Thinking Anglicans

Safeguarding: Waiting for Jay

It appears that the  Jay report on the future of Church of England safeguarding, which was originally due to be published by 31 December, is delayed. An explanation for this is awaited.

Meanwhile, Surviving Church has published How Professor Jay may help save the Church of England from itself.

The Wilkinson report on ISB phase 1 was published on 11 December: ISB phase 1: Wilkinson report published. One month later, there is as yet no further response from the Archbishops’ Council.

There has however been an article about the Wilkinson report published by the National Secular Society, Review: CofE leaders mainly to blame for sacking safeguarding body.

Also, we linked earlier to Surviving Church:  After Wilkinson. Towards a Trauma-Informed Church but it attracted only a few comments.

Now, there is a new paper by David Glasgow published at House of Survivors: Psychological Report: ISB cohort welfare and mental health.

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

30 Comments
Oldest
Newest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Gilo
Gilo
5 months ago

Sad to see no comments to any of this.
Posted Thursday and now Saturday.

The reports posted above represent considerable work and input done by survivors, many of whom are exhausted and jaded by the Church.

T Pott
T Pott
Reply to  Gilo
5 months ago

It is sad. I don’t think it shows a lack of interest. It is more a case of words fail. The Press Release of July 20th says Professor Jay (not someone else) will publish her report. She has chosen not to do so, and she has chosen to give no explanation. Something needs to be done, but no one connected with, or appointed by, the Church will ever do it. Some people hoped Professor Jay was genuine. If she was she would publish her report and explain why it is late. She has done neither. Why do people still trust… Read more »

Rowland Wateridge
Rowland Wateridge
Reply to  T Pott
5 months ago

This may be of assistance to you (and others) as to the up to date position about Professor Jay’s report, now expected to be published early this year.

https://futureofchurchsafeguarding.org.uk/

Pilgrim
Pilgrim
Reply to  Rowland Wateridge
5 months ago

Rowland, thank you for this information, much appreciated.

Aljbri
Aljbri
Reply to  Gilo
5 months ago

I was wondering the same. The reports are very much worth reading. I suppose it’s more fun to lob remarks about whether there is an Aramaic word for mass. We know this is a completely wicked mess. Like Windrush and the PO scandal. But other than groan I’m not sure what more TA can bring to the subject. The institutions of the CofE aren’t coping and are a disgrace. But as with the PO, reporting what has been happening has no effect. As suggested elsewhere on this site perhaps we need another tv play.

Froghole
Froghole
Reply to  Gilo
5 months ago

Apologies, Gilo. Some of us have put several comments on the SC pieces instead. As I have noted on SC, the Church must be forcibly deprived of any control over the supervision of safeguarding. My concern is if Prof. Jay recommends that there is a regulatory body just for the Church: there is a distinct probability that such a body will, at length, be ‘captured’ by the institution it purports to regulate, and will have a financial dependence on Church bodies. I therefore fear that the Church will accept the concept of such a body for those very reasons: it… Read more »

Kate Keates
Kate Keates
Reply to  Gilo
5 months ago

I for one didn’t comment as I thought it better to hear the voices of survivors. Silence doesn’t mean lack of interest.

Rowland Wateridge
Rowland Wateridge
Reply to  Kate Keates
5 months ago

Indeed. Nor do I subscribe to the condemnatory comments about Professor Jay. All will be revealed without unfounded and judgmental speculation.

T Pott
T Pott
Reply to  Rowland Wateridge
5 months ago

When? Never. That’s when.

Rowland Wateridge
Rowland Wateridge
Reply to  T Pott
5 months ago

Sorry, I didn’t see this until I had replied to your earlier comment above. You will see that I linked a relevant document on this subject. We must wait and see.

Susan Hunt
Susan Hunt
Reply to  Kate Keates
5 months ago

Gilo, I too posted my comment on SC where I compared the PO drama with a possible one about safeguarding based on the Jay report. I am sure that if only we knew the reason the Jay report has been delayed there are so many of us we would try and support her. I am not a survivor only supporting a survivor and that for just four years. I am so very very sorry for those of you survivors who have been struggling for many years. This is now the time to increase the clamour, we cannot afford to lose… Read more »

PatrickT
PatrickT
Reply to  Gilo
5 months ago

I can only think that people are so despondent and aware of being subject to an abuse of power that either they think there’s nothing to say or do not wish to engage. The Wilkinson report, other reports unpublished, the Archbishops Council continues its unanswerable activities. What could anyone possibly say that would make any difference to any of it?

