Thinking Anglicans

ISB controversy episode 5

Updated again Saturday morning

Previous episode here.

1. BBC Hardtalk has broadcast an interview with the Bishop of Dover, Rose Hudson-Wilkin. This covers many other topics, but one small segment deals with safeguarding in general and the ISB in particular. You can find that starting at 12.30. Bishop Rose said she disagreed with both the Bishop of Birkenhead, Julie Conalty, and with Andrew Graystone, on this topic. Transcript now available.

2. The English Churchman has published this article: The End is Nye?

3. The National Secular Society has published NSS urges Charity Commission to investigate CofE safeguarding

4. Via Media.News has published: Archbishops’ Council: Reset Required by Gilo

5. The Church Times has several relevant items, first of all four relevant Letters to the Editor, under the heading Disbanding of the Independent Safeguarding Board. They are from: nine survivors, another survivor who had an ISB case review pending, David Lamming, and Vasantha Gnanadoss.

6. Church Times: Angela Tilby: Archbishops’ Council is too powerful

7. Church Times: Opinion: Radical changes need the General Synod’s scrutiny

8. Civil Society Charity Commission mulls intervention at Archbishops’ Council

…The Commission said the charity reported itself to the regulator and it is considering its response.

A spokesperson for the regulator said: “In line with our guidance, the Archbishops’ Council has reported a serious incident in relation to these matters. We will engage with the trustees to determine whether a regulatory response is required”.

A Church of England spokesperson said: “The Archbishops’ Council has already submitted a Serious Incident Report to the Charity Commission in relation to the independent safeguarding board, in line with the reporting criteria of the Charity Commission…

9. There is a change.org petition Safeguard victims in the Church of England – ask the Charity Commission to intervene now!

 

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

56 Comments
Oldest
Newest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
David Lamming
David Lamming
9 months ago

Bishop Julie Conalty is one of the 112 signatories (as at 21 June) to the Revd Robert Thompson’s Private Member’s Motion, only tabled in May, saying that “an internal Church inquiry into the allegations of abuse and cover-up within the Soul Survivor network” is “neither sufficient nor right in principle“, and calling on the Archbishops’ Council “to commission, on agreed terms of reference with survivors, a report in to those allegations from an independent King’s Counsel without delay.” (The full text of the motion is set out on page 29 of the General Synod Agenda for York, GS 2296, page… Read more »

Mark Bennet
Mark Bennet
Reply to  David Lamming
9 months ago

I found the idea that one could be disciplined for calling for an independent inquiry quite bizarre. Who would have an interest in bringing such a complaint, and what would its actual substance be?

NJW
NJW
Reply to  David Lamming
9 months ago

I think that there is a technical (and legal) difference between the situation that each bishop is in. One has a responsibility for providing a voice to survivors (and therefore has a duty to give that voice a public voice), whilst any potential action under the CDM will be made in the name of the other in their juridical role (and therefore could be seen to be acting prejudicially in making any public statement). I am not saying that this should be the case (indeed far from it), but think it may be the current position.

Mark Bennet
Mark Bennet
Reply to  NJW
9 months ago

I can’t see how having a diocesan inquiry under the authority of the Bishop can possibly be less problematic.

Froghole
Froghole
Reply to  Mark Bennet
9 months ago

Indeed, this is another instance (yet another instance) of bishops getting themselves into potential trouble (and disgrace) because their roles have become too complex: they have a pastoral responsibility to their clergy; they have a judicial or quasi-judicial role towards their clergy; they have fiduciary obligations to their DBFs and other diocesan trusts or corporations; they have responsibilities to their officials as de facto CEOs of their diocesan administrations; they have informal pastoral responsibilities to the laity; they have informal pastoral responsibilities to their parishes; they have an oath of obedience to their metropolitan; they have responsibilities to the national… Read more »

Adrian
Adrian
9 months ago

Diocesan Safeguarding Officers: the name gives it away. There may have been some changes, but are the following true? They are hired as employees by the diocese which writes the job description (based on a national template I suppose), pays them, line manages them, disciplines them and ultimately dismisses them. If these are true, how can they be independent? Are they office holders and free from line management or are they employees? Do they have security of job tenure? Can they put the needs of the most vulnerable in society above the needs of the diocese? Are they free from… Read more »

Kate
Kate
Reply to  Adrian
9 months ago

For the avoidance of doubt, a DSO/DSA is also not independent if reviewing a different diocese because in future that diocese might review the first diocese. It raises at least the theoretical possibility of a quid pro quo arrangement. I fear that could be the proposal but, if so, it needs to be resisted.

