Jersey's Dean and the Silly Season.

It is often said that the month of August is the silly season for news and readers of Saturday’s Jersey Evening Post will doubtless be scratching their heads at the sight of an expensive full page advert inviting witnesses to give evidence about the conduct of the Bishop of Winchester.

The advert makes reference to an advertisement placed in the same newspaper the previous Saturday by the Bishop of Winchester inviting members of the public to offer evidence in relation to the investigation being conducted by Dame Heather Steel. The advert also published Dame Heather’s Terms of Reference (TOR).

This Saturday’s advert cites a number of the Bishop’s failings in relation to one safeguarding issue which is deemed to be disproportionate, caused widespread anxiety and hurt, and has wrongly undermined public confidence in the Church in Jersey.

Included in the failings, “is the launching of two simultaneous and uncoordinated inquiries aimed less at caring for the vulnerable and more at assaulting the constitutional relationship between Jersey and the Diocese of Winchester, which may have caused a loss of confidence in the Diocese. Some may have experienced the relentless assault on the Church in Jersey through a PR company as placing power before pastoral care.”

“Others may be alarmed at the alleged expenditure of hundreds of thousands of pounds on lawyers, public relations consultants and two extensive inquiries. The terms of reference of the Steel inquiry invite evidence from the public of inappropriate or unbecoming conduct by the clergy in relation to events of the recent past. The Bishop of Winchester is a member of the clergy. If anyone has experienced the conduct of the Bishop of Winchester as inappropriate, or unbecoming, they should write to Dame Heather Steel at heather.steel@churchofengland.org and copy it to noconfidenceinwinton@gmail.com “

The advert appears to have been paid for by a group of concerned members of the laity of the Anglican Church in Jersey “who retain the highest confidence in the safeguarding record and practice of the Anglican Church in Jersey. Safeguarding provides for the care of the vulnerable, but also provides protection for those who offer that care. Courageous support is often provided by the Church for people who are deeply disturbed in the most challenging circumstances.”

Given such a powerful statement one wonders why those members of the laity did not have the courage to state who they are, who at no confidence in Winton will receive the evidence and what is its purpose? Also why should the evidence be forwarded to Dame Heather is she part of the laity, why no explanation? On reading her TOR it seems to be stretching things to claim that the Bishop’s alleged failings come within its remit.

I have questioned the Bishop’s handling of the matter ever since he suspended Jersey’s Dean Bob Key. If ever there was case of failing to plan there can be few which would surpass the Bishop’s. The advert placed by those claiming to be concerned members of the laity are no better and is akin to the pot calling the kettle black. Goodness knows what the ordinary members of the congregation up and down the country are thinking about their supposed leaders.

Those who have been following my Blogs will know that I believe the Dean and others have a case to answer, but they are entitled to expect the investigation to be conducted in an efficient and timely manner. This has not been the case and those questioning the conduct of the investigation are entitled to do so because there is ample evidence.

However what is distressing about the advert is that the concerned laity have made no mention of the real victim, that being HG, the lady whose suffered so badly at the hands of those who profess to care for the vulnerable and for giving courageous support.

Do they wish to continue turn a blind eye to those responsible for the abuse, do they wish to turn a blind eye to those responsible for HG’s arrest, detention and deportation. Do they wish to turn a blind eye to those who left her destitute in England whereby she lost her Jersey home, job and friends? Do they not care about her wellbeing and that her complaints are properly addressed?

Instead of petty squabbling among themselves, they should be united in pressing for an efficient and timely investigation and ensuring that HG receives tangible support and personal apologies. There may have been only been one safeguarding issue, but the way it has been mishandled and the fallout that followed is not down to HG but the incompetence of those tasked with the care of the vulnerable. They failed five years ago and are failing once more.

It looks to me that the advert is more about the concerned members of the Jersey Laity protecting their cosy and closed group so as to continue doing things the “Jersey Way.” Unfortunately the Bishop is playing into their hands.