Mr X
Reply to  Gilo
5 months ago

I was about to post the same, Gilo. “Words fail” – is a completely understandable response to it all. However, survivors are being not only let down, but damaged – and there is silence. It is extraordinarily shocking. This is not a time for anyone to be quiet. This is a time to SPEAK – to *SHOUT*. What is going on is not just unjust, the silence abusive to all survivors concerned. The Church commissioned the Spindler report, the failed ISB, the Wilkinson report – with charitable funds and have not addressed ANY of the mess identified – or done… Read more »

PatrickT
PatrickT
Reply to  Gilo
5 months ago

Sorry I’d did try to comment but it didn’t seem to register properly. Was along the lines of T Pott – what is there to say?

‘Adrian’
‘Adrian’
Reply to  Gilo
5 months ago

Gilo, Speaking as a survivor who is featured relatively extensively in Sarah Wilkinson’s report, I think there is one dominant reason why everything has been such an uphill struggle, and why the prospects of any progress seem so bleak. Ever since Feb 2018’s ‘We asked for Bread, You gave us stones’, it has been obvious that we would never (willingly) get anything helpful from the 2 Archbishops, the Bishops, Lambeth, the Archbishops Council or the NST. There was one body that offered us a ray of hope, the ISB, so the AC shut that down. What has truly shocked me… Read more »

David G
David G
Reply to  ‘Adrian’
5 months ago

You are right, Adrian. The entirety of CofE safeguarding is geared up to protect the reputation of the CofE. What is so shocking and shameful is that GS members are either complicit in this, or don’t care. The evidence of Mr Nye being at the heart of the coverups and corruption is overwhelming. But the Archbishops will not lift a finger to protect victims from his further exercises in heaping more abuse and trauma on victims.

Helen King
Helen King
Reply to  ‘Adrian’
5 months ago

Thank you, ‘Adrian’. One of the problems Synod members have is that there is so very much material and it is difficult to get on top of it, especially if people weren’t already aware of the details of IICSA and now of the various reports since. The debates on safeguarding recently have been pathetic; getting nowhere near the details of historic abuse. It appears that nobody ever takes, or will take, responsibility. The July fiasco around the ISB, while raising questions even among those who prefer to look the other way, will presumably be addressed if Synod looks at Wilkinson.

David G
David G
5 months ago

I think we are all numbed by the continued ineptness of CofE safeguarding, and the huge energy it puts into covering up gross incompetence, demonstrable lack of care, unreliable and inconsistent policies and practices, and well documented instances of lying, corruption and ongoing abuse. The Wilkinson Report and Glasgow Report expose the shocking reality and truth. Namely, there is no one in any position within CofE safeguarding leadership who has a clue, can be trusted to be truthful or competent, or even answers an email. The Lead Safeguarding Bishops, NST and Archbishops’ Council are clueless and largely absent. All they… Read more »

‘Adrian’
‘Adrian’
Reply to  David G
5 months ago

Apologies for requoting the following for the nth time:

Watching a C of E Bishop ‘attempting historic safeguarding’ is rather like watching your plumber attempt brain surgery:
You just know it’s going to end really badly for the poor person on the receiving end.

V sad but completely true.

Trish
Trish
5 months ago

Though I applauded the Jay initiative at interview with her, on reflection, I have wondered how TUPE will allow for such massive structural change. If people are to be made redundant, and I was led to believe the initiative involved abolishing the NST, then under employment law that, quite rightly, has to be discussed with them beforehand, also many of those currently working in diocesan safeguarding would not be considered to have the necessary transferable skills to go to the new scheme. However until the matter has gone through Synod there is no guarantee it will be adopted. Does that… Read more »

David Lamming
David Lamming
5 months ago

This is a 4-part comment. No one has yet commented on the Psychological Report by David Glasgow, honorary professor at Nottingham Trent University and a registered clinical psychologist, dated 10 January 2024 and published on the House of Survivors website, with a link to it provided above. Coupled with the findings of Sarah Wilkinson in her Review of the Independent Safeguarding Board (ISB), published on 30 November 2023, Professor Glasgow’s report has (or should have) significant consequences for both the Archbishops’ Council and its Secretary General, William Nye. Ms Wilkinson’s terms of reference did not include examining and reporting on… Read more »