Froghole
Froghole
Reply to  Adrian
9 months ago

Indeed, comments were made about this problem several years ago (perhaps here and certainly on SC). During the middle ages bishops had substantial retinues and chanceries (well, most of them did, for several sees could not really afford it). These retinues were a function of the bishop as a baron. After the Reformation most sees were comparatively impoverished, whether by ‘forced exchanges’ (where the monarch exchanged manors of low value for episcopal manors of high value), peculation, harassment by the politically influential, inflation and leases on unfavourable terms, so it became impossible for such retinues to be sustained. In many… Read more »

NJW
NJW
Reply to  Adrian
9 months ago

To try and be fair, I think that is a result of a recommendation from IICSA that the role should be changed from someone giving advice as to how a church officeholder or worker should act and one having responsibility for instructing how that person should act. One could argue that whilst one should take professional advice one can ignore it, but that ignoring an instruction sets a higher bar. I am not aware of any claim that DSOs will be independent in the same way that an Independent Chair or Independent Panel should be – but am always open… Read more »

Realist
Realist
Reply to  NJW
9 months ago

In my experience, having worked with several of them over the years, DSAs are a very mixed bag in competence and their view of their independence and authority. Responding to NJW’s point first – the C of E legal office published an opinion a while ago on what the infamous phrase that was in the Measure about safeguarding and clergy discipline (paying due regard to advice). They made it clear that in practice it was to mean following that advice unless there was a cogent reason not to. In other words, in 99.9% of situations, a member of the clergy… Read more »

Peter
Peter
9 months ago

The Archbishops Council is a whitewashed tomb.

Wandering minstrel
Wandering minstrel
Reply to  Peter
9 months ago

I think it’s worse than that; it thinks it is the governing body of something called the Church of England. It used to be that there were national institutions of something called the Church of England – central support structures for dioceses and parishes. Now there are the institutions of something conceived as the National Church. I’m just waiting for the word ‘oversee’ to appear in respect of the work of dioceses and parishes. One reform long overdue is to separate out the roles and functions of Secretary General of the General Synod from that of the secretariat of the… Read more »

Froghole
Froghole
Reply to  Wandering minstrel
9 months ago

Yes, that has to be right. There is a pretty blatant conflict of interest where the executive and legislature have the same secretariat (or, to put it another way, the secretary general for both executive and legislative functions is one and the same person). As I see it, the secretary general of the AC ought to function as if s/he were head of the home civil service, and the secretary general of Synod ought to function as if s/he were clerk to the house of commons or clerk of the parliaments, each of whom has a primary obligation of loyalty,… Read more »

Froghole
Froghole
9 months ago

With respect to the article about Mr Nye, I am concerned (as others have noted already) that he is at risk of becoming a fall guy for wider systemic and structural failures. It will not do, I feel, for us to suggest that Mr Nye ‘is the system’, for this is to invest one lay official with a degree of power he may not possess. I have suggested that he is a ‘universal spider’ (a phrase used of Louis XI), because he is evidently at the centre of a nexus of influence by dint of the offices he occupies, but… Read more »

Jo B
Jo B
Reply to  Froghole
9 months ago

It seems to me that there are two possibilities: one is that Mr Nye has been permitted to exercise too much power, in which case the Archbishops allowed that situation to arise and continue; the second is that the decisions were made (on Mr Nye’s advice?) by the Archbishops. Either way the culpable parties are the Archbishops, and if Mr Nye is to go then the Archbishops must surely follow. The bald and uncomfortable fact remains that the hierarchy has spent years preoccupied with policing the intimate activities of consenting adults who happen to be of the same sex while… Read more »

martin sewell
martin sewell
Reply to  Froghole
9 months ago

Froghole, I wholly agree that we must accord the Secretary General the same rights as anyone else coming under scrutiny but nb “the same” – not ‘privileged’. The Secretary General role is immensely influential in the same way that Thomas Cromwell exercised power in Tudor times , or perhaps more benignly, like the Permanent Secretary to Jim Hacker in ” Yes Minister. Not for nothing is William Nye known as “Sir Humphrey” amongst survivors and General Synod members alike. “Sir Humphrey’ is the role, whoever fills it for now Who gets to brief MP’s in answer to Save the Parish’s… Read more »

