Achi news desk-
by Janet Fife,
a survivor’s perspective
Trying to get the Church of England to deal with a sexual abuse complaint is like wrestling with a jellyfish – you just can’t get a hold of it, and the tentacles are constantly lashing out and stinging you when you least expect it .
The labyrinthine complexity of the Church’s safeguarding structures is partly to blame. A few years ago I drew up a safeguarding vocabulary in an attempt to help survivors and others in their dealings with the Church (survivingchurch.org, ‘Alphabet soup: safeguarding vocabulary’, 15 December 2020). It ran to five and a half pages. If I were to write it now it would be even longer.
The remit of the different church protection bodies is often unclear and they overlap. We can contact our bishop or diocesan safeguarding officer, only to have staff from one of the 5 national safeguarding bodies respond. We may get no response at all. Our case can be picked up, dropped, restarted, then dropped again. This would be unacceptable if we were dealing with the gas company – but our complaints relate to the most traumatic, painful and humiliating events in our lives.
Every time we talk to someone about the abuse it takes courage and a lot of psychological energy, and then we are very vulnerable. And when our complaint is passed from column to post within the ‘protection’ system of the Church of England, we are forced to repeat our stories over and over.
Reviews, inquiries, and data access requests have exposed lies told by bishops and other personnel. Survivors are sometimes referred to in internal correspondence in derogatory terms, rather than with compassion.
It is not surprising that the Church’s treatment of survivors has been labeled ‘second abuse’. This would be terrible if the Church did it to people who had come for help after being attacked by an atheist. To treat in this way people who are victims of crimes committed by representatives of the Church itself is unforgivable.
The damage done is real. Survivors of this second abuse have become depressed and unable to work. Many have lost their faith; some have lost their businesses or homes. Some have taken their own lives. The Church of England is accountable to God for their blood.
The Church’s abusive treatment of survivors has been repeatedly criticized by reviews and investigations, and by the statutory Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (IICSA). The latter identified the culture of the Church as something of serious concern, contributing to the poor treatment of complainants and opportunities for abuse to occur.
The Independent Safeguarding Board was established in 2021 in response to recommendations from IICSA. There were concerns from the beginning: the Board was not independent. It seemed to be yet another fraud on vulnerable people by Church authorities. Understandably, many survivors, having already received such shabby treatment, did not trust the ISB or anyone who worked for the Church.
Three highly qualified people were appointed to the ISB. Two of them, Steve Reeves and Jasvinder Sanghera CBE, the Board’s Survivor Advocate, slowly and carefully began to gain the trust of the survivors they were working with.
The Chair, Dr Maggie Atkinson, ‘stepped back’ and then resigned after the Information Commissioner upheld three complaints about breaches of confidential data rules.
The two archbishops installed Meg Munn on the ISB as temporary Chair, without consulting the two current members or survivors, and contrary to the terms of reference of the Board. It was widely believed that Ms Munn had a serious conflict of interest, as she was also chair of the National Safeguarding Panel and a member of the National Safeguarding Steering Group. As Chair of the ISB she would be required to examine her own work on the NSP and NSSG.
About 80 C of E abuse survivors protested Ms Munn’s appointment; many asked not to share their data with Ms Munn. Jasvinder and Steve also objected. It was clear that he could not act as Chairman of the ISB under these circumstances. But the Archbishops doubled down, instead of deliberating.
As Jasvinder said, ”I must say that in my role I have experienced disregard for the wishes of the survivor community at all times. I have been an advocate for victims/survivors for over three decades and I have never experienced anything like this before.’
Last week the two ISB members many survivors had come to trust were dismissed, leaving the one they didn’t trust to clean up. The support of those working with the ISB was suddenly withdrawn without warning, and without putting other arrangements in place. Everyone who has done C4 protection knows how dangerous that is.
There is further uncertainty about who now has access to confidential survivor data. What happens to the case reviews that were being carried out by Jasvinder and Steve? The message tweeted by the ISB on Monday, 26 June did not reassure survivors: “Morning. We are back from annual leave and have a week to lose! Understandably there is a lot in the inbox and we will be in touch with everyone who has contacted us over the next few days. Please email contact@ independent-safeguarding.org if you need anything.”
The anxiety and psychological damage caused to the survivors is immense – and it was done deliberately and deliberately by the Archbishops and the Council of Archbishops. They should listen to the words of Ezekiel: “Should not shepherds take care of the flock? …You have not strengthened the weak or healed the sick or bound up the injured. You have not brought back the stray or searched for the lost …… Thus says the Lord GOD: I am against the shepherds and I will hold them accountable for my flock (Ex. 34 :1-10).”
