|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Chichester Diocese
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
justlooking
Shipmate
# 12079
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 2319 | From: thither and yon | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Man with a Stick
Shipmate
# 12664
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 335 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
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?
--------------------
My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
pete173
Shipmate
# 4622
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Pete
Posts: 1653 | From: Kilburn, London NW6 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Oscar the Grouch
Adopted Cascadian
# 1916
|
Posted
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]](rolleyes.gif)
--------------------
Faradiu, dundeibáwa weyu lárigi weyu
Posts: 3871 | From: Gamma Quadrant, just to the left of Galifrey | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
justlooking
Shipmate
# 12079
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 2319 | From: thither and yon | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Man with a Stick
Shipmate
# 12664
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 335 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Vaticanchic
Shipmate
# 13869
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
"Sink, Burn or Take Her a Prize"
Posts: 697 | From: UK | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Solly
Shipmate
# 11919
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 70 | From: Sussex UK | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
pete173
Shipmate
# 4622
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Pete
Posts: 1653 | From: Kilburn, London NW6 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
justlooking
Shipmate
# 12079
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 2319 | From: thither and yon | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Maureen Lash
Apprentice
# 17192
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 32 | From: Moseley | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
pete173
Shipmate
# 4622
|
Posted
So nice to be be able to welcome you to the Ship.
--------------------
Pete
Posts: 1653 | From: Kilburn, London NW6 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trudy Scrumptious
BBE Shieldmaiden
# 5647
|
Posted
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 ]
--------------------
Books and things.
I lied. There are no things. Just books.
Posts: 7428 | From: Closer to Paris than I am to Vancouver | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
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 ]
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
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
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
fletcher christian
Mutinous Seadog
# 13919
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan
Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
@ Gee D
That's OK. Thanks for the clarification.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Vaticanchic
Shipmate
# 13869
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
"Sink, Burn or Take Her a Prize"
Posts: 697 | From: UK | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
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?
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
The latter, I think. But in most walks of life that would involve suspension if not dismissal.
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
fletcher christian
Mutinous Seadog
# 13919
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan
Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
justlooking
Shipmate
# 12079
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 2319 | From: thither and yon | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Maureen Lash
Apprentice
# 17192
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 32 | From: Moseley | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Oscar the Grouch
Adopted Cascadian
# 1916
|
Posted
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....
--------------------
Faradiu, dundeibáwa weyu lárigi weyu
Posts: 3871 | From: Gamma Quadrant, just to the left of Galifrey | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Higgs Bosun
Shipmate
# 16582
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 313 | From: Near the Tidal Thames | Registered: Aug 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pyx_e
Quixotic Tilter
# 57
|
Posted
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
--------------------
It is better to be Kind than right.
Posts: 9778 | From: The Dark Tower | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Earwig
Pincered Beastie
# 12057
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 3120 | From: Yorkshire | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
FreeJack
Shipmate
# 10612
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 3588 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Vaticanchic
Shipmate
# 13869
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
"Sink, Burn or Take Her a Prize"
Posts: 697 | From: UK | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
pete173
Shipmate
# 4622
|
Posted
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 ]
--------------------
Pete
Posts: 1653 | From: Kilburn, London NW6 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Oscar the Grouch
Adopted Cascadian
# 1916
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Faradiu, dundeibáwa weyu lárigi weyu
Posts: 3871 | From: Gamma Quadrant, just to the left of Galifrey | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Great Gumby
Ship's Brain Surgeon
# 10989
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool. - Richard Feynman
A letter to my son about death
Posts: 5382 | From: Home for shot clergy spouses | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Earwig
Pincered Beastie
# 12057
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 3120 | From: Yorkshire | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Vaticanchic
Shipmate
# 13869
|
Posted
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?
--------------------
"Sink, Burn or Take Her a Prize"
Posts: 697 | From: UK | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Vaticanchic
Shipmate
# 13869
|
Posted
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?
--------------------
"Sink, Burn or Take Her a Prize"
Posts: 697 | From: UK | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Oscar the Grouch
Adopted Cascadian
# 1916
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Faradiu, dundeibáwa weyu lárigi weyu
Posts: 3871 | From: Gamma Quadrant, just to the left of Galifrey | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amos
Shipmate
# 44
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
At the end of the day we face our Maker alongside Jesus--ken
Posts: 7667 | From: Summerisle | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Vaticanchic
Shipmate
# 13869
|
Posted
Indeed.
--------------------
"Sink, Burn or Take Her a Prize"
Posts: 697 | From: UK | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Oscar the Grouch
Adopted Cascadian
# 1916
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Faradiu, dundeibáwa weyu lárigi weyu
Posts: 3871 | From: Gamma Quadrant, just to the left of Galifrey | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Vaticanchic
Shipmate
# 13869
|
Posted
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?
--------------------
"Sink, Burn or Take Her a Prize"
Posts: 697 | From: UK | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Printer-friendly view