Froghole
Froghole
Reply to  martin sewell
9 months ago

Many thanks to you and Jo B. I sense that it was thought appropriate to have the secretary general provide services to both Synod and the AC in order to make the two institutions cohere more effectively. However, what appears to have happened is that the AC has turned into a Wilhelmine-style cabinet or camarilla which has no meaningful accountability to Synod, the position of secretary general has turned into something akin to a cabinet secretariat, and Synod remains a largely ineffectual body which cannot call bishops or officials to account, cannot garner sufficient information, cannot launch probes, and cannot… Read more »

Peter
Peter
Reply to  Froghole
9 months ago

CDMs must be lodged against all those on the Archbishops’ Council who are ordained. They can of course make their own defence.

I have never witnessed such a sense of disgust and outrage across every single constituency.

The idea this group of people go on telling us all to calm down and trust them is unacceptable.

Last edited 9 months ago by Peter
Realist
Realist
Reply to  martin sewell
9 months ago

This is an excellent analysis, Martin, and I hope your Motion gains traction. I’ve referred to Mr Nye on several occasions (ironically) as ‘Billy Nye The Whitewash Guy’. Some will find that disrespectful, but it is considered, as sometimes parody can erode seemingly unassailable power. I chose that particular phrase (with apologies to The Big Bang Theory) to try to emphasise his Fixer/Enforcer profile, which you do far more eloquently. Mr Nye is responsible for how he chooses to operate, and for that, in my view, he must be held to account. The points in the English Churchman article about… Read more »

Froghole
Froghole
Reply to  martin sewell
9 months ago

I should add that what I am proposing should be accompanied either immediately or after an interval by a reform of the composition of Synod itself, which should be markedly smaller and either be unicameral or bicameral (either a clerical house or a lay house, or a house of bishops and the rest). My preference would be for a unicameral Synod since the present tricameral arrangements are absurd for a Church which now has about 500,000 mostly elderly active participants. Most importantly, the house of laity (perhaps also the house of clergy) should be elected on an OMOV basis, because… Read more »

Susannah Clark
Reply to  Froghole
9 months ago

I absolutely agree about one member (on electoral roll) one vote for selecting lay delegates to Synod. The present system reminds me of Soviet systems of delegates elected by delegates who have themselves been elected. It lends itself to a skewing of what people in the pews actually think, and what has become a kind of ‘party’ politicisation into rival camps, who try to ‘pack’ the House with their own supporters.

David Hawkins
David Hawkins
Reply to  Froghole
9 months ago

Mr Nye should not be the fall guy for wider failures but this does not at all excuse what he has done. “The End is Nye?” provides quite enough evidence for why the Synod should have absolutely no confidence in Mr Nye and he should go now. Mr Nye’s behaviour does raise serious questions about what is Church of England is for. Jesus says nothing at all about protecting a top down clerical establishment but he had quite a lot to say about protecting and caring for the weak and vulnerable. Mr Nye’s behaviour is in clear disobedience to the… Read more »

Last edited 9 months ago by David Hawkins
Froghole
Froghole
Reply to  David Hawkins
9 months ago

I agree with you. However, what I was trying to suggest (perhaps without sufficient clarity) is that he is not the only person who should move on, and that wider reforms are necessary. As I see it, it will not do for his departure to be used as cover for kicking other urgent reforms or changes in personnel into the long grass. The dismissal of the ISB would not have been possible without the imprimatur of the two primates, whatever Mr Nye may or may not have wanted. Even if it was indeed he who instigated this debacle (and I… Read more »

Stephen Griffiths
Stephen Griffiths
Reply to  Froghole
9 months ago

The challenge is to get the right candidates into the ‘pool’ ready for the Canterbury CNC. The recent CNCs for diocesan bishops provided an opportunity for this, as do the forthcoming ones. So I would say to members of forthcoming CNCs don’t just think of your diocese’s needs but those of the Church of England. https://www.churchtimes.co.uk/articles/2022/1-july/comment/letters-to-the-editor/letters-to-the-editor

Peter
Peter
9 months ago

I am appalled by the scandal around the Archbishops Council. In a piece I am sure Simon will publish in tomorrows digest, Gilo rightly excoriates all of them. All of them – not just bishops – should be subject to relentless accountability including CDMs for all those who are ordained.

