Thinking Anglicans

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.

Notify of

1 Comment
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Mark Bennet
Mark Bennet
6 years ago

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 –… Read more »

Would love your thoughts, please comment.x