The Church Times reports: Campaigners call for removal of senior church officers ‘resisting’ safeguarding reforms
THE senior church officers who, according to an INEQE review, are resisting safeguarding reforms, must be “removed from influence”, a group of campaigners have told the Archbishops.
The letter, sent on Sunday and signed by 20 people — including both complainants and respondents in safeguarding cases — calls for an “independent urgent review” of safeguarding in the Church…
The letter described in this article can be read in full here.
What a very welcome letter and directed at those who are in a position to change things. Those of us who have been subjected to abusive safeguarding practices for years and years hope that consciences will be spiked into Christian action. For six years I have supported my friend in a provable false allegation. We have been rejected by organisations and senior clergy officers who pretend they are there to help but in fact do nothing. I have in the last few weeks compiled a memory stick of all evidence of the case, much of it from Subject Access Request… Read more »
Jim Gamble, CEO of INEQE, did not name names in a public statement. But bearing in mind the report was commissioned by the CofE, can we assume that he gave the specific detailed list to ++Sarah, and the same list to William Nye the General Secretary?
I am glad to see that Martin Sewell, Gavin Drake and others, who have striven for years in Synod to make progress on safeguarding matters, only to be driven to resignation by constant obstruction from the ‘influential senior officers’ to whom this letter refers, have now produced this excellent letter in a renewed attempt to bring about change, supported by many who have personal experience of safeguarding failures. Thank you for daring again to speak truth to power. But I am puzzled by one thing;- The letter calls for the ‘removal from influence’ of the senior officials referred to in… Read more »
Of course the normal disciplinary/HR processes need to be invoked, and after a review report like that I imagine they would be. People have been suspended in response to lesser concerns than these.
What is absolutely clear now is that the Charity Commission will not be able to tolerate the current central church structures having any role in managing safeguarding. The review is quite clearly tuned to audiences beyond church structures.
As an outcome, I hope we are likely to see more effective independence than has been included in any of the proposals put to General Synod so far.
Much as I agree with them, I just think ‘good luck with that’. This collection of disgraceful individuals will all be employed by a range of different legal entities, each of which will have a range of potentially incompatible policies and procedures, and lines of accountability that will be mired in obfuscation. Even if you do discover the right person or committee to deal with it and process for removal, and manage to establish justification sufficient to stand up to legal appeal, unlike clergy, such employees cannot just be removed at will without legal (and expensive) consequences. All of that… Read more »
Is it really just the officers, or are the senior clergy hiding behind them?
That’s a perceptive question, and one on which it’s impossible to be certain about the answer, because it rests on where the real power lies, and that’s different for each Diocese. My impression is that Martin is spot on where he points to power vacuums. On another thread I’ve commented that what I’ve seen at local and diocesan levels in the Church is a gradual shift from monarchical clergy holding the power to monarchical laity holding it, as the critiques have come of over-dominating clergy. There are still plenty of examples around of monarchical clergy (and Bishops), so it hasn’t… Read more »
The problem we had in formulating the letter is “ who can do what”? The Archbishops are not all powerful. They tell us so and they are right. The diffuse nature of responsibility is such that there is a power vacuum into which step the “ influential individuals” -as many know. We needed to focus on getting names named so there can be no doubt about it – hence we want The Archbishops to meet with Jim Gamble and tell him to “ put up or shut up”. We want the Charity Commission to be party to these discussions. We… Read more »
I applaud you, Martin. Just one thing though – in terms of why they won’t suspend lay officers in the same way they do clergy at the drop of a hat. My view on this is….consequences. When most clergy face disciplinary action, whether or not it is justified, the powers that be rely primarily on intimidation, deference and fear. Push the clergy around and most will cower in the face of unaccountable power they are ill equipped to fight, and do as they’re told. If they don’t, even if they win, their future prospects are trashed and the grapevine consigns… Read more »
As a 71-year old still holding the Bishop’s Licence, but not remunerated and therefore a species of ‘modern slavery’, can I be permitted to mention that your comment “I haven’t yet found a member of the clergy who has fought, won and come out of it unscathed in terms of future prospects”, that some of us, following loyally the example of Our Lord himself, do not give a hoot for “future prospects”. Indeed, we might consider the whole prospect comical, preposterous and sub-Christian! But we would say that, wouldn’t we!