Their personal insouciance when safeguarding issues are raised with them is an outrage. Their public posturing as champions of the vulnerable against predation is to be condemned.

Whitewashed Tombs

Last edited 9 months ago by Peter
Rowland Wateridge
Rowland Wateridge
Reply to  Peter
9 months ago

CDMs don’t appear to be the way forward unless there was the most dramatic change of heart, i.e., acceptance at all levels of the AC. CDMs against Archbishops are at best problematic, in reality arguably impossible against both, as a CDM against one Archbishop is referred to the other Archbishop and there is no default permitting delegation. This will change if and when the proposed Clergy Conduct Measure is passed, but that won’t happen until 2024. That is sufficient for present purposes, but the process at the preliminary stages involves the Provincial Registrar of Canterbury dealing with a complaint against… Read more »

Peter
Peter
Reply to  Rowland Wateridge
9 months ago

Rowland, I admire you, but please don’t talk down to me. I am aware of the fact it is a serious situation that requires careful thought about the implications. There is no remedy. None. I don’t know how many different ways one can make that point. Bishops (and clergy) have and will obstruct every single attempt to hold them to account. There is only one way to bring this evil chaos to an end Public shame. CDMs tell the world we hold these people in contempt for what they have done to God’s church. They will manipulate and subvert the… Read more »

Rowland Wateridge
Rowland Wateridge
Reply to  Peter
9 months ago

Gosh, I didn’t expect to be admonished, least of all by you as we generally (not always) share similar views. Peter, it is you who have misunderstood me and my very careful explanation of how CDMs work and the major obstacles which they involve. All of my contributions on TA are intended to be informative and helpful. I understand the ‘fury’ but that is precisely when the small voice of calm needs to be heard. Indignation leads people to saying things which can be ill-judged, especially in the heat of the moment. The law is the law. CDMs are not… Read more »

Peter
Peter
Reply to  Rowland Wateridge
9 months ago

Rowland, this is just too serious a situation for it to be about getting the tone right.

Gilo has to be given every conceivable word of encouragement and support.

He is pursuing CDMs. They will have an impact.

Your point about emotion and calm is almost always right – but not always.

Very, very occasionally the only stance that can be taken is fury.

I assure that is what you are about to witness in regard to the now destroyed ISB

Rowland Wateridge
Rowland Wateridge
Reply to  Peter
9 months ago

The problem, Peter, is that I don’t think you or Gilo understand the law as it relates to CDMs in simultaneous complaints against both archbishops. I set this out in detail on an earlier thread, which I have now cross-referenced several times. Emotions simply don’t come into this. There must be alternative avenues for your and Gilo’s aims, but it is not for me to suggest what they might be. I can’t say any more on this topic.

Peter
Peter
Reply to  Rowland Wateridge
9 months ago

Forgive me but the advocate for survivors is Gilo

I wish to cheer him on. I have no grounds at all on which to present my own opinions on the matter

Realist
Realist
Reply to  Rowland Wateridge
9 months ago

You are, of course, absolutely right Rowland. But, my view on the value of it is a bit different from yours, provided anyone going ahead knows what they’re getting into and thinks it’s still worth it. Basically, I completely agree with you that initiating a CDM against any ordained member of Archbishops’ Council has a minimal chance of resulting in any sanction. When we get to the Bishops and Archbishops the chance falls to zero, in my view. But in every case where a complaint is dismissed, reasons have to be given. If interested parties inundate the relevant Bishops and… Read more »

Rowland Wateridge
Rowland Wateridge
Reply to  Realist
9 months ago

As I have indicated in what will be my final reply to Peter, it must be, or should be, choosing the right course of action. Something I haven’t touched upon here, although it was set out specifically in my original comment, that the very first hurdle in a CDM against an archbishop is to satisfy the relevant Provincial Registrar (in the other archbishop’s Province!) that the complainant is a person having a proper interest in making the complaint. That doesn’t mean anyone and everyone. I quoted the words verbatim; it’s very frustrating that they have been either misunderstood or ignored.… Read more »