Jersey's Dean ------Doubting Thomases

Four months have elapsed since Bishop Dakin suspended Jersey ’s Dean. The suspension or removal of the Dean’s Commission had been prompted following the publication of the much maligned Korris Report. The Bishop, shortly afterwards announced that the matter would be the subject of a Visitation which would be led by former Bishop John Gladwin with an Archdeacon, a suitably experienced and independent senior lawyer and a suitable lay person to assist him. The Terms of Reference were published but did not cover the complaint into the Dean’s alleged mishandling of HG’s complaint.

Following the firing of broadsides from the Dean’s supporters led by the former Bailiff but now Senator Philip Bailhache the Dean’s Commission was restored 7 weeks later before the Visitation had got underway let alone concluded. So one wonders why the Dean was suspended in the first place.

Two months ago Bishop Dakin announced that Dame Heather Steel had been commissioned to lead an investigation into the Dean’s handling of HG’s complaint which feeds into John Gladwin’s Visitation. One is to assume that apart from the investigation into the Dean’s handling of HG’s complaint it will include the decision and manner of her deportation from Jersey. On page 41 of her Report Jan Korris states “It is clearly a matter of concern that a vulnerable adult in such a distressed state could be removed from Jersey with no thought to her imminent care needs.”

Unfortunately it is only an assumption because although the whole investigation is supposed to be based on safeguarding and the need for full transparency and accountability, no Terms of Reference have been published. It has been rumoured that Dame Heather wanted a no holds barred investigation which was considered to be too open for the Bishop. Could that be the reason for Dame Heather’s failure to get under way?

I am not the only one who has sought clarification or indeed an update on what is really (not) going on. However apart from notification that the Bishop had personally apologised to HG, which she says is completely untrue, the wheels of the Bishop’s chariot which were never secure appear to have come off.

It seems ironic that Korris who was critical of the Dean’s handling of HG’s complaint claimed that all the way along the line everything came too late. It seems that Bishop Dakin has learnt nothing from the report and his apparent lack of leadership and procrastination is now becoming an embarrassment.

It is also unfair on the leading players in the affair; allegations have been made against the former Bishop, the Safeguarding Officer, the Dean, his wife, the Vicar and the Church Warden. They are entitled to know whether the second part of the Visitation is going ahead.

Most importantly the procrastination is most unfair on HG who is the real but forgotten victim of what is becoming a complete shambles on top of the unholy mess created by the Dean and former Bishop. In previous Blogs I have stated that before the Visitation got under way personal apologies and tangible assistance should be given to HG.  These are still awaited.

In addition there are other questions that need answers. It is said that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. The same could be said of perception particularly in small communities like Jersey with its infamous “ Jersey Way .” Therefore one would have hoped that before anyone was appointed as a member of the Visitation Panel any suggestion of conflict whether implied or perceived would deem them, no matter how well qualified to be unacceptable.

If one accepts that principle then one must question whether someone who is a member of the Dean’s congregation at St Helier’s Parish Church and recently listed on its Electoral Role is a wise appointment to the Panel.

By the same token Dame Heather is a former Judge of the Court of Appeal in Jersey and a former colleague of Senator Philip Bailhache. Dame Heather accepted Senator Bailhache’s invitation to be a Speaker at his 2010 Conference called “Dependency or Sovereignty? Time to take Stock.” A fellow Speaker was Advocate Richard Falle who was the Magistrate responsible for HG’s shameful removal from Jersey. 

If Dame Heather is to conduct her investigation in line with the Korris recommendation on page 41 of her Report, she will be required to question Mr Falle. Dame Heather will also have to investigate members of the States Police who arrested HG but did not charge her until 12 hours later after taking statements from the Dean and former Bishop. They also successfully opposed her Bail. Therefore one is entitled to ask why a Member of the States Police is assisting Dame Heather.

While there must be transparency, witnesses when necessary should be entitled to confidentiality particularly in Jersey where there is a genuine fear of reprisal and/or marginalisation for anyone coming forward with evidence questioning the role of “Establishment” figures. The current composition of the Visitation Panels is deterring at least two witnesses submitting evidence. HG has also made it abundantly clear that she will not appear before the Dame Heather Panel. Unfortunately no one is listening.