Thank you, Martin, for explaining the thinking behind the letter. When I first read the latest INEQE audit, I naively thought that, at last, we had something which could be used to force through the necessary changes. But you were clearly aware that it would be no easy matter, and Realist’s multiple posts, here and on the earlier thread, make it sound very difficult indeed, close to impossible even. How depressing if true, and I have no reason to doubt Realist’s apparent detailed knowledge of the inner workings of the CofE at the highest levels. So what’s left, I wonder.… Read more »
Martin, thank you for all the steady work you do in this, it’s greatly appreciated.
It is a great shame that Parliament hasn’t taken a real interest in this across the board. If they did, and backed that up with threats of action, things would change; but we all know that the majority of MPs at Westminster think the Church irrelevant and give Church matters wide berth. We have been mired in these issues around safeguarding for years and years, inaction at the top has destroyed our credibility with the English public we claim to serve. The ONLY thing that will motivate the Archbishops and senior leadership of the Church of England to bring real… Read more »
I quite agree David. Parliament should be much more involved but our experience is that they are not interested and just want to off load the responsibility to someone else. After five years of supporting my friend in a provable case of a false allegation, in 2025 we finally persuaded the local MP to help. She was very good and tried for a year to get answers but in the end failed. She failed because the Diocesan Safeguarding Officer refused to meet her and only answered her written questions inadequately. When challenged by the MP, the DSO, with the support… Read more »
Why though? Wouldn’t disestablishment give them even more power? Even less oversight?
What moral authority does the Archbishop of York have to discipline these recalcitrant employees? That aside; if they ignore lawful instructions to implement the recommendations of national inquiries why would they need to be compensated for the loss of their jobs?
Many a legal case has been won or lost on technicalities. For example define ‘resisted’, ‘ignored’, ‘failed’, ‘implement’, ‘lawful instructions’ etc etc etc; prove to the requisite standard of proof whose responsibility it was to instruct x or implement y etc etc etc….and so it continues, if you have good enough lawyers.
I note that one of the signatories on the letter is Michelle Burns, presumably of Guarding the Flock and who in the previous TA post has written an article about how the church does not need any more independent reviews – yet here she is asking for an independent review!
We all are tired of Reviews but how else are the Archbishops to know that the plan is genuinely independent and not “ managed “ by the unseen hands whose names are not to be spoken?
We are trying to be pragmatic.
Patricia, not quite. I’ve never opposed independent scrutiny. I oppose the Church commissioning endless reviews, ignoring the findings, and then commissioning another one.
A targeted independent review where serious questions need answering is called accountability.
There’s a rather important difference.
Well said Michelle. Every recommendation should become an Agenda item and stay there until Acted on and Progress reported until agreed as Complete. As you say that’s Accountability, and the ‘trail’ Auditable. Is the established church accountable to parliament; is its ‘Annual Report’ considered?
Whatever the risks raised by the INEQE Audit, as a third party contractor, they should not be getting involved in potential HR disciplinary matters. That’s unprofessional and just plain wrong, One wonders what professional standards are being applied in the safeguarding sector. It hardly inspires confidence.
Adrian, I don’t agree with you. A contractor should have their terms of contract, the limits of which are ultimately determinable in court. Professionals will have a duty of care, and they may also have a professional body to answer to regarding standards, codes of conduct etc. Further more, a ‘duty of candour’ whether legislative or not may suggest that matters of safeguarding MUST be reported. The CofE as client MUST act, which may include consideration of misconduct. I recall the situation at a residential hall of Kings College London, where KCL sought to adjudicate on a matter of shall… Read more »
Although in a very different sector, ISO compliance auditors are expected to report on risks discovered in the course of their audit, even if outside their contractual scope. Often reported as ‘Observations’ for consideration by the client. In safeguarding, surely this applies a fortiori?
The next Synod needs to ask if the Ineqe report has been reported to the Charity Commission as disclosing safeguarding vulnerabilities.
