Ship of Fools: Chichester Diocese

Thread: Chichester Diocese Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=024109

Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :

The BBC reports here that the Archbishop's enquiry into child protection failures in the diocese has been completed.

Lambeth is taking over the supervision of appointments in the medium term.

Do you think he has done enough ?

Posted by StarlightUK (# 4592) on :

Enquiries and investigation continue. This is simply an interim report as it is pointed out on page 4 of the document.

The actual report can be found here .

Posted by trouty (# 13497) on :

Chichester eh? Isn't this taking obedience to the magisterium a bit far? [Devil]

Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :

Given the severe criticisms in the report, I would suggest that the surviving senior clergy for the period in question should go through the Clergy Disciplinary Measure procedures and face whatever punishment is deemed appropriate.

Whilst Eric Kemp has passed away, I think it is unsatisfactory that John Hind should be retired on a bishop's pension, having left behind such a mess. If it were up to me, I'd strip him (and Wallace Benn and possibly others) of their episcopal status. Kick them back down to the rank of private!

(Actually, if I could, I would defrock them altogether. But I suspect that this may be regarded as rather too extreme.)

Posted by Rural Rev (# 17274) on :

Following a quick read of the interim report, it seems to me that too many people have been burying their heads in the sand and hoping any apparent problems might go away. If this was industry and there were such problems, then the whole board should resign and a new board appointed. Shareholders wouldn't settle for anything less so why should society? We have a duty of care to all our parishioners and standing by and accepting lazy practices in the appointment of clergy and in not responding to concerns is completely unacceptable.
Is it just Chichester that has these problems?

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Rural Rev:
Is it just Chichester that has these problems?

I was tempted to say, 'No. They just got found out.'

But this isn't the case. Every diocese had to hand over all their files a couple of years ago for a major audit of child protection procedures.

[ 31. August 2012, 11:48: Message edited by: leo ]

Posted by justlooking (# 12079) on :

This isn't just about procedures, it's about the practical application of those procedures. The report makes the point that procedures are only ever as good as their outworking in practice. Inadequate practices won't necessarily show up in files.

From my reading of the report it seems there's an acknowledgement that the attitudes found in Chichester are not unique to that diocese. The suggestion that safeguarding officers should not be clergy or anyone employed by the Church of England is recognition that self-protective instincts in the Church can take precedence over the safety of children.

Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on :

I count myself fortunate to be in a Diocese that has taken nearly all the recommended steps years ago. Reading the report was utterly sad and very disheartening, it felt like being in a time warp back to my curates days when people dropped a rod when they a were asked to be CRBed and “stuff” was swept under the carpet. Thank God for our diocesan leadership and their rigour in bringing cultural change.

I is also tough reading as the catholic wing of the C of E has suffered terribly over the OOW issue (much of it self inflicted) and Chichester was much vaunted as the last bastion. Now it seems it was the last bastion of arse covering, power plays, bad politics and a sort of clericalism that makes me puke.

I pray those with oversight now attend well to their duty to the victims and to ensuring proper safeguarding in the future, it can be done.

Pyx_e

Posted by Woodworm (# 13798) on :

On the news report it said that clergy about whom complaints were made should be immediately suspended pending investigation. Is that too hair-trigger?

Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on :

No.

It is standard policy in every Diocese I know of (I had no idea Chichester was SO reactionary).

Fly Safe, Pyx_e.

Posted by pete173 (# 4622) on :

It's pretty gob-smacking reading to realise how out of step Chichester were with national procedures and guidelines. Though when I get clergy files of clergy who've served in Chichester, I have always read them very carefully (let the reader understand). So it was pretty much predictable that the report would make these sorts of recommendations.

The rest of us will certainly be reviewing the Chichester interim report and picking over our own procedures again to see where we can improve. Not only was there the review of all files a couple of years ago, but I also read through every file in my office to pick up the historic allegations on incidents involving laity. These are all carefully documented and have been reviewed for potential pastoral issues and whether there were any complaints that were not dealt with.

Of course, the most problematic matter is that files only go back 20 - 30 years at most, and, whereas we now log every detail of a potential complaint and the action taken, such logging was not in place even in the 1980s.

Posted by Vaticanchic (# 13869) on :

Clearly a handle has been brought to bear on the situation, which can only be a good thing. I hope the diocese is soon able to recover its own responsibility and appropriate independence.

What I find fascinating is the glimpse of unravelling politics in the diocese over the last few decades. Death of the great man, resignation of the next & a fall guy. How far will the scouring-out go, and will the Shrine/Chichester national appointments CABAL recover from this?

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

I shouldn't think it would be terribly helpful to have Chichester Diocese on your CV at present, if looking for a new post. Which is rather unfortunate for those who are completely above board.

I'm off on holiday to Chichester next year, and shall make sure to keep my paranoia specs about my person at all times. Just in case. [Paranoid]

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

To those of us in other (ahem) denominations, rather further on in safeguarding issues, the Report makes horrifying reading.

What have they been doing for the past 20 years???

It's not that something needs to be done but needs to be seen to be done.

Posted by (S)pike couchant (# 17199) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
I shouldn't think it would be terribly helpful to have Chichester Diocese on your CV at present, if looking for a new post. Which is rather unfortunate for those who are completely above board.

Particularly unfortunate, since that diocese has historically contained some of the most dedicated, holy, and hard working priests in the Church of England.

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

quote:
Originally posted by (S)pike couchant:

quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
I shouldn't think it would be terribly helpful to have Chichester Diocese on your CV at present, if looking for a new post. Which is rather unfortunate for those who are completely above board.

Particularly unfortunate, since that diocese has historically contained some of the most dedicated, holy, and hard working priests in the Church of England.

I would have thought you could say the same of any diocese. Or is there a diocese in the Church of England where all the priests are feckless, Godless and lazy?

Posted by (S)pike couchant (# 17199) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:

quote:
Originally posted by (S)pike couchant:

quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
I shouldn't think it would be terribly helpful to have Chichester Diocese on your CV at present, if looking for a new post. Which is rather unfortunate for those who are completely above board.

Particularly unfortunate, since that diocese has historically contained some of the most dedicated, holy, and hard working priests in the Church of England.
I would have thought you could say the same of any diocese. Or is there a diocese in the Church of England where all the priests are feckless, Godless and lazy?

No, but Chichester has historically had a disproportionately high number of excellent and heroics priests, particularly in urban Brighton. London has almost certainly always had the largest share of such priests, but it's a much larger diocese.

Posted by ElaineC (# 12244) on :

I can't say I noticed many heroic priests and I lived in the diocese for 13 years.

Admittedly I lived in Hastings where one priest was jailed for conducting over 300 fake marriages. Story here.

Then there was the Bishop of Lewes who, when he had moved on to Gloucester, was cautioned for gross indecency. Story here.

Maybe things have changed since I moved away.

Posted by Panda (# 2951) on :

Excellent and heroic if you like, but also very good at drawing attention to themselves with their particular flavour of churchmanship. It's still a bit of a slur on the rest of the church to suggest that Chichester's priests are working any harder than the rest of the church, the vast majority of whom do the same job, as well, with less fanfare.

The heroic slum-priest of Victorian urban legend is long departed, replaced by normal clerics doing their best on a daily basis.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ElaineC:
Then there was the Bishop of Lewes who, when he had moved on to Gloucester, was cautioned for gross indecency. Story here.

Wasn't he later acquitted when the 'victim' admitted he had made it all up?

Posted by seasick (# 48) on :

To have received a caution, you have to admit guilt. If you don't admit guilt, it has to go to court. So...

[ 01. September 2012, 19:02: Message edited by: seasick ]

Posted by (S)pike couchant (# 17199) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Panda:

The heroic slum-priest of Victorian urban legend is long departed,

I've seen plenty of evidence that suggests the contrary, especially in north-central London, but also in Brighton. In the latter city, Fr Vickery House (only recently retired from St Bart's) stands out as one example. I remember the vast expanse of that church being full to the point of bursting on the occasion of his retirement. I've heard good things about his successor, and I certainly hope that that parish can continue its distinctive and heroic witness in Brighton and more widely.

Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :

The definition of heroic in this case being what ?

Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by ElaineC:
Then there was the Bishop of Lewes who, when he had moved on to Gloucester, was cautioned for gross indecency. Story here.
Wasn't he later acquitted when the 'victim' admitted he had made it all up?

The outcome of the police review does not appear to have been made public yet.

Posted by Panda (# 2951) on :

quote:
Originally posted by (S)pike couchant:

quote:
Originally posted by Panda:

The heroic slum-priest of Victorian urban legend is long departed,
I've seen plenty of evidence that suggests the contrary, especially in north-central London, but also in Brighton. In the latter city, Fr Vickery House (only recently retired from St Bart's) stands out as one example. I remember the vast expanse of that church being full to the point of bursting on the occasion of his retirement. I've heard good things about his successor, and I certainly hope that that parish can continue its distinctive and heroic witness in Brighton and more widely.

St Bart's is a unique and wonderful church, no doubt; while I lived in Brighton I sang in the choir and was married there, by Fr Vick (one of relatively few weddings there as he was quite strict on parish boundaries and associations with the church). If we start getting into the characteristics of individual priests (Beau Brandie, anyone?) we shall very soon derail this thread!

Bart's was very lucky to get a successor in Fr David; at one stage the plan was that it would cruise gently towards closure with a status similar to the Chapel Royal, but the concerted efforts of the congregation in arguing with the diocesan recommendation, and the churchwarden's work in headhunting a successor has ensured its future for a good while yet, one hopes.

But if this report shows us anything it is that every church, even cathedrals and the most famous shrines, must be absolutely clear that everything they do is above board, open and transparent, and that was clearly not the case in this diocese.

[ 01. September 2012, 20:03: Message edited by: Panda ]

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

Any form of positive witness in secular, indifferent, post-Christian Britain is, in a sense, heroic (and I include in that the mere act of opening the church doors and ringing the bell)!

Ian J.

Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :

Only if you are using heroic as a synonym for 'good' or 'worthwhile' really.

Posted by (S)pike couchant (# 17199) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
Only if you are using heroic as a synonym for 'good' or 'worthwhile' really.

Well, one must also add in the fact that, regardless of one's views on Foward in Faith (and its attendant Dead Horse) and Anglo-Papalism more generally, many of the priests in this diocese have not always felt very supported by the wider Church of England, and yet they have continued their distinctive ministries, caught as it were, between the Scylla of a changing Church of England and the Charybdis of a secular society. One may or may not think that their ministries were 'good' or 'worthwhile', but they were certainly heroic (and, perhaps, even a little quixotic).

Please understand that I'm not trying to make this about the Deceased Equine. I just think it's important to remember that these priests did a lot of good in celebrating the sacraments and teaching the faith and also in acting as pastors to a wider community (their work during the AIDS crisis, which hit Brighton particularly badly, is particularly laudatory), for which they were not always recognized or appreciated by many within the wider Church of England, some of whom saw them only as 'traditionalists' or 'conservatives' to be out voted on the General Synod. And that is a shame.

Posted by (S)pike couchant (# 17199) on :

Since I missed the edit window: from the elaborate marble pulpits of Brighton, I myself (who have never lived in that city) have heard sermons denouncing the human rights record of the American government, the treatment of the mentally ill in the UK, and offering hope to AIDS victims in the form of a suffering Saviour. I've never really understood what Evangelicals mean when they talk about being 'prophetic', but what I saw there might be an example.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by (S)pike couchant:
... from the elaborate marble pulpits of Brighton, I myself (who have never lived in that city) ...

I'm sorry to hear that. I was born and brought up there. You missed out. [Biased]

quote:
Originally posted by Panda:
Beau Brandie, anyone?

Who for some unfathomable reason I got confused in my mind with Owen Beament, a vicar in Deptford (the deanery I am in nowadays) and chaplain of Millwall Football Club (I have a season ticket). Last time I went to Brighton, about four weeks ago (to the races, with my brother) I saw his Beau Brandie's name on the notice board of St Martin's just off Lewes Road, which was my parish church when I was a teenager - though as I didn't actually go to church for most of my teens I've hardly ever been there. Though not quite never. So I guess he is still there. And I think was when I did live there, a long time ago. A very long time ago.

St Martins is St. Bartholomews less-famous twin. As big, but nowhere near as visible. And often rather empty I believe.

That part of Brighton, just inland from the Level, has a cluster of huge churches, far too many for the local churchgoing population. St Barts, St Peters & St Martin's are all immense Victorian piles (and all beautiful, wonderful, buildings) and all within about 200 metres of each other. St. Joseph's, the RC parish church (which my Dad went to when he was a kid) is more or less over the road from St Martin's. And when I say "huge" I mean too huge to take a photo of and get it all in Thousands of pews, probably mostly empty since the day they were made. Not quite a stone's throw apart, but easily within range of a serious golf drive.

And going down the candle a long, long, long, way, the Congress Hall of the Salvation Army is in the middle of that cluster of churches, and the Church of Christ the King, which is sort of the mother church of NFI (well, it was Clarendon Church in Hove, actually, but they kind of merged it in to CCK) is two or three minutes walk away on New England Hill.

Which brings up one of the odd things about the Church of England in Brighton and the surrounding area. Its not only one of the least publically Christian parts of the UK (though the Sheffield area and some parts of South Wales might have fewer churchgoers if I remember rightly) but amongst the churchgoing minority its one of the most Protestant and nonconformist areas in England. Which seems to - can't put it more strongly than that because there is no way to be sure - which seems to have somehow displaced the local Church of England sideways and upwards, so its become markedly Anglo Catholic (as it is in South East London where I am now). According to some posters here (such as Angloid) Anglicans in the North West of England might be experiencing the mirror image effect - the local population in Preston and Liverpool is the most Catholic in England, yet the Anglican churches there tend to the low end of things.

Anyway, whatever the reason was, Brighton has, or had when I lived there all those years ago, remarkably few evangelical Anglican churches in a sea of high churchmanship. St Luke's Prestonville, All Saints Patcham (where I did go for a couple of years after I was converted), Bishop Hannington in Hove, and maybe a couple of others but if they existed I can't remember their names. Not many for a city of a quarter of a million people.

Whether or not that has anything to do with the other problems of the diocese of Chichester, I have no idea.

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:
According to some posters here (such as Angloid) Anglicans in the North West of England might be experiencing the mirror image effect - the local population in Preston and Liverpool is the most Catholic in England, yet the Anglican churches there tend to the low end of things.

I lived in the North West, including Preston, for 10 years, and my experience was rather different. I can't speak for Liverpool, but I found a full range of Anglican churchmanship. Preston Minster is avowedly conservative and Anglo-Catholic, Lancaster Priory is liberal but distinctly Anglo-Catholic. Blackburn and Burnley both have very conservative Anglo-Catholic churches (the latter to the point of hostility with regard to female priests). There are evangelical churches, St. Thomas's Lancaster for example, and those that are somewhere in between: St. John, Ellel; St. Paul, Scotforth; Christ Church, Fulwood.

Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :

Ken, Ken Ken

I thought your history was better than that. The division is at its heart a Manchester/Liverpool divide and it is not mirroring it is a matter of deliberate policy. With Liverpool being so strongly Catholic, Manchester was deliberately created to be strongly Protestant. The more extreme Protestants were given more toleration in Manchester and a number of strongly Protestant nobility were encouraged to settle within the area (e.g. Take the family at Dunham Massey, they were part of the most powerful Protestant nobility in the Country (they have Royal connections and the negotiator for the extreme Protestant group at the Glorious Revolution is thought to be from this family*). They were Presbyterians.

