The problem of unproven, and often unprovable, allegations of serious crimes is an incredibly difficult one. If one relies solely on the criminal standard of proof large numbers of abusers will continue to operate in churches and schools and elsewhere, leaving a trail of wounded people in their wake. If one allows an allegation to stand unless disproven, or relies on the civil standard of proof, more abusers may be stopped, at the cost of ruining the lives of those falsely accused. I don’t know the solution to that, and I’m not sure anyone else does.
Sadly, due process is something the C of E doesn’t do well at all. The case of Anne-Marie Ghosh reminds me very much of the Alan Griffin case, in which another archdeacon was all-too-ready to believe speculation and gossip and to take action despite the lack of evidence.
The London Diocese Archdeacon to whom you refer, FrD, not only acted when and in a manner he should not have, but failed to act when he should have. See the Coroner’s Report and the Robson Report (commissioned by the diocese). Alan Griffin’s death remains an open wound for many and a reproach to the Church. The TA item on this being raised in the House of Lords provides context.
The larger the number of Advisers, Acting this or that, Officers and Deputies, the greater capacity there seems to be for rumour, gossip and ‘impressions’. Bishops are busy people and can be impressionable and not as discerning as they might be. I have reason to be grateful to a particular Bishop and Archdeacon who rose about the kind of rumour and innuendo discussed in this article – which doesn’t seem to be solved by procedures. Their successors, unfortunately we’re not as open minded, and it became, believe me, a lonely place to be.
I completely agree. The judicial element all needs to be taken out of the hands of Bishops, Archdeacons, other clerical middle managers, and Diocesan officers, including Registrars and Chancellors. They are all compromised by virtue of the position they hold, whatever their personal virtues may be. A typical professional regulation disciplinary process has similar stages but almost nothing except prosecuting the case falls to in house people. All of the panellists are independent of the regulator (including the registrant panellist(s) despite being registered with them for their own professional regulation) and lay (non registrant) panellists are usually in the majority.… Read more »
In the case of John Brassington there was a great deal of evidence to disprove the allegation including the many changes in his story by the boy complainant. This was never considered by the Diocesan Safeguarding officer and Core Group because they were following the policy of ‘the child must be believed whatever they say, and any evidence to the contrary is inadmissible’.
“On Monday, a spokesperson for the diocese of Coventry said that it fully accepted the decision of the tribunal, and it was ‘grateful for the clarity that this had brought to a very difficult situation’.
‘The well-being of all those concerned is our priority at this time,’ the spokesperson continued. ‘We are in contact with those involved and they have our full support and prayers. The diocese acknowledges that there are learning points and is reflecting on how best to address these going forward.’ “
Yes I have- thank- you for reminding me . There is ( or was) one in Leominster priory church which was last used in the fairly early C19th.
Nothing changes very fast in the Church of England does it? Though , most uncharitably for a Sunday , I could think of a few men I’d like to send to it, starting with Anne- Marie Ghosh’s supervisor.
Looking at this further it may well be that there is also a racial issue at work with Rev A-M Ghosh/Marsh. I also wonder if the note in her priesting bio about being “grateful especially to her training incumbent …..for supporting & caring for her” was actually a cry for help: https://coventry.anglican.org/news/meet-our-new-priests.php
According to the website for the Rev S. Gold’s church he has two female curates for whom he is currently the training incumbent, one of them being his wife.
Yes I knew a vicar in the diocese of Coventry whose wife was his curate. In the same diocese there will soon be another vicar whose wife will be his curate. In the latter instance, there’s even talk about the curate eventually succeeding her husband as vicar, as he’s near retirement age (she is a few years younger).
‘ … two female curates … one of them being his wife’. The ‘other’ curate is a churchwarden’s wife. And the point is? Is race an issue? I viewed this Sunday’s service on You tube; the congregation is typically white. So? There’s a lot of speculation and, sadly, judgement in this thread. I note that Rev April Gold is described in ‘Our Team’ on the church’s website as ‘Curate and Diocesan Director of Education’- should anything be ‘read into that’? So? I wish all involved well. Let us pray …
The problem of unproven, and often unprovable, allegations of serious crimes is an incredibly difficult one. If one relies solely on the criminal standard of proof large numbers of abusers will continue to operate in churches and schools and elsewhere, leaving a trail of wounded people in their wake. If one allows an allegation to stand unless disproven, or relies on the civil standard of proof, more abusers may be stopped, at the cost of ruining the lives of those falsely accused. I don’t know the solution to that, and I’m not sure anyone else does.