Realist
Realist
Reply to  Rowland Wateridge
9 months ago

I think we all stand together on the outrage, Rowland. Though you and I sometimes differ on our interpretations of legal issues and on the significance of certain courses of action beyond achieving a tangible outcome in direct redress under the law, I always understand your point and appreciate your clarity. I hope you won’t stop posting your legal opinions and clarifications. For those who aren’t conversant with ecclesiastical law from a lawyer’s perspective (and indeed for those who are), they are hugely valuable, despite sometimes being misunderstood, ignored or disagreed with. As we know, gaining access to independent, informed,… Read more »

Peter
Peter
Reply to  Realist
9 months ago

It was wrong of me to be intemperate towards Rowland. I hope my apology reaches him

I bear more own scars at the hands of the church. I would however be mortified if I have wounded Rowland or made him reluctant to contribute his wisdom to the discussion.

Susannah Clark
Reply to  Realist
9 months ago

I would second that. Rowland’s contributions, insights, experience, and expertise are invaluable.

Rowland Wateridge
Rowland Wateridge
Reply to  Realist
9 months ago

In my very first comment, which was a reply to Fr Dexter Bracey, without having seen Gilo’s, I quoted the exact text from the CDM. I have no specialist knowledge of or expertise in ecclesiastical law, and many of my comments on TA clearly state that I am happy to be corrected – including during this sequence! Matters may now have changed in that the Archbishops’ Council has itself (that is the requirement) reported this as a serious incident to the Charity Commission. I haven’t read the details so my position is ‘neutral’ – as most of my comments on… Read more »

Susannah Clark
Reply to  Rowland Wateridge
9 months ago

Thank you Rowland. Reading this report, the dominant thought that comes back at me again and again, is that it is navigating a personal tragedy. My second reflection is that the author(s) of this report have written with refreshing honesty, acute analysis, and the courage to speak truth to power. That makes me think what a loss it is that the ISB has been crushed. Thirdly, the impressions I get of the Church of England’s various actions is that they lacked co-ordination, they lacked pro-active planning for the ongoing responsibilities they had for Mr X’s pastoral care, and their approach… Read more »

Gilo
Gilo
9 months ago

Posted this morning on Via Media

‘Archbishops Council Reset Required’

https://viamedia.news/2023/06/30/archbishops-council-reset-required/

Peter
Peter
Reply to  Gilo
9 months ago

Gilo

Thank you for article, your courage and your determination.

Rowland Wateridge
Rowland Wateridge
Reply to  Gilo
9 months ago

I don’t like to appear negative, but I cannot see CDMs against Archbishops being feasible unless both accepted from the outset that they had misconducted themselves. How likely is that? The technical reasons have already been explained in detail on the thread “ISB controversy continues”, and are summarised again in my reply to Peter above.

Susannah Clark
Reply to  Gilo
9 months ago

Gilo, thank you for speaking up for all survivors.

Rowland Wateridge
Rowland Wateridge
Reply to  Gilo
9 months ago

I don’t like to appear negative, but I cannot see CDMs against Archbishops being feasible unless both accepted from the outset that they had misconducted themselves. How likely is that? The technical reasons have already been explained in detail on the thread “ISB controversy continues”, and are summarised again in my reply to Peter above.

Peter
Peter
Reply to  Rowland Wateridge
9 months ago

To Gilo,

With all due respect to Rowland, he entirely misses the point.

You need to shame these individuals – including ordained Archbishops Council members – because they are shameful people.

Sometimes the “technicalities” are not the issue

Peter

Alwyn Hall
Alwyn Hall
9 months ago

Civil Society has today published this story, which follows on from the NSS complaint to the Charity Commission. “The Commission said the charity reported itself to the regulator and it is considering its response. A spokesperson for the regulator said: “In line with our guidance, the Archbishops’ Council has reported a serious incident in relation to these matters. We will engage with the trustees to determine whether a regulatory response is required”. A Church of England spokesperson said: “The Archbishops’ Council has already submitted a Serious Incident Report to the Charity Commission in relation to the independent safeguarding board, in… Read more »

Last edited 9 months ago by Alwyn Hall
Susannah Clark
Reply to  Alwyn Hall
9 months ago

Is this a pre-emptive move to get their narrative in first? What does “the Archbishops’ Council has reported a serious incident” with regard to the ISB actually mean?

Does anyone know how interested and concerned parties can address the Charity Commission in the light of a serious incident process being initiated?