Last edited 5 months ago by David Lamming
David Lamming
David Lamming
5 months ago

Part 2 of 4   Ms Wilkinson refers to the timing of the public announcement at para 583 of her Review: “Based on interview evidence, I find that that the Archbishop of Canterbury’s answer at General Synod that the timing of the terminations came down to the need to get Synod papers out on time and for Synod to be aware of what was going on was not an answer to the question actually asked by Mr. Peter Barrett. Mr. Barrett had asked what the rationale was for giving the ISB an hour to tell survivors’ groups that it was… Read more »

Last edited 5 months ago by David Lamming
David Lamming
David Lamming
5 months ago

Part 3 of 4 Professor Glasgow’s report continues:   2.24. A good deal of suffering was also associated with somewhat compulsive preoccupation with respect to the motivation(s) behind the decision. The event was variously described as the “collapse”, “destruction” and “sabotage” of the ISB, the latter clearly indicating a perceived malign intent. These constructions were often not fixed over time, and interacted with both cognitive and affective trauma sequelae, including sense of threat and self-derogation: “Are we just collateral damage, or did they know how much we would be hurt?   Professor Glasgow then sets out his Opinion:   3.1.… Read more »

David Lamming
David Lamming
5 months ago

Part 4 of 4 Conclusion Professor Glasgow’s report deserves to be read in full, but I think I have set out enough to indicate that it raises serious questions for answer by both the members of the Archbishops’ Council and the Secretary General.  Some of these questions will, perhaps, be asked by way of formal questions at General Synod next month (the deadline for submission is 12 noon on 8 February).   Clearly, no risk assessment was carried out as to its likely impact on survivors before the termination decision was made public on 21 June. In this case it caused actual… Read more »

Trish
Trish
Reply to  David Lamming
5 months ago

David, the fact that Mr. Glasgow does not say who instructed him to undertake the clinical study, and whether that led to a bias is both unusual and unhelpful. He says that not all of the twelve took part but not how many so this may have been no more than two or three people. Most worryingly to me he states that he offered advice if wanted but does not clarify if he sought the permission of mental health professionals already caring for those survivors in order to do that. Giving ‘advice’ in therapy is contentious as it can be… Read more »

Martin Sewell
Martin Sewell
Reply to  Trish
5 months ago

This is not right Trish. The report arose out of a fair number of the 12 ISB victims taking up DG’s offer of assistance. On what possible basis should you start a speculation that he acted without due regard for proper professional standards. Do not do the CofE’s dirty work for it. If they want to have scrutiny of process bring on a proper independent inquiry in which EVERYBODY’s conduct is scrutinised. Dr Wilkinson was not tasked with attributing culpability: culpability exists. Incidentally, the Glasgow report used the experience of the ISB 12: he concludes that that which was reported… Read more »

Trish
Trish
Reply to  Martin Sewell
5 months ago

Martin, you have said that Mr. Glasgow used the experience of the USB 12, well all I can say is that I sincerely hope not because I am one of the ISB 12 and have NEVER given permission for my experiences to be talked about. I am fed up to the back teeth with people making sweeping statements about the ISB 12 which are Completely Untrue. A letter went to Synod stating that all the ISB 12 had rejected Kevin Compton Well that is WRONG because I am working with him and he is highly professional. I have no intention… Read more »

Helen King
Helen King
Reply to  David Lamming
5 months ago

Questions deadline now extended to 13 Feb

Susan Hunt
Susan Hunt
Reply to  David Lamming
5 months ago

David, thank you for your very clear explanation about the current situation. I, for one, now understand fully the circumstances of this apallingly cruel situation where so many people have been damaged. We all understand that change must come as a matter of urgency but what, if any, action can take to help bring this about?

Mark Bennet
Mark Bennet
5 months ago

As a member of General Synod apologies if my failure to comment has caused distress – the situation is poor and the scope for effective action seems rather limited – I am waiting to see what Professor Jay has to say: I have little to add. I would though add a word of caution about the way in which reputation is being understood in some of the discussion around safeguarding and redress. I do not think that the Church of England has a hugely great reputation to defend – what seems to be being defended is an internal narrative/status within… Read more »

30
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x