TA readers may recall that in 2023 and 2024, letters were sent to both the archbishops by Richard Scorer, on behalf of his Client ‘Gilo’, asking questions about the involvement of William Nye, members of the National Safeguarding Team, and others in a meeting with Ecclesiastical Insurance held in 2016. To date, no substantive reply has been received.
Yesterday, a third letter was sent. This time it has been sent to the Church Commissioners, since the Archbishops’ Council has now failed repeatedly to answer. No doubt the topic will yet again by raised at the General Synod next month.
All of this has been rehearsed on Thinking Anglicans before. Here are some of the earlier articles:
Elliot Review Redux
Safeguarding Bishop admits that survivor was misled
Getting answers to safeguarding questions is slow
Curious as to what or when safeguarding failures become of interest to the Charity Commission?
Have you confused the Charity Commision with the Church Commissioners? The letter is addressed to the latter and on a quick reading the Charity Commission is not mentioned in it.
Reconsidering your question, I think I might have missed the boat. The answer possibly should have been that the Charity Commission wrote to the bishops in January of this year asking for details of the Church’s safeguarding and a separate letter, also in January, from the Commission’s CEO to every member of General Synod citing the Makin report, expressing concern, and setting out in clear language the duties of charity trustees. The letter concluded with these words: “The Charity Commission will continue to engage within its regulatory remit with trustees and church leaders as may be required.” That, I think,… Read more »
Yes, indeed! I was wondering if this particular saga would re spark the Charity Commission’s interest in the continuing/ continual/ continuous failure of the Church of England hierarchy to actually address their decades of safeguarding failures.
This is extremely interesting. The Church Commissioners are now themselves a registered charity aren’t they? Do they have any formal relationship with Mr Nye? Presumably if they also decide to do a lot of nothing about Gilo’s complaint this in turn might interest the Charity Commission and/ or Marsha Cordova in their activities?
The Church Commissioners are a registered charity. Currently there are 26 trustees, both clergy and lay. With the resignation of +Justin Welby, the Archbishop of York is the most senior ranking of clergy members. Marsha de Cordova is a trustee. Gareth Mostyn is listed as Chief Executive and Secretary.
Thank you Thinking Anglicans for posting this.
Questions have been raised at three Synods on this [see attached]. The whole saga has gone on for five years since the original complaint in 2020.
Lack of transparency is an ongoing issue in CofE safeguarding as evident in the obfuscation, dishonesty, and silence with which Archbishops Council meet this complaint. They have dug themselves in so deep… I suspect they simply don’t know how to dig their way out. Transparency at the outset would have saved them alot of embarrassment. When will they learn?!
Another question raised at the February Synod..
A very good write-up (23 January 2024) on this by former Synod member Gavin Drake
Church of England safeguarding: Why won’t Gilo go away? – Church Abuse https://share.google/z8wuTxOWRw2fWJgVd
Here we see a January 2024 email (SAR material) from a Muir Lawrie (Director of Risk & Assurance for Archbishops Council) sent to the subject of the complaint, Mr Nye, and copied to Rosie Slater-Carr (Chief Operating Officer & Interim Chief Executive of the Church Commissioners). In it Lawrie outlines a message from BDO, a supposedly *independent* firm tasked with doing a review of the complaint. Tasked by the Archbishops Council Audit Committee chaired at the time by Maureen Cole (who I gather has since resigned). His email refers to ‘Maureen’… possibly the same person? Might surprise you to know… Read more »
Q.95 at February’s Synod was not reached, as time ran out when Q.94 was being answered…
How convenient.
Why are the ABC and/or CC not held responsible for their neglect and irresponsibility? Does their legal advice fear that any response would acknowledge culpability?
Quis custodiet ipsos custodies ? Is it their legal advice? Or is it because collectively they see themselves as above the law and untouchable, and this is the current C of E problem ??
Until of course the law touches them they will continue to feel that they are untouchable. What would it take to get them into the witness box or even the dock I wonder?
Gavin Drake’s article to which Gilo provides the link states that what happened in respect of the IICSA enquiry and the withholding of documents is potentially a criminal offence under section 35 of the inquiries act . This is where it needs one of the lawyers following TA to explain how such a potential criminal offence does or doesn’t come to be investigated. Because at present the assumption by our current COf E ‘custodies’ that they are above the law seems entirely reasonable
I don’t know whether this is relevant or not. But if one studies the CV of the Secretary-General, he worked in the Royal Household as private secretary to Prince Charles (as then was), an institution not known for its transparency. Before that he worked as Director in the National Security Secretariat at the Cabinet Office. Bear in mind that MI5 has recently had to apologise to a court for presenting untruthful information to the court, and MI6 has also been accused of presenting misleading information to various official enquiries about involvement in torture. So perhaps what Gilo is complaining about… Read more »
It is most certainly relevant, Simon. I’ve commented on many an occasion on here that I recognise the playbook of old. I’m not, and never have been, a member of the security services. But I’ve done my time in some of the corridors of power and seen people of that world (and others allied to it and within the London based civil service) at work. You’re right to be concerned about the appointment of the next ABC, I think, whatever the (considerable) merits of the individual who is chairing. How to sum it up? Oh yes… …as it was in… Read more »
This is an astute observation.
The total collapse of the C of E or the second coming would be my guess, whichever is the sooner. Until then these pillars/tentacles of the institution (delete as you prefer) will continue to protect their own whilst diligently ignoring those the Church should be protecting.
Not entirely sure about an apocalyptic collapse, but a moral and spiritual collapse and loss of moral and spiritual authority since the perception is exactly as you say Realist.
possibly the removal of the protection of the ecclesiastical obfuscation which has prevented the proper effect of secular law and standards!
I suspect it is because, with the tacit support of the Church, they feel invulnerable to the criticisms or questions from those they regard as ‘irrelevant’, beneath their concern, and lowly pew fodder!
I’m afraid there is very little ethical transparency within the hierarchy ranks of the CofE and its sub-divisions. There is no structured accountability. An odd member has a moral compass but the rest are incapable, incompetent and disinterested in dealing with safeguarding matters, past, present and future.
Is lack of transparency the same as bearing false witness against thy neighbour but in rather posher terms? – just wondering….
I was using transparency in a wider manner to link with openness….hands up on this. ( oops, I can blame my Scottish education). Frankly, I want Safeguarding ( operational and scrutiny) to be totally independent, nothing less satisfies me.
You and me both
Safeguarding in the CofE is a basket case. It lacks transparency and accountability, and is outside any regulatory, HR or legal framework. It is mired in nepotism, PR, hubris and self-referential rhetoric. There is no possibility of fairness and justice within its systems for either victim or accused. Those running the systems lack any external professional oversight or regulation. Gilo’s case is typical. Mr. Nye, and the entirety of CofE staff in safeguarding, answer to no one. CofE safeguarding is dishonest, unethical and utterly incompetent. The responsibility for the work needs to be entirely stripped from the self-interest of the… Read more »
See my comment on the minutes of the house of bishops. Smug and self satisfied.
And then look up the line to the paper to Synod by the Rev Kate Wharton. I think it’s called living in a parallel universe – no grasp on reality at all It is not just safeguarding in the C of E which is a basket case