Jengie

*The names of the plotters (see here ) include a Roman Catholic, John D'Arcy, so it is NOT a Protestant plot. Even more surprising is there is doubt over whether the extreme Protestant, Lord Delamere, attended so on he is named and sometimes he isn't (see previous link).

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

So now we have not only:-
My tradition, my 'distinctive witness' has
- its own theological colleges, be it Staggers, Wycliffe or Cuddesdon to name 3 that are IN THE SAME CITY.
- its own network of 'sound' shrines, be they Walsingham, All Souls Langham Place, HTB etc
- its own patronage associations to make sure its own faithful get the right sort of vicars.

But my tradition is more holy, more 'heroic' (whatever that means), more prophetic (a much misued word), less appreciated, more ignored and more put upon.
And now - Wait for it.
.
.
.
My tradition is less paedophiliac than yours.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

[Apologies to Chichester while we prolong this tangent a little]. Most of Lancashire is in the Blackburn diocese, which has had a succession of traditionalist anglo-catholic bishops. This must have had some effect on the general ethos. But underlying it all is the 'Lanky low' churchmanship which as ken suggests is probably influenced by reaction to the predominant Roman Catholicism. Liverpool diocese shares this - to a greater degree because [a] the Catholics are even stronger there, and [b] the first Anglican bishop (J C Ryle) was an aggressively protestant evangelical who actively persecuted the few anglo-catholic clergy he inherited. Things have changed a lot since: though all the diocesans have been 'evangelical' to some degree, there are few hardline con-evo parishes (and equally few FinF type anglo-catholics). The general ethos is 'open evangelical' just as in Southwark it is 'liberal catholic', with some anglo-catholic pockets here and there.

But back to the OP. I wonder if the conservative a-c culture of Brighton and elsewhere breeds a sort of resistance to co-operating with the mainstream C of E? Hence (completely a-theological) child protection policies which are recognised by most people as being essential good practice tend to be dismissed, not on their merits or otherwise, but just because they seem to come from 'them', the ecclesiastical establishment which the anglo-catholics have spent a lifetime resisting. Meanwhile the bishops, who have been either con-a-cs or (notoriously, with Wallace Benn) con-evos have been obsessed with their own battles. Benn in particular hounding gay clergy.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
Ken, Ken Ken

I thought your history was better than that. The division is at its heart a Manchester/Liverpool divide and it is not mirroring it is a matter of deliberate policy. With Liverpool being so strongly Catholic, Manchester was deliberately created to be strongly Protestant.

That's a very interesting perspective, Jengie Jon. I bow to your greater knowledge, but the extent to which this divide affects the C of E is limited. The other factors I have mentioned have some influence there. And as ken suggests, the C of E tends to react against the surrounding ethos, hence it is more protestant in Catholic areas and vice versa.

Posted by pete173 (# 4622) on :

Let's get back on the thread. Chichester is of course a diocese of extremes. At its eastern end it has more ultra conservative evangelicals than anywhere else in the CofE - policy dictated by the outgoing Area Bishop. In other parts it has a large number of Trad Caths. Whether they're "heroic" or not is a matter for debate.

What has been the major problem (and the reason why I've always watched those coming into London from that diocese like a hawk) is that it seems to have more priests with questionable sexual behaviour in relation to minors than anywhere else in the country. That's not just anecdote - I can do you a headcount. Their files arrive without sufficient information on the background history, either through lack of proper documentation or through filleting before they are released outside the diocese. There's nothing at all surprising about the report on Chichester and safeguarding; what's regrettable is that the Augean stables have not been cleansed before now.

Posted by Panda (# 2951) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
... But back to the OP. I wonder if the conservative a-c culture of Brighton and elsewhere breeds a sort of resistance to co-operating with the mainstream C of E? Hence (completely a-theological) child protection policies which are recognised by most people as being essential good practice tend to be dismissed, not on their merits or otherwise, but just because they seem to come from 'them', the ecclesiastical establishment which the anglo-catholics have spent a lifetime resisting. ...

Largely yes, I would say. I know a number of Brighton clergy from a few years back who had almost nothing to do with diocesan or deanery matters - meetings, synods, clergy schools etc were largely ignored, while festivals that drew together similarly pointy clergy and congregations were the main meeting points.

And of course festivals are good fun, but they don't ensure that proper procedures are being followed. If there is an attitude that any post from the diocesan office (I once helped an untidy cleric sort through several month's worth of correspondence which had just sat and piled up) is to be viewed with suspicion, then it's going to be an uphill struggle.

Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :

quote:
Originally posted by pete173:
Let's get back on the thread. Chichester is of course a diocese of extremes. At its eastern end it has more ultra conservative evangelicals than anywhere else in the CofE - policy dictated by the outgoing Area Bishop. In other parts it has a large number of Trad Caths. Whether they're "heroic" or not is a matter for debate.

What has been the major problem (and the reason why I've always watched those coming into London from that diocese like a hawk) is that it seems to have more priests with questionable sexual behaviour in relation to minors than anywhere else in the country. That's not just anecdote - I can do you a headcount. Their files arrive without sufficient information on the background history, either through lack of proper documentation or through filleting before they are released outside the diocese. There's nothing at all surprising about the report on Chichester and safeguarding; what's regrettable is that the Augean stables have not been cleansed before now.

In some ways that is not surprising, if 95% of diocese have good child protection processes - then the 5% are going to attract anyone dodgy wishing to evade enforcement elsewhere. Plus of course simply won't filter out anyone currentlyinpost with a problem.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by (S)pike couchant:
also in acting as pastors to a wider community (their work during the AIDS crisis, which hit Brighton particularly badly, is particularly laudatory)

I agree with this bit - Kemptown's church and priest are especially praiseworthy - and they have hosted pride events too. Very healthy.

St. Bart's has produced some fine ordinands, including women.

However, there are some very odd priests in that diocese - but it would be wrong to name them.

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:

But back to the OP. I wonder if the conservative a-c culture of Brighton and elsewhere breeds a sort of resistance to co-operating with the mainstream C of E? Hence (completely a-theological) child protection policies which are recognised by most people as being essential good practice tend to be dismissed, not on their merits or otherwise, but just because they seem to come from 'them', the ecclesiastical establishment which the anglo-catholics have spent a lifetime resisting. Meanwhile the bishops, who have been either con-a-cs or (notoriously, with Wallace Benn) con-evos have been obsessed with their own battles. Benn in particular hounding gay clergy.

Having lived in the diocese for many years (mostly in East Sussex) I think that's a pretty fair insight into attitudes towards the CoE establishment there, and it's from the con-evos as much as the anglo-catholics.

Posted by The Man with a Stick (# 12664) on :

What is desperately surprising is that nobody in the press has picked up on the identity of the Diocese's Child Protection Officer for much of the period in question.

Some of us were surprised to see the former Diocesan Bishop take up an honorary assistant bishopric in a neighbouring diocese a couple of weeks ago. Everybody assumed he was off to Rome. This might explain it - I can't imagine Rome would feel comfortable ordaining him given the publicity that would stem therefrom.

Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :

Who was that ?

Posted by The Man with a Stick (# 12664) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
Who was that ?

Mrs Hind! Although I believe she left the job when hubby took over the Diocese. She went on to be the first national CofE safeguarding officer.

Posted by Vaticanchic (# 13869) on :

This just gets better & better

Posted by justlooking (# 12079) on :

And now this. Letters from East Sussex Council to the Archbishop of Canterbury expressing in strong terms the Council's view that the Church cannot assure the safety of children.

quote:
The letter said: "We have no confidence in the judgement and conduct of Bishop Benn, in relation to dealing with safeguarding issues, and believe it is appalling that the Church seems reluctant to take decisive and immediate action.

