as a child or an adult, is a measure of our humanity, compassion and of the Church’s mission in the world.”

A year later, on 31 March 2017:

Elliott Review progress report

The Church of England’s National Safeguarding Team has today published a progress report, one year on from the Elliott Review, which recommended a range of safeguarding proposals for the Church, particularly in the areas of handling disclosures and accountability…

The full text of the progress report is here.

Posted by Simon Sarmiento on Sunday, 17 December 2017 at 4:12pm GMT | TrackBack
You can make a Permalink to this if you like
Categorised as: Church of England

I am in a context where safeguarding has been under the spotlight for some years and from different angles in my life and work. Three questions any pastoral organisation should be asking before "are we legally bullet-proof.

(i) Are the people who have been damaged here being appropriately treated?

(ii) Have we reduced the likelihood of harm to others who may be vulnerable (to this person; or in the same way)?

(iii) Have we minimised the collateral damage (a) to those who are or may be innocent (b) to those uninvolved [(b) thinks in part of unnecessary bureaucratic burdens - having seen a serious case review recommending actions which would have done nothing to keep the original victims safe, but would have made the review easier to conduct.]

Key idea: if you have a choice between an action which will keep people safe and an action which will cover your behind, only those who instinctively make the first choice inhabit a robust safeguarding culture.

Posted by: Mark Bennet on Sunday, 17 December 2017 at 6:20pm GMT
Post a comment

Remember personal info?

Please note that comments are limited to 400 words. Comments that are longer than 400 words will not be approved.

Cookies are used to remember your personal information between visits to the site. This information is stored on your computer and used to refill the text boxes on your next visit. Any cookie is deleted if you select 'No'. By ticking 'Yes' you agree to this use of a cookie by this site. No third-party cookies are used, and cookies are not used for analytical, advertising, or other purposes.