Rowland Wateridge
Rowland Wateridge
Reply to  Susannah Clark
9 months ago

Gosh, Susannah, this has been fully covered in earlier posts. The Charity Commission expects the charity itself to report a serious incident. The problem with so any comments on TA is that they can get missed. I have already linked this!

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/how-to-report-a-serious-incident-in-your-charity

Last edited 9 months ago by Rowland Wateridge
Susannah Clark
Reply to  Alwyn Hall
9 months ago

The more I think about it: “We are reporting a serious incident we have committed…” No, I don’t buy that. They’re never going to do that. But perhaps, to appear to be in the right it’s effectively: “We are reporting a serious situation because of events in which we had to act.” That would be the more likely line. Getting in first, as a defensive measure, so they can say “See how open we are. We’ve reported the whole thing ourselves. And from our moral position, you can see our integrity, and are committed to doing everything the right way,… Read more »

Realist
Realist
9 months ago

For once I’m utterly speechless. I gather the Archbishops’ Council has offered meetings to individual survivors on July 3 with 2 members of the AC. One of the people from AC is the Ven Luke Miller. This is the same Archdeacon who was part of the tragic fiasco that led to the suicide of Fr Alan Griffin, authored a notorious Report based on the ‘brain dump’ of the now convicted fraudster Martin Sargeant, and was strongly criticised in the Coroner’s Report. How the hell can they think survivors could trust someone who has allegedly played a part in the death… Read more »

Last edited 9 months ago by Realist
Martin Sewell
Martin Sewell
Reply to  Realist
9 months ago

Most survivors will not know Luke Miller was at the heart of the story of Fr Alan Griffin’s suicide because as usual the Church fixed the Review terms so nobody could be criticised/ held to account. It was the usual “ learned lessons”
sham/bles.

Vasantha Gnanadoss
Vasantha Gnanadoss
Reply to  Martin Sewell
9 months ago

TA link from 5 July 2022 provides information on the tragic case of Alan Griffin.

Adrian
Adrian
Reply to  Realist
9 months ago

An own goal! An utterly ridiculous suggestion. The kind of suggestion that comes from ignorance, intransigence or ignominy. (Sorry about the forced alliteration).

‘But look ! We put on a meeting and no one came.’

So… a calculated sleight to survivors and the organisations that support them.

If not calculated, then incompetent?

Reminds me of The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire…

Kit
Kit
Reply to  Realist
9 months ago

If someone from the Archbishops’ Council thought fielding Luke Miller was either clever or pastoral, it shows how incompetent, cruel and insensitive they really are. Meanwhile, the proposed meetings have no data protection protocols in place, no provision for the vulnerabilities of victims, no evident confidentiality clauses or conflicts of interest policies, and nor is it clear if this meeting is to defend the Archbishops’ Council, the NST, or have some other purpose. I expect we will be told the meetings were set up to to “listen to our concerns”, and maybe someone will throw another bone out labelled “lessons… Read more »

Peter
Peter
9 months ago

Rowland. I apologise for my intemperate response to you.

We all bear our own scars at the hands of the church but that never justifies wounding others

Mark Bennet
Mark Bennet
9 months ago

There are two types of independence in play here – structural/functional independence and independent mindedness. Ideally you need both. The sacking of the ISB members prioritises functional independence over independent mindedness. It is unclear where independent mindedness now sits within the systems and structures of the church. There are some independent minded members of General Synod, and it is to be hoped that General Synod members more widely come to understand how important independent mindedness is in structures of accountability and governance. A second observation is that if the Archbishops’ Council does not have the resource to address the challenges… Read more »

Gilo
Gilo
9 months ago

Letter regarding reckless and inappropriate meeting planned for survivors by failing trustees of Archbishops Council: Lead Bishop Joanne Grenfell and NST Director Alexander Kubeyinje The Archbishops Council has organized to meet with survivors this week at short notice during the lead up to Synod. Two meetings are hosted by the NST Survivor Engagement. The first of these is with Kate Wharton and Archdeacon Luke Miller. The Archdeacon participated in a ‘braindump’ exercise with former diocesan Head of Operations Martin Sergeant. This exercise and the hounding that ensued led to the death of one of the Church’s victims, Fr Alan Griffin.… Read more »

Screenshot_20230702_071524_Gmail.jpg
56
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x