Clear procedure, followed without fear or favour or shortcuts, is very important and protective to all concerned
Sadly, due process is something the C of E doesn’t do well at all. The case of Anne-Marie Ghosh reminds me very much of the Alan Griffin case, in which another archdeacon was all-too-ready to believe speculation and gossip and to take action despite the lack of evidence.
The London Diocese Archdeacon to whom you refer, FrD, not only acted when and in a manner he should not have, but failed to act when he should have. See the Coroner’s Report and the Robson Report (commissioned by the diocese). Alan Griffin’s death remains an open wound for many and a reproach to the Church. The TA item on this being raised in the House of Lords provides context.
The larger the number of Advisers, Acting this or that, Officers and Deputies, the greater capacity there seems to be for rumour, gossip and ‘impressions’. Bishops are busy people and can be impressionable and not as discerning as they might be. I have reason to be grateful to a particular Bishop and Archdeacon who rose about the kind of rumour and innuendo discussed in this article – which doesn’t seem to be solved by procedures. Their successors, unfortunately we’re not as open minded, and it became, believe me, a lonely place to be.
I completely agree. The judicial element all needs to be taken out of the hands of Bishops, Archdeacons, other clerical middle managers, and Diocesan officers, including Registrars and Chancellors. They are all compromised by virtue of the position they hold, whatever their personal virtues may be. A typical professional regulation disciplinary process has similar stages but almost nothing except prosecuting the case falls to in house people. All of the panellists are independent of the regulator (including the registrant panellist(s) despite being registered with them for their own professional regulation) and lay (non registrant) panellists are usually in the majority.… Read more »
In the case of John Brassington there was a great deal of evidence to disprove the allegation including the many changes in his story by the boy complainant. This was never considered by the Diocesan Safeguarding officer and Core Group because they were following the policy of ‘the child must be believed whatever they say, and any evidence to the contrary is inadmissible’.
The link to the full determination provided by Stephen Parsons is essential reading to understand the jaw-dropping case of the female curate & her training incumbent determination-the-revd-anne-marie-marsh-22-july-2025_0.pdf
She was a vulnerable adult. Her vulnerability was clearly set out in the above document.
It she was also female so clearly deserved to be sent to the ducking stool for not sticking with her abusive husband – get with the misogyny !
Indeed. Instead of being treated as a victim in a safeguarding process, she was a defendant in a CDM process.
I hope she is getting the support she needs.
When will her accusers undergo a safeguarding investigation?
From the Church Times of 8 August:
“On Monday, a spokesperson for the diocese of Coventry said that it fully accepted the decision of the tribunal, and it was ‘grateful for the clarity that this had brought to a very difficult situation’.
‘The well-being of all those concerned is our priority at this time,’ the spokesperson continued. ‘We are in contact with those involved and they have our full support and prayers. The diocese acknowledges that there are learning points and is reflecting on how best to address these going forward.’ “
I think we all know what that means.
That the Archdeacon will suddenly be made a bishop somewhere?
Her training incumbent will probably be made an archdeacon on grounds of his commitment to defending the probity and reputation of the institution…
Have you seen the ducking stool in Canterbury?
Yes I have- thank- you for reminding me . There is ( or was) one in Leominster priory church which was last used in the fairly early C19th.
Nothing changes very fast in the Church of England does it? Though , most uncharitably for a Sunday , I could think of a few men I’d like to send to it, starting with Anne- Marie Ghosh’s supervisor.
Looking at this further it may well be that there is also a racial issue at work with Rev A-M Ghosh/Marsh. I also wonder if the note in her priesting bio about being “grateful especially to her training incumbent …..for supporting & caring for her” was actually a cry for help:
https://coventry.anglican.org/news/meet-our-new-priests.php
According to the website for the Rev S. Gold’s church he has two female curates for whom he is currently the training incumbent, one of them being his wife.
A person can be the training incumbent for their SPOUSE?? Is that common? Should it happen at all?
Yes I knew a vicar in the diocese of Coventry whose wife was his curate. In the same diocese there will soon be another vicar whose wife will be his curate. In the latter instance, there’s even talk about the curate eventually succeeding her husband as vicar, as he’s near retirement age (she is a few years younger).
‘ … two female curates … one of them being his wife’. The ‘other’ curate is a churchwarden’s wife. And the point is? Is race an issue? I viewed this Sunday’s service on You tube; the congregation is typically white. So? There’s a lot of speculation and, sadly, judgement in this thread. I note that Rev April Gold is described in ‘Our Team’ on the church’s website as ‘Curate and Diocesan Director of Education’- should anything be ‘read into that’? So? I wish all involved well. Let us pray …