The response from Lambeth:

quote:
On 7 June, a letter from Lambeth Palace to Mr Dunkley said the Church understood their frustration at the apparent lack of progress or action, but had to follow the rule of law and be above any risk of legal challenge, which meant the work had to be careful and painstaking.....

"I would add that the Church is not like other organisations in terms of employment arrangements."

If the Church being unlike other organisations in terms of employment relations means that the safety of children is compromised then this needs to change.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

Our shipmate the Bishop of Willesden was, if not officially suspended, at least persuaded to step back temporarily from his duties. All for an arguably justifiable comment about the royal family. Nothing to do with any incompetence in his job or neglect of pastoral care.

If the establishment can exert this sort of pressure on such a trivial matter, why the **** isn't it ensuring that +Benn withdraws from his role even if no-one is able to impose official sanctions?

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

Quite. Indeed, how the **** did a buffoon like Benn get to be a bishop in the first place? or is this just another instance of the Peter principle? And if the Dicoesan was unable to control or circumvent his Suffragans- could he not just have announdced that he was taking over full responsibility for the Lewes Episcopal Area?- he should have resigned long before he did.

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

quote:
Originally posted by justlooking:
If the Church being unlike other organisations in terms of employment relations means that the safety of children is compromised then this needs to change.

Hear hear. There was a discussion on SoF earlier this year about the employment status of CofE priests, again with this idea that employment arrangements in the CofE are not like those in other organisations. I didn't understand the argument then, and I don't now within the context of child safeguarding. Special pleading, bleugh.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

The only possible justification for saying that the church has different standards for its employees/ministers, is that it imposes higher ones. And sees that they are lived up to, or if not, that those who fail to do so are disciplined.

I hope the Diocese of Chichester is not the C of E's equivalent of the South Yorkshire Police.

Posted by The Man with a Stick (# 12664) on :

quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:

quote:
Originally posted by justlooking:
If the Church being unlike other organisations in terms of employment relations means that the safety of children is compromised then this needs to change.
Hear hear. There was a discussion on SoF earlier this year about the employment status of CofE priests, again with this idea that employment arrangements in the CofE are not like those in other organisations. I didn't understand the argument then, and I don't now within the context of child safeguarding. Special pleading, bleugh.

That's all very well - but this isn't some internal procedure that can be changed tomorrow. It's the law of the land. That's the joy of an established church.

It may be that the law needs to be changed. I think it is, as does the Archiepiscopal Visitation Interim Report. But that does not mean we can just disregard the law as it stands.

What is very clear from the current law is that it is up to +Cantaur, not +Chichester to suspend a suffragan bishop in the diocese. The Diocesan Bishop does not have legal power so to act, if he cannot get the said suffragan to agree to "go on holiday" for a bit.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
The only possible justification for saying that the church has different standards for its employees/ministers, is that it imposes higher ones. And sees that they are lived up to, or if not, that those who fail to do so are disciplined.

Up to a point Lord Copper. I suspect this may be a reference to incumbents with the freehold not actually being employees, and so are entitled not to be sacked without being unfrocked first. That is a cumbersome court process. A bishop doesn't have much more power to rid himself of troublesome priests than the GMC has over individual doctors.

Posted by justlooking (# 12079) on :

There is nothing in the law of the land that prevents the Church of England from having adequate safeguarding practices. Those practices should provide for a bishop to be suspended by Canterbury where there are allegations that safeguarding has been compromised. The need for adequate practices has been known about for many years and action could have been taken long ago if changes in the law are needed.

Rowan Williams is not an arrogant man but he is head of an institutionally arrogant Church and this is what comes across in his response to East Sussex Council.

If the Head of a school had failed to act immediately on receiving a negative CRB and instead had waited until a third party found out and forced the issue, then that Head would be suspended while an investigation took place. There would be no question about the Head's responsibility. Even if the CRB had been kept from the Head the Head would still be liable for having failed to ensure that such documents could not be kept back.

In the CofE it's the opposite. Wally Benn has constantly used the "I didn't know about it" excuse. It's a common excuse for trying to duck responsibility.

Posted by The Man with a Stick (# 12664) on :

quote:
Originally posted by justlooking:
There is nothing in the law of the land that prevents the Church of England from having adequate safeguarding practices. Those practices should provide for a bishop to be suspended by Canterbury where there are allegations that safeguarding has been compromised. The need for adequate practices has been known about for many years and action could have been taken long ago if changes in the law are needed.

I don't understand how you tally the first and last sentences of this paragraph.

There's no mechanism for suspending a Bishop other than through the procedures in the Clergy Discipline Measure and its associated rules. These are relatively new (came into force 6/7 years ago), and one of the problems that has recently been discovered (see Chichester interim report) is the lack of an ability to quickly suspend a cleric in certain sets of circumstances. One imagines, with all the surrounding publicity, that suitable legislative amendments will be put forward at an early opportunity.

This leaves the Church in an unfortunate position in the meantime, no doubt. But answering what appears to be terrible breaches of due process with more breaches of due process is likely not the answer.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

But is there any reason why the Diocesan could not simply have told Benn that he was taking over episcopal duties in the Lewes Area? Does the allocation of work between a Diocesan and his suffragans, even where they are Area Bishops, have any legally enforceable basis in the CofE, or is it ultimately at the Diocesan's discretion?

Posted by pete173 (# 4622) on :

Depends on the Scheme of Delegation. The London Scheme is very devolved, and would be difficult for the Diocesan Bishop to unravel. Can't recall under which provisions the Chichester Scheme works.

Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :

The two things that make this situation even worse and bring the C of E into greater disrepute are:

a) As I understand it, a Clergy Disciplinary action was taken against Wallace Benn in November 2011. As yet, there has been no indication whatsoever that this has been brought to a completion. Such delay is, in the circumstances, appalling. He will retire (presumably on a full bishop's pension) and the most that will be done is slap him on the wrist. Inadequate doesn't begin to describe this.

b) Even after the BBC's recent report, there has been NO comment from Lambeth Palace. A "Church Spokesman" is always keen to get in a comment about the Church's "official" opposition to gay marriage (though no such official position exists). But here - where something HAS to be said, there is just silence.

I am increasingly ashamed of being associated with such an organisation. [Roll Eyes]

Posted by justlooking (# 12079) on :

quote:
Originally posted by The Man with a Stick:

quote:
Originally posted by justlooking:
There is nothing in the law of the land that prevents the Church of England from having adequate safeguarding practices..... The need for adequate practices has been known about for many years and action could have been taken long ago if changes in the law are needed.
I don't understand how you tally the first and last sentences of this paragraph.

The law requires the Church to have adequate safeguarding procedures and practices and if changes in the law are needed to ensure compliance with proper practices then work to bring such changes into effect could have begun long ago. The point is that the safety of children should take priority over the safety of any bishop's position.

As far as I can see the Clergy Discipline Measure allows for a complaint against a bishop to be processed in the same way as a complaint against a junior cleric and may allow for temporary prohibition i.e. 'gardening leave', during investigation.

Posted by The Man with a Stick (# 12664) on :

quote:
Originally posted by pete173:
Depends on the Scheme of Delegation. The London Scheme is very devolved, and would be difficult for the Diocesan Bishop to unravel. Can't recall under which provisions the Chichester Scheme works.

It's really stretching my memory, but I think Chichester has one of those old style Area Schemes that were so in vogue in the 1980s. Formalised delegation that is not easily set aside. The suffragans are referred to as Area Bishops, certainly.

Posted by Vaticanchic (# 13869) on :

For the CDM to apply, the events in question need to have taken place within the last 12 months.

Chichester has no suffragen bishops, the assistants are known as area bishops, whether they have areas or not. Some dioceses have them, some don't. In London, only Fulham is a suffragen see. In Exeter, both assistants are suffragen.

I don't really know what is the distinction in law, but I do know that areas may not be addressed as the Lord Bishop of X, but suffragens may.

