Thinking Anglicans

Survey for initial response to Jay report

Press release from the Church of England

Survey for initial response to Jay report
21/03/2024

A survey has been published today for anyone who wishes to make an initial response to the recommendations made by Professor Jay in her report on the Future of Church Safeguarding. The report from Professor Alexis Jay, former chair of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse, IICSA, makes recommendations for a new independent safeguarding and scrutiny body for the Church of England. Professor Jay was commissioned by the Archbishops of Canterbury and York to carry out this work in July 2023 and her report was published in February 2024.

Survey findings will be presented to the Wilkinson/Jay Response Group (see revised Terms of Reference) and will be available on the Church of England website. All survey responses are anonymous and no names or identifying details will be requested or produced. The survey closes on April 18.

Further information on safeguarding in the Church and independence

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

9 Comments
Oldest
Newest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Martin Sewell
Martin Sewell
3 months ago

I gather there is some discussion amongst the survivor community concerning both the composition and the function of the Response Committee. I have voiced open concerns myself. However on balance I take the view that all relevant experience and knowledge is valuable to receive ( one does not, after all, end up more ignorant after reading a contribution to any discussion) I do and shall caution about how Synod should receive any conclusions drawn from self selecting contributors (for or against) by an evaluation group chosen by opaque process without obvious democratic credentials qualification or evidence of balance. Prof Jay… Read more »

Kate Keates
Kate Keates
3 months ago

The revised terms of reference provide additional information on the appointment of the Co-chair which those without a background in senior appointments might miss. It is said that “search” consultants are being used. That’s a key word. The two operative words for recruitment consultants are: – “selection” where a consultant will select from candidates who apply in response to an advert. It is essentially a reactive process. – “search” where the dominant operation is to “search” for candidates. Generally that means the consultant will contact people they think might be suitable, or suggested to them by the client (here the… Read more »

Susanna (no ‘h’)
Susanna (no ‘h’)
Reply to  Kate Keates
3 months ago

Thank- you -that is helpful.
I wonder how it must feel to the survivors waiting for a settlement that there seem to be unlimited funds available to employ consultants and head hunters , presumably in the hope of finding the the two previous (expensive ) reports don’t really say what they look as though they do and that with enough procrastination no proper outcomes need to be reached?
Why on earth doesn’t the AC apologise and spend the money putting things right?

Mark Bennet
Mark Bennet
3 months ago

A survey like this should have published questions, readable before responding – the answers are a matter of deep reflection rather than immediate response. The idea that it should be done quickly rather than thoughtfully is an error, in my view. If it is a survey gathering quick answers, it is the wrong kind off survey for the moment. And if my response (I have given one) is atomised into its constituent parts the nuance of the whole is lost. It will gather some interesting responses, but there is no real indication of how those responses will be interpreted/used. If… Read more »

Kate Keates
Kate Keates
Reply to  Mark Bennet
3 months ago

What is the purpose of the survey? Or, perhaps more pointedly, will the results be given more weight if they support preferred conclusions than if, for example, they support implementing Jay without further delay?

Simon Gell
Simon Gell
3 months ago

There are so many pertinent criticisms of the Response Group & this survey that it is not possible to cover all in a single post. However they include: On 21/3/24 Rev 1.1 of the Wilkinson&Jay Reports Response Group ToR was published. This included an additional member, Miranda Threlfall-Holmes, at para 3.2.2., whose responsibilities include ‘bring advice, input and challenge based on expertise & experience’. Well forgive me but that’s exactly what the group needed: yet another member of Archbishops’ Council, the very group who sacked the ISB, were slated by Wilkinson, & have personal track records of ignoring survivors & ‘walking by… Read more »

Simon Sarmiento
Reply to  Simon Gell
3 months ago

Miranda was not a council member at the time of the ISB demise, she has only recently joined following a by-election.

Simon Gell
Simon Gell
3 months ago

Part 2: I consider this survey incomplete and (virtually) useless. It does not address the failings of the Archbishops, the Archbishops’ Council & the Lead Safeguarding Bishop, essentially all the things that matter to survivors. It does not address the sacking of the ISB, the failure to inform survivors in general, & those who had current cases with Jasvinder & Steve in particular, nor the fact that the Church appears to have made negligible progress in progressing the (relatively few) cases that Kevin Crompton is considering (some 9 months after the ISB sacking). This is despite the fact that the… Read more »

Trevor
Trevor
Reply to  Simon Gell
3 months ago

This reminds me of Lord Carlile’s comment that the Church of England has “the most unjust and incompetent form of investigation” he had ever seen. If they didn’t learn from his report on Bishop Bell, it is not surprising that they have learned nothing from Dr Wilkinson and Professor Jay either. The most obvious reason for all this fudging is that many of them have to cover their tracks because they know they have done wrong. Some outside body needs to take over.

9
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x