This is a very timely letter. However, it is not clear in what capacity the archbishops are being addressed. I assume (and hope) it as Joint Presidents of the Archbishops’ Council. The fact is the buck stops with the Council, a body which has never really found its feet since 1998. All its members collectively need to be held to account, something I rarely witnessed in my time on the General Synod, and derivatively the Council needs to exercise proper oversight over its senior officers (something I never witnessed). It was usually clear who was in charge. There is something… Read more »
If anyone still thought C of E safeguarding was fit for purpose the last two threads with Stephen Parsons’ blog and Martin Sewell’s letter should have been enough to change their mind. The explanations in the comments here have shed a lot of light on why safeguarding has been able to remain so inadequate for so long. The question now would appear to be whether the Joint Presidents of the Archbishops’ Council have any stomach for galvanising the body into buck stopping or whether they have been so well chosen (I won’t call it discerned) that they will mutter well… Read more »
Very!
Is it your experience that the Secretary General’s reports to Archbishops Council were usually oral and that he writes up the minutes? That is what a former insider told me
i was once told, maybe in jest, that civil service minutes ‘should not record what was said, but record what the speaker would have said had they had more time to consider the matter’.
i don’t think the policy should ever be that the main protaganists write the minutes.
Nigel, Sir Humphrey would not speak in jest, surely; an AI overview offers this: The minutes say whatever Sir Humphrey Appleby needs them to say. As he famously explains in Yes, Prime Minister, the purpose of minutes is not to record events, but to protect people, improve upon what was said, and represent views as they should have emerged on reflection. ‘For the record’, the scripted words can be found here:https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0751833/quotes/
The retired Clerk of a former County Council (both the Council and that office ceased to exist in 1974) told me that he never counted votes and minuted what he thought should have been said. Not so different from Sir Humphrey, but this time in real life.
I refused to stand for Archbishops’ Council. The Secretary-General is responsible for the minutes but I think no-one sees them other than members and Church House mandarins. I suspect re the safeguarding issues which have not been properly addressed, much is oral. The lawyers will have told them to commit as little to paper as possible. So much for a transparent church. Meetings of the Council should be held in public, with properly confidential matters covered by a private agenda.
Martin, I wish you well in your quest. Sadly, I fear, the INEQE report does not, to my mind, point a smoking gun at named individuals, though these may perhaps be inferred by reading between the lines. In its 113 pages the report makes 12 references to ‘inhibitors’- two in Jim Gamble’s Foreword and two in the Contents; one on reach of pp 34 and 36; the remainder being within the pages 60-66. It has been customary for the person at the top to ‘carry the can’ as it may be thought Justin Welby ultimately did. Did William Nye as… Read more »
One (at least) of the questions tabled by a Synod member (perhaps a new member) for answer at the opening group of sessions of the new quinquennium in November will surely be to ask for the names of those referred to in Jim Gamble’s foreword.
The names are fairly obvious. And if wrong they will correct any assertion. Am working on it.
The long drawn-out saga of the Anglican Church’s incompetence and evasion with regard to safeguarding continues. Are the authors of the letter seriously expecting a sensible response from either archbishop? Both have been promoted to their present positions in spite of having been heavily criticised for their conduct when dealing with safeguarding in their previous jobs. Or is there a disingenuous plan for things to be different this time?
It’s just soooooo bad. I just don’t understand how it has got to this. The report which came out a couple of years ago has been ignored. It should have been implemented. Simple as that. as to “name and shame”, people are afraid of being sued.
Such an exquisite minuet around a name, like angels dancing on the head of a pin. Why? It it Nye time that William was named. Sue me – I care not.
https://x.com/HseofSurvivors/status/2090802901832593595
Private Eye. No 1682
Exposé piece on the rotten borough inside Church House Westminster. This needs to be seen by every bishop and every safeguarding officer in @churchofengland
This is the culture survivors are up against #brokenchurch
It is deeply wearying to continually read of the obstruction at senior levels of the Church, where safeguarding reform and repair remain perpetually stalled. The INEQE audit articulates this institutional resistance with unmistakable clarity—falling only just short of naming the specific officers responsible. While many rightly focus on the reputational catastrophe this causes the institution, for survivors the reality is an ongoing, devastating scandal. Around the close of the IICSA Anglican hearings in late 2020, I wrote to the Inquiry pleading with them to apply real teeth to the implementation of the Redress Scheme. I warned then that without external… Read more »
How long, O Lord? Let those with ears to hear .. hear- hear hear- wise up, and PAY UP, now, generously.
Gilo and Mr X it is very hard to think of anything sensible to say to you in the face of this. It is utterly shaming .
I wonder how much the three obstructors cost the C of E annually?
Maybe Private Eye could help us with that too?