Posted by Solly (# 11919) on :

quote:
What has been the major problem (and the reason why I've always watched those coming into London from that diocese like a hawk) is that it seems to have more priests with questionable sexual behaviour in relation to minors than anywhere else in the country. That's not just anecdote - I can do you a headcount

I am glad I am not a priest under Pete173's jurisdiction since he appears to be a law unto himself and wantonly indiscrete. What is he doing about all these alleged paedophiles? Or is he just being totally irresponsible in his casual and very public smearing of Chichester priests? What happened in Chichester appears to have been failures of communication, training, procedure and practice. London doesn't look much better from where I'm standing.

Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :

What I don't understand is why East Sussex Council is continuing to allow the church to run the various children's provisions if it truly has the level of concern it expresses in those letters. These institutions require registration, and that can be withdrawn.

Posted by pete173 (# 4622) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Solly:

quote:
What has been the major problem (and the reason why I've always watched those coming into London from that diocese like a hawk) is that it seems to have more priests with questionable sexual behaviour in relation to minors than anywhere else in the country. That's not just anecdote - I can do you a headcount
I am glad I am not a priest under Pete173's jurisdiction since he appears to be a law unto himself and wantonly indiscrete. What is he doing about all these alleged paedophiles? Or is he just being totally irresponsible in his casual and very public smearing of Chichester priests? What happened in Chichester appears to have been failures of communication, training, procedure and practice. London doesn't look much better from where I'm standing.

That's an absolute travesty of what I'm saying. It's because we examine the records of clergy very carefully that we don't give a licence or PTO to priests where our safeguarding advisers give us the advice that they shouldn't be given public ministry.

Posted by justlooking (# 12079) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
What I don't understand is why East Sussex Council is continuing to allow the church to run the various children's provisions if it truly has the level of concern it expresses in those letters. These institutions require registration, and that can be withdrawn.

I doubt if the Council has the power to close down Church schools, clubs and services of worship attended by children.

Posted by Maureen Lash (# 17192) on :

quote:
Originally posted by pete173:
That's an absolute travesty of what I'm saying. It's because we examine the records of clergy very carefully that we don't give a licence or PTO to priests where our safeguarding advisers give us the advice that they shouldn't be given public ministry.

I think it was your indiscretion (again) and attention-seeking (again) that were being highlighted.

Posted by pete173 (# 4622) on :

So nice to be be able to welcome you to the Ship.

Posted by Trudy Scrumptious (# 5647) on :

We have a somewhat unique situation here in that pete173 has been fairly open on the boards about his real-life identity and is known to many Shipmates in his public role, but this does not give anyone liberty to bypass the usual Ship rules about personal attacks. They have no place in Purgatory. Please confine your discussion to the content of another Shipmate's arguments and not to his/her personal or professional shortcomings.

Trudy, Scrumptious Purgatory Host

[ 15. September 2012, 21:31: Message edited by: Trudy Scrumptious ]

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Trudy Scrumptious:
We have a somewhat unique situation here in that pete173 has been fairly open on the boards about his real-life identity and is known to many Shipmates in his public role, but this does not give anyone liberty to bypass the usual Ship rules about personal attacks. They have no place in Purgatory. Please confine your discussion to the content of another Shipmate's arguments and not to his/her personal or professional shortcomings.

Trudy, Scrumptious Purgatory Host

I read your last sentence as if it concluded with the words "as you see them" .

A bishop is the pastoral leader for the whole diocese. When the diocesan overlooks this, and recognises as valid no other churchmanship - as is presently the case in Sydney - is when problems arise. We are fortunate in that our area bishop is well aware of the importance of this, but that does not mean that ++ Peter does.

BTW, have you read the report into Chichester? I have and it does not make happy reading at all. The attitudes it records went out the window 50 years ago here. AFAICR, there has been only 1 prosecution for child abuse in the last 40 years against anyone with a church connection, and even then, the connection was remote.

[ 16. September 2012, 04:45: Message edited by: Gee D ]

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

I should have made it clear that by "here" I was referring to the Anglican Church in Sydney. There have been some troubles in other dioceses, and in other churches - esp the RC in Bathurst and Maitland.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

Host Hat On

Trudy's ruling may be discussed or commented on in the Styx, if any Shipmate wishes to do that. That's our normal rule.

No more comments here please, either about the ruling or the character of pete173 (as opposed to the contents of his posts). Anyone who crosses that line gets a C6 violation report on them sent to Admin.

Barnabas62
Purgatory Host

Host Hat Off

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

I apologise if I have transgressed: I should have made it clear that my second and third paragraphs were directed to Maureen Lash, not to Trudi Scumptious. Nor was i intending to debate her ruling.

Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :

Maybe this has been covered already, but what I don't get is how clergy in parishes etc can be suspended almost immediately (pending investigation), yet Bishops and inflicted suffering Bishops appear to be permitted to continue in perpetuity as if nothing ever happened.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

@ Gee D

That's OK. Thanks for the clarification.

Posted by Vaticanchic (# 13869) on :

quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
Maybe this has been covered already, but what I don't get is how clergy in parishes etc can be suspended almost immediately (pending investigation), yet Bishops and inflicted suffering Bishops appear to be permitted to continue in perpetuity as if nothing ever happened.

The more senior you get, the more you know about where the bodies are buried. Treat with caution. Same as in other walks of life.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

Could somebody clarify something for me? Some shipmates have directed a lot of hatred and obloquy at the Bishop of Lewes. They have called for his immediate suspension followed by dismissal and even possible forfeiture of pension rights.

Is he himself accused of abusing children or vulnerable adults?

Or is the accusation simply that as a bishop, he has been an inadequate or ineffective manager?

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

The latter, I think. But in most walks of life that would involve suspension if not dismissal.

Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :

He is also quite mad, and I really do mean quite mad. He has given many evangelicals a very bad name and has been a source of public embarrassment for many years. One particular diocese in Northern Ireland is rather keen on inviting him to speak on his pet hates. Pity he couldn't police other situations with a rigid effectiveness.

Oh yes, and recently he tied to withdraw a written forward to a book about family marriage or some other such drivel that the press pointed out was actually in a round about way condoning marital rape and the rights of the husband to beat his wife. (The book in question was 'Britain In Sin' by Stephen Green) I'm sure Wallace is really a lovely man when you meet him for tea - but God forgive me, I'd really rather not meet him.

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Could somebody clarify something for me? Some shipmates have directed a lot of hatred and obloquy at the Bishop of Lewes. They have called for his immediate suspension followed by dismissal and even possible forfeiture of pension rights.

Whatever transpires concerning suspension or dismissal, unless the CofE pension scheme is radically different to any elsewhere, you can forget about forfeiture of pension rights. You and your employer's contributions are usually held and managed in trust for the ultimate recipients.

Posted by justlooking (# 12079) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Or is the accusation simply that as a bishop, he has been an inadequate or ineffective manager?

The accusation is that he has been (and still is?) an inadequate and ineffective manager in a way which has compromised the safety of children.

Posted by Maureen Lash (# 17192) on :

quote:
Originally posted by justlooking:

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Or is the accusation simply that as a bishop, he has been an inadequate or ineffective manager?
The accusation is that he has been (and still is?) an inadequate and ineffective manager in a way which has compromised the safety of children.

I suspect it to be more likely the case that Bishop Benn is given no quarter because he upholds biblical teaching and does not 'ordain' women.

Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Maureen Lash:
I suspect it to be more likely the case that Bishop Benn is given no quarter because he upholds biblical teaching and does not 'ordain' women.

Absolutely! That must be the only reason why the director of children's services at East Sussex County Council called for his suspension....

[Roll Eyes]

Posted by Higgs Bosun (# 16582) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Maureen Lash:

quote:
Originally posted by justlooking:

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Or is the accusation simply that as a bishop, he has been an inadequate or ineffective manager?
The accusation is that he has been (and still is?) an inadequate and ineffective manager in a way which has compromised the safety of children.
I suspect it to be more likely the case that Bishop Benn is given no quarter because he upholds biblical teaching and does not 'ordain' women.

