The paragraph starting “Kat repeatedly raised the fact that” indicates the systemic and organisational issues which lead to these individual cases. They will continue while policy confusion and unclear lines of responsibility remain.
“it’s OK, you weren’t beng abused, it’s not a safeguarding issue, you are not a child and you do not have any mental health challenges. Yet.”.
Synod has taken place without the focus on Safeguarding which marked last year, so presumably there is great relief in the corridors of power- indeed the redress scheme for survivors has been passed- so is all well with the dear old C of E, and do sunny uplands lie ahead? Or has the customary crowd management been reasserted, and is all basically the same? Ben Gibson’s open letter would suggest that nothing has changed at all. Systemic bullying is a well established management process there seems little real appetite to change. To add weight to this view, in this week’s… Read more »
Is it disingenuous – or just plain silly – to expect that anybody found guilty of trying to “drive out” homosexuality, by any means, should be expelled from the Church? It’s not enough to compensate the victims – the perpetrators need to be dealt with.
Hmmm.. heard that in tbe Diocese of Europe, that harassment/bullying / spiritual abuse ” Its not a safeguarding issue, it’s a safeguarding CONCERN.” That means it does not appear in Chaplaincy minutes so as to keep it secret.
Interested Observer
1 month ago
The Leicester case shows how abusive people can invade closed groups and then be very hard to remove or control. A church community is inherently going to contain people whose ties to the organisation are stronger and less conditional than those of employees in other environments. And organisations whose employees are generally committed to the cause will normally not be equipped to deal with cases this this. But they should be: as shown in a number of cases, of which Smyth is just the toxic pinnacle, someone can be both abusive and a member of an unassailable grouping. In the… Read more »
A salutary message indeed . But how could the manager NOT be promoted? He was a special (and male) part of the unassailable group and had by the sound of it made a spectacular Horlicks of the situation so clearly had to be rescued and rewarded .
I was reflecting on Interested Observer’s masterly summing up of the politics of power within in- groups, and adding my own reflection that being male within the C of E hierarchy seems to add an extra layer of invincibility
The paragraph starting “Kat repeatedly raised the fact that” indicates the systemic and organisational issues which lead to these individual cases. They will continue while policy confusion and unclear lines of responsibility remain.
“it’s OK, you weren’t beng abused, it’s not a safeguarding issue, you are not a child and you do not have any mental health challenges. Yet.”.
Synod has taken place without the focus on Safeguarding which marked last year, so presumably there is great relief in the corridors of power- indeed the redress scheme for survivors has been passed- so is all well with the dear old C of E, and do sunny uplands lie ahead? Or has the customary crowd management been reasserted, and is all basically the same? Ben Gibson’s open letter would suggest that nothing has changed at all. Systemic bullying is a well established management process there seems little real appetite to change. To add weight to this view, in this week’s… Read more »
Is it disingenuous – or just plain silly – to expect that anybody found guilty of trying to “drive out” homosexuality, by any means, should be expelled from the Church? It’s not enough to compensate the victims – the perpetrators need to be dealt with.
I understand the payment is from the church not the diocese. The church has a semi independent status within the diocese.
“The church has a semi independent status within the diocese” – why am I not surprised at this news!
Hmmm.. heard that in tbe Diocese of Europe, that harassment/bullying / spiritual abuse ” Its not a safeguarding issue, it’s a safeguarding CONCERN.” That means it does not appear in Chaplaincy minutes so as to keep it secret.
The Leicester case shows how abusive people can invade closed groups and then be very hard to remove or control. A church community is inherently going to contain people whose ties to the organisation are stronger and less conditional than those of employees in other environments. And organisations whose employees are generally committed to the cause will normally not be equipped to deal with cases this this. But they should be: as shown in a number of cases, of which Smyth is just the toxic pinnacle, someone can be both abusive and a member of an unassailable grouping. In the… Read more »
A salutary message indeed . But how could the manager NOT be promoted? He was a special (and male) part of the unassailable group and had by the sound of it made a spectacular Horlicks of the situation so clearly had to be rescued and rewarded .
‘How to avoid grasping nettles’ is a key component of Being a Bishop 101.
As a matter of interest what is meant by ‘He was a special (and male) part of the unassailable group’
In Newspeak it means the ‘pinnacle of toxicity’.
I was reflecting on Interested Observer’s masterly summing up of the politics of power within in- groups, and adding my own reflection that being male within the C of E hierarchy seems to add an extra layer of invincibility