There is a specific allegation relating to child protection, namely that he deliberately withheld information concerning Gordon Rideout. If true, this is neither simply a matter of being inadequate and ineffective, nor is it a matter of his conservative theology. It is clearly a serious issue particularly in the context of the general failure of the Chichester diocese in the area of child protection.

Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Maureen Lash:

quote:
Originally posted by justlooking:

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Or is the accusation simply that as a bishop, he has been an inadequate or ineffective manager?
The accusation is that he has been (and still is?) an inadequate and ineffective manager in a way which has compromised the safety of children.
I suspect it to be more likely the case that Bishop Benn is given no quarter because he upholds biblical teaching and does not 'ordain' women.

Maureen; a despicable and reprehensible suspicion which is a perfect paradigm of why Chichester is in such a shameful mess. When single issue politics take over everything becomes about that to the point where innocence is blighted but no one cares as long as WE WIN! One of the most awful posts I have ever read on the ship.

Fly Safe, Pyx_e

Posted by Earwig (# 12057) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
The two things that make this situation even worse and bring the C of E into greater disrepute are:

a) As I understand it, a Clergy Disciplinary action was taken against Wallace Benn in November 2011. As yet, there has been no indication whatsoever that this has been brought to a completion. Such delay is, in the circumstances, appalling. He will retire (presumably on a full bishop's pension) and the most that will be done is slap him on the wrist. Inadequate doesn't begin to describe this.

b) Even after the BBC's recent report, there has been NO comment from Lambeth Palace. A "Church Spokesman" is always keen to get in a comment about the Church's "official" opposition to gay marriage (though no such official position exists). But here - where something HAS to be said, there is just silence.

I am increasingly ashamed of being associated with such an organisation.

Re a statement from Lambeth - can I check whether you mean a statement about the Chichester report or about Wallace Benn's CDM?

If you mean about the Chichester report you can read the Archbishop's comments here. If you mean about the CDM, I don't think an Archbishop would comment on this as he might have to hear the case in consistory court.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pyx_e:

quote:
Originally posted by Maureen Lash:

quote:
Originally posted by justlooking:

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Or is the accusation simply that as a bishop, he has been an inadequate or ineffective manager?
The accusation is that he has been (and still is?) an inadequate and ineffective manager in a way which has compromised the safety of children.
I suspect it to be more likely the case that Bishop Benn is given no quarter because he upholds biblical teaching and does not 'ordain' women.
Maureen; a despicable and reprehensible suspicion which is a perfect paradigm of why Chichester is in such a shameful mess. When single issue politics take over everything becomes about that to the point where innocence is blighted but no one cares as long as WE WIN! One of the most awful posts I have ever read on the ship.

Fly Safe, Pyx_e

I strongly agree.

I do not agree with Benn's views and i have heard some very nasty things about him so i have no wish to stand up for him, but the idea that he is somehow being scapegoated for his views rather than for the issue in hand is wrong.

Posted by FreeJack (# 10612) on :

The one reaction which I think Wallace Benn will care about is the reaction from other parts of the Reform / conservative evangelical CofE constituency.

Until this issue broke, he was something of a quiet hero among them. He could have looked forward to a semi-active retirement as a 'flying' bishop for confirmations in Reform churches, a bit of book or newspaper writing, some trusteeships of worthy trusts.

If he is seen by Reform leaders as genuinely culpable he will be dropped from all that with one accord some time next year.

Posted by Vaticanchic (# 13869) on :

Clearly +W is being scapegoated. He hung around too long, meaning +J couldn't reappoint both of +E's assistants.

Accusations made under the CDM must refer to events within the previous 12 months. Hence, if proceeding, there must be something more recent. If not, then ++R will surely wait as long as possible before announcing no further action. (Oh wait, he's resigning as well - fancy that!) Most likely, the deal will be +W will not be appointed as assistant bishop anywhere, for a while, till the heat's off.

Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :

I think the not passing on the CRB check was quite recent ? And current failings in oversight - as alleged by the council - would definitely be within the relevant period.

Posted by pete173 (# 4622) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Vaticanchic:
Clearly +W is being scapegoated. He hung around too long, meaning +J couldn't reappoint both of +E's assistants.

Accusations made under the CDM must refer to events within the previous 12 months. Hence, if proceeding, there must be something more recent. If not, then ++R will surely wait as long as possible before announcing no further action. (Oh wait, he's resigning as well - fancy that!) Most likely, the deal will be +W will not be appointed as assistant bishop anywhere, for a while, till the heat's off.

Assistant Bishop won't matter. They have no power to do anything in the Diocese without the permission of the relevant Diocesan/Area Bishop.
But I guess they might give him a bit of breathing space.

[ 19. September 2012, 19:34: Message edited by: pete173 ]

Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Earwig:

quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
The two things that make this situation even worse and bring the C of E into greater disrepute are:

a) As I understand it, a Clergy Disciplinary action was taken against Wallace Benn in November 2011. As yet, there has been no indication whatsoever that this has been brought to a completion. Such delay is, in the circumstances, appalling. He will retire (presumably on a full bishop's pension) and the most that will be done is slap him on the wrist. Inadequate doesn't begin to describe this.

b) Even after the BBC's recent report, there has been NO comment from Lambeth Palace. A "Church Spokesman" is always keen to get in a comment about the Church's "official" opposition to gay marriage (though no such official position exists). But here - where something HAS to be said, there is just silence.

I am increasingly ashamed of being associated with such an organisation.
Re a statement from Lambeth - can I check whether you mean a statement about the Chichester report or about Wallace Benn's CDM?

If you mean about the Chichester report you can read the Archbishop's comments here. If you mean about the CDM, I don't think an Archbishop would comment on this as he might have to hear the case in consistory court.

Neither. I mean the complete failure to respond to the BBC when it reported the letter from East Sussex Council. Not even something about "matters being investigated, blah blah blah..." There needed to be some sort of response. Silence just compounds the problem of the unacceptable delays in dealing with the CDM matter. It makes the C of E look like it has something to hide.

The old adage about "justice must be seen to be done" comes in here. The longer the matter drags on, the less hope that victims have of seeing justice in terms of holding Wallace Benn (and others, let's not forget) to account for their actions and inactions.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

Oscar, are you saying that the Bishop of Lewes should be sacked, not for ineffective management, nor for taking three weeks to pass on an alarming CRB check, nor even because the local authority's children's department has taken against him, but because you don't reckon much to his handling of the media and when a journalist says 'jump', he doesn't?

I've never met the man, and until this thread had never been conscious of his existence, but you really do seem to have got it in for him.

Posted by The Great Gumby (# 10989) on :

Read it again. Oscar's criticism on the media issue is reserved for Lambeth Palace. And the less said about your spin on "when a hournalist says 'jump'" the better.

Posted by Earwig (# 12057) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
Neither. I mean the complete failure to respond to the BBC when it reported the letter from East Sussex Council. Not even something about "matters being investigated, blah blah blah..." There needed to be some sort of response. Silence just compounds the problem of the unacceptable delays in dealing with the CDM matter. It makes the C of E look like it has something to hide.

Yeah, fair point.

Posted by Vaticanchic (# 13869) on :

Regarding the current case of Miss Stammers & Mr Forrest, where investigations were apparently already underway - this wouldn't be a CofE secondary school of the diocese of Chichester, would it?

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Vaticanchic:
Regarding the current case of Miss Stammers & Mr Forrest, where investigations were apparently already underway - this wouldn't be a CofE secondary school of the diocese of Chichester, would it?

It is indeed, and is in Eastbourne no less, that favourite town of Benn and his con-evos.

Posted by Vaticanchic (# 13869) on :

I see. Prayers, of course, for safety & for the families.

Is Benn in the frame, or is someone else responsible for this more recent balls-up?

Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :

Without knowing the details, an initial guess would be that this isn't something that could be laid at the feet of Wallace Benn (other than perhaps in the sense of his role in helping the diocese create an atmosphere of laxity).

The people I would be looking at hard at the moment are the headteacher and governors. WHEN were they informed of the relationship between the teacher and the pupil? WHAT action did they take in the light of this information? Could/should they have acted quicker?

I understand that the couple's dash to Europe was triggered by the imminent suspension of Mr Forrest. If they were going to suspend him anyway, was there not a case for doing so as soon as the decision had been made? And was there not a case for informing the parents of the girl - who seem to have been in the dark about all this?

I am sure that more is still to come to light. But as things stand at the moment, if I were a governor at that school, I would be feeling rather uncomfortable at the moment.

Posted by Amos (# 44) on :

Up to a point, Oscar: since this is the second time this kind of thing has happened at this particular school in the last two or three years, one would think that the Diocesan Board of Education would have been keen to do a bit of proactive preventative work in collaboration with the Head Teacher.

Posted by Vaticanchic (# 13869) on :

Indeed.

Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Amos:
Up to a point, Oscar: since this is the second time this kind of thing has happened at this particular school in the last two or three years, one would think that the Diocesan Board of Education would have been keen to do a bit of proactive preventative work in collaboration with the Head Teacher.

I've only just caught up on the previous history for the school:

quote:
In 2009, a teacher from the school was jailed for grooming pupils and in March it emerged a retired priest had been allowed to remain as a governor despite child sex allegations against him.

As you say, it would seem as if the Diocesan Board of Education also has questions to answer. I suspected that there was more to come out - but not this.

The potential impact upon Chichester Diocese (and the C of E as a whole) could be rather nasty.

Posted by Vaticanchic (# 13869) on :

Yes, it's hard to believe we are seeing more of the same type of thing continuing in Chichester, given the revelations of the last 12-18 months.

Clearly, the diocese has expressed a will to take positive action - not least in the new Bishop's "I wasn't even there, guv" press release following the visitation. And yet, it seems that action is rather slow in coming.

Who is Chair of the Chichester DBE? Who has been liaising with church schools and other relevant partners to ensure good, mutually supportive safeguarding and good practice? What's actually going on over there?

Posted by Amos (# 44) on :

Oscar, according to their website, the chair of the Chichester Board of Education is someone named Mike Wilson.
According to the BBC, Mr Terry Boatwright, executive Head Teacher of the school in question said, '"Bishop Bell School has a robust safeguarding policy in place, takes safeguarding very seriously and the effectiveness of its safeguarding procedures is rated 'outstanding' by Ofsted.' I cannot immediately recall where I read that the parents at the school were sent a letter assuring them that the 38 offences against children that Canon Rideout was charged with were old ones from back in the '60s and '70s, so they shouldn't worry about him being a school governor.
Jesus wept. Bishop Bell is revolving in his tomb.

Posted by Amos (# 44) on :

Sorry, that last post should have been addressed to Vaticanchic.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

This school sounds very dire and has a lot to answer for.

However dire though, moral outrage about ineffective child protection by others must not detract from holding this teacher personally and individually responsible in full. There was something on the news about his having mentioned to a friend that he was facing a deep moral dilemma.

No. Even if you are not a teacher, you do not seduce a girl of 15. Not even if nobody stops you. Nor if she throws herself at you. Nor if you fool yourself into believing this is different, that the world doesn't understand, that this is "experiential and educative on both sides" and she is the one true love of your life. There is no dilemma.

Her teacher hasn't even got the excuse 'I did not know she was so young your honour'.

Posted by Amos (# 44) on :

Certainly the teacher is culpable, Enoch. So is the other teacher from that school, who is now in prison. However there seem to be weaknesses within the system which not only allow teachers such as these to go about grooming and seducing students but may even attract such teachers to the area and to church schools.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

Quite right, Enoch: no moral dilemma whatsoever. If you just like shagging young girls, make sure they are 16 and they're not your pupils. If she's the love of your life, then you can wait three years for her. This is regardless of any question of whether a relationship, now, would be in itself harmful to her (or to you, I suppose): it's a matter of respect for boundaries. End of.

Posted by Vaticanchic (# 13869) on :

I can't seem to locate any statement from the diocese as yet regarding this matter, have I missed it?

Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Vaticanchic:
I can't seem to locate any statement from the diocese as yet regarding this matter, have I missed it?

It's all very quiet, isn't it?

Almost as quiet as Lambeth Palace has been about Wallace Benn's CDM and East Sussex's request to have WB suspended.

Could it be that the two silences are somehow linked? Just a thought....

Posted by Vaticanchic (# 13869) on :

Indeed, and funny how a series of retirements and new appointments is still considered sufficient to bury this sort of thing ...

Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :

Why would the diocese have been involved in the Stammers affair? Is a school run by them directly ?

Posted by Amos (# 44) on :

Bishop Bell is a Voluntary Aided school, which means that, although it receives government funding, the church owns the buildings and grounds and has a substantial influence in the running of the school. The contrast is with a Voluntary Controlled school which is controlled by the Local Education Authority. A Voluntary Aided school will have several church representatives, almost always including the local incumbent, on its governing body. The Diocesan Board of Education has among its various functions the oversight of church schools.
In short, yes, I would have expected the Diocese of Chichester to have had something to say about this situation: not merely the Stammers/Forest case, but the previous case of grooming and the presence of Canon Rideout on the Board of Governors.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Amos:
Canon Rideout

You think my sense of humour's a bit off-colour? God's is clearly utterly depraved.

[ 27. September 2012, 09:33: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]

Posted by Amos (# 44) on :

I think you've killed the thread, Karl! [Snigger]

Posted by Vaticanchic (# 13869) on :

Not quite.

And apparently, this case is on Crimewatch tonight, as Forrest's arrest warrant is issued, so we might get something from diocese in due course.

So, am I right in reckoning that Bp John Hind resigned last year as things began to kick off? Who's been running the show since then? When did Wallace finish work?

Posted by Lord Pontivillian (# 14308) on :

Bishop Mark, of Horsham, is currently in charge.

Posted by Amos (# 44) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Vaticanchic:
Not quite.

And apparently, this case is on Crimewatch tonight, as Forrest's arrest warrant is issued, so we might get something from diocese in due course.

So, am I right in reckoning that Bp John Hind resigned last year as things began to kick off? Who's been running the show since then? When did Wallace finish work?

I doubt that Crimewatch will have much effect on the diocese. Your reckoning sounds about right to me.

Posted by The Man with a Stick (# 12664) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Vaticanchic:
When did Wallace finish work?

He didn't. A date of August 31 was previously mooted, but he appears still to be in post.

Posted by Vaticanchic (# 13869) on :

I see. So, how many bishops are currently in post in the diocese but not working?!

Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :

[tangent]
Fuck knows what will happen with child protection in the new free schools.
[/tangent]

Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Vaticanchic:
So, am I right in reckoning that Bp John Hind resigned last year as things began to kick off? Who's been running the show since then? When did Wallace finish work?

Bp Hind didn't resign. He retired (just in the knick of time, clearly).

Part of my fury over this affair is that it appears that he and Wallace Benn seem to the ones ultimately responsible for the laxity - and they will both have retired on a bishop's pension by the time anyone gets round to disciplining them - making such discipline almost irrelevant.

Posted by Vaticanchic (# 13869) on :

Given all these resignations/retirements, including the Archbishop's, there's enough swinging in the wind to avoid having to proceed with any CDM - unless there are criminal charges, of course.

Unless a deal is not agreed & a stand is made.

Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :

I see that it has now been announced that Wallace Benn will retire on 31st Oct.

What is the betting that the CDM procedure against him will now be quietly "lost"?

Posted by Thurible (# 3206) on :

Bishop Peter Ball and Fr Vickery House have been arrested.

When will it end?

Thurible

Posted by shamwari (# 15556) on :

A tangent I know. But I believe Bishop Ball had a brother. And both had navy connections.

Hence they were known as the "Navy's Balls".

So I hear.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

When last I looked the BBC seem not to be saying- perhaps for fear of prejudicing any future proceedings- that when Bp Ball resigned from Gloucester this was also in the context of allegations of abuse, for which he received a police caution- and to get one of those you have to admit the offence.

Posted by Panda (# 2951) on :

The reports keep saying the diocese is cooperating fully with the police. I hope to God that doesn't mean they've abandoned the clerics in question to the police and someone is giving them pastoral care.

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
When last I looked the BBC seem not to be saying- perhaps for fear of prejudicing any future proceedings- that when Bp Ball resigned from Gloucester this was also in the context of allegations of abuse, for which he received a police caution- and to get one of those you have to admit the offence.

That's odd - I read the article earlier and I'm sure the "related stories" panel had a link to that, as I read about it at that point. It's the link that has gone I think - as you say it may be for legal reasoning.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Thurible:
When will it end?

Thurible

Only when the perpetrators of abuse and the exploiters of vulnerable children are called to account.

Only when the accusations of cover ups at the highest of levels are thoroughly investigated.

Only when justice is done.

Only when "it's only old +++++" or "it's only his way, ignore him" will never ever be heard again, because they just aren't needed.

Then and only then.

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

quote:
from the Interim Report, Appendix II
All Safeguarding officers/advisers should be independent of the Church of England; they should neither be members of the clergy nor related to members of the clergy.

Child Protection Officer /Safeguarding Administrator for at least 6+ years was a Mrs J Hind...

Reading a Timeline on the Cotton affair in particular is most illuminating and, on its own, gives ample evidence of the shambles that masquerades as the administration of the diocese.

Concerns about Bishop Ball were first raised when he was chaplain at Ardingly (diocese of Chichester, of course)

With rumours of yet more to come perhaps the time has come for diocesan reorganisation to begin, not with Yorkshire, but on the south coast. Shame for an historic diocese but maybe Chichester should be split between Portsmouth and a newly created diocese of, say, Lewes?

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Shame for an historic diocese but maybe Chichester should be split between Portsmouth and a newly created diocese of, say, Lewes?

Seriously, I feel sure that the geographical unwieldliness of the diocese must be one of the factors in its dysfuncionality.

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :

Perhaps it is a factor. But having spent hours reading through a lot of the reports on Chichester, the message that comes through loud and clear is of a diocese where everybody does their own thing. The only thing that will change that is a whole change of culture, and that takes time.

The risk of dividing the diocese, then, is that whatever steps are taken to counter this in the short term, the attitude will still exist when the division occurs, serving simply to introduce the attitude to two other dioceses, in one of which it already existed. It could make things worse, not better.

Posted by Trisagion (# 5235) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
Seriously, I feel sure that the geographical unwieldliness of the diocese must be one of the factors in its dysfuncionality.

What is unwieldy about a diocese that is 75 miles by 25? It takes less than 90 minutes to get from one end of the diocese to the other.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

Exactly. And anyway e.g. Lichfield and Lincoln are unwieldy in their own ways but they don't have Chichester's problems (well, Lincoln has problems of its own, but they're different).
Chichester has long had a reputation, rightly or wrongly, as the place where all the wrong'uns end up: over 20 years ago, when I was exploring a vocation and got the sack from a job I had at the Church Commissioners ( a long story, but it wasn't for fiddling with either money or people), the first reaction of a rather histrionic friend of mine was 'Well, you do realise that the only diocese that'll take you now is Chichester!'

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :

quote:
Chichester has long had a reputation, rightly or wrongly, as the place where all the wrong'uns end up:

An interesting observation Albertus.

If you read the text of the reports referred to above, it's difficult to avoid the conclusion that other dioceses were actively manoeuvring "difficult cases" into Chichester. Which has major implications on dioceses other than Chichester of course.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

We've given a fair outing in the Styx to the matter of the Ship's vulnerability if illegal or libellous comments are published here. It's one of the reasons why Commandment 7 is worded the way it is, and Hosts are expected to to look after the Ship's interests in this respect. Here's the general guideline

quote:
We do not have the resources to check the legality of everything posted on the Ship. And, we certainly don't have the resources to respond to any legal challenge to anything posted on the Ship. Therefore, we hold a simple precautionary principal to remove anything that might get us into legal difficulties.

(From a very recent post by Alan Cresswell in the Styx.)

+Peter Ball has been released on bail (medical grounds) and without charge. He may be questioned again. That is a matter of public record.

Please respect the Ship's vulnerability and be cautious in any further comments about +Peter Ball.

[You may also wish to note action taken in the Jimmy Savile Hell thread (the removal of speculative comments about other associates)].

Barnabas62
Purgatory Host

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
[QUOTE] Chichester has long had a reputation, rightly or wrongly, as the place where all the wrong'uns end up:

And I thought it was Ely - drop them all in the lonely Fens

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :

To be fair, ExclamationMark, that was a quote taken from Albertus.

Posted by Gildas (# 525) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:

quote:
from the Interim Report, Appendix II
All Safeguarding officers/advisers should be independent of the Church of England; they should neither be members of the clergy nor related to members of the clergy.
Child Protection Officer /Safeguarding Administrator for at least 6+ years was a Mrs J Hind...

Mrs Hind was child protection officer in Chichester Diocese when +John Hind was Bishop of Europe. When he moved so did she to avoid exactly that sort of conflict of interest. There was some period of overlap, IIRC, but unless one thinks that women should resign their jobs forthwith when their husbands are appointed Diocesan Bishop she can hardly be blamed for waiting a reasonable amount of time for a sideways move to become available.

Posted by Garasu (# 17152) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gildas:

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
[QUOTE] from the Interim Report, Appendix II
All Safeguarding officers/advisers should be independent of the Church of England; they should neither be members of the clergy nor related to members of the clergy.
Mrs Hind was child protection officer in Chichester Diocese when +John Hind was Bishop of Europe.

Bishop of Europe is still part of the Church of England though, isn't it? So contravening the guideline as quoted?

Admittedly it seems to me to be somewhat impractical and questionably legal as a guideline, but what do I know?

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

As I understand it, those guidelines are recently amended, to be stronger safeguards than were in place previously. It's only recently, last couple of years, that the CofE has insisted that clergy cannot be the safeguarding officer for a parish.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
[ Shame for an historic diocese but maybe Chichester should be split between Portsmouth and a newly created diocese of, say, Lewes?

Brighton. Got some big emptyish tattyfilarious churches that would make lovely cathedrals.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

Re +Peter Ball, here is the police press notice. You'll note that the term "bail", which appeared in some media reports yesterday, is not mentioned re +Peter Ball, nor is he named. His identification as the 80 year old man in the police press release is information in the public domain.

The need for caution re further comment remains, as does my request for understanding of the Ship's position.

Barnabas62
Purgatory Host

Posted by Panda (# 2951) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gildas:
Mrs Hind was child protection officer in Chichester Diocese when +John Hind was Bishop of Europe. When he moved so did she to avoid exactly that sort of conflict of interest. There was some period of overlap, IIRC, but unless one thinks that women should resign their jobs forthwith when their husbands are appointed Diocesan Bishop she can hardly be blamed for waiting a reasonable amount of time for a sideways move to become available.

Yes, I do think they should, if her husband happens to become the bishop of the diocese she was already working in. He might have gone to a different diocese, and then she could have stayed put (difficulties in living arrangements aside). But in this case there was a considerable conflict of interest and lack of impartiality, which should have been addressed asap, and doesn't appear to have been. Otherwise it looks a bit like the safeguarding of children in Chichester Diocese coming second place to people's job prospects.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0