The football season has not yet commenced but Winchester is already conceding a number of own goals. The normal remedy is to replace the Manager but no one is holding their breath. It was suggested at the outset by the Dean’s supporters led by Senator Philip Bailhache are calling all the shots. It also lays weight to the belief that Winchester ’s concerns about HG are just a smoke screen as a cover for the real agenda that being Constitutional matters. Regretfully that is now becoming abundantly clear.

I am not the only Doubting Thomas but regretfully am being joined by an ever growing number of sceptics who doubt whether the Church of England really gives a damn about the vulnerable and last weekend’s General Synod Conference at York was just another case of hot air and humbug.

Jersey's Dean--------Meaningless Apologies

Later today John Gladwin will be setting foot on Jersey soil to interview the Dean and other persons in his attempt to unravel what has now become a tangled mess where the shepherds are more concerned with protecting their corner than their flock. The Visit has come about following a review undertaken by Jan Korris who reported that there were serious failings in safeguarding the vulnerable in Jersey and in particular a lady named as HG.

The people concerned are the Dean of Jersey, the former Bishop and Jane Fisher the Diocesan’s Safeguarding Officer. Public apologies have been given to HG by the Archbishop of Canterbury, the present Dean of Winchester Tim Dakin and more recently the Dean following his reinstatement. However it now unclear whether the apologies are genuine or just a flag waving exercise?  

Way back in March the Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby said:” The Bishop of Winchester's swift, decisive and wholly necessary actions following his receipt of this report are to be commended. I too wish to add my own personal apologies to the young woman who was so badly let down by those she had turned to for help and I wholeheartedly support the investigation that the Bishop has launched. He must receive full cooperation from all involved. 

Following the Dean’s reinstatement in April he said: “I regret mistakes that I made in the safeguarding processes and I understand that, upon reflection, it would have been more helpful if I had co-operated more fully with the Korris Review. I now add my own apology to that of the Bishop of Winchester and Archbishop of Canterbury to the vulnerable person at the heart of this matter.”

I have always maintained that unless the apologies are given personally they are meaningless. However it is now highly questionable whether they were apologies at all and my reasons are as follows.

Although John Gladwin will begin his investigation in Jersey today, last Tuesday in London I accompanied HG to a meeting with him and fellow Panel member Christine Daly. Prior to the meeting I had written to the Archbishop via his personal assistant Christopher Smith stating that as HG would be in London it would be an ideal opportunity for the Archbishop, if free to personally apologise to her and also offer some tangible support now that the Church of England had made her destitute. Regretfully my email was neither acted upon nor even acknowledged.

Yesterday morning on the BBC Radio Jersey Chris Stone programme in his interview with the Dean, Chris said that as he had issued a public apology to HG along with the Archbishop and Bishop Dean why had he not apologised personally and what steps had he taken to do so?  (please see comment below)

It was clearly an uncomfortable question which caused the Dean to think carefully for an answer. In summary he said that the public statement was a result of several drafts and the apology was for administrative mistakes. He had not been asked nor had it been suggested and indeed he did not know if in doing so it would be most helpful to apologise to HG. He and the Bishops would have to think most carefully when all the facts had emerged and the clouds in the sky had been removed.

So it would appear that apologies offered by the most senior leaders of the Church of England have to be carefully drafted, no doubt by PR companies which are only intended to be favourable media sound bites and nothing else. In my book that is dishonest, disingenuous and most unbecoming of anyone let alone church leaders who are supposed to be God's representatives.

In his "apology" the Archbishop said that HG was so badly let down, that is very much an understatement. Last Tuesday before John Gladwin and Christine Daly HG was able to give an account of how she was not only a victim of abuse by a Church Warden but also a victim of abuse of process by those charged with handling her complaint. As if that was not bad enough her arrest, detention and deportation would not have occurred had the Dean and former Bishop called on the plethora of specialist in social care to assist them rather than sign the relevant police documents which conveniently removed her out of Jersey to become destitute in the UK.

I am sure that John Gladwin, Christine Daly and Archdeacon Norman Russell will make good use of their first visit to Jersey. Not only will they have to untangled the mess but also learn of the “Jersey Way” which protects the guilty and marginalises those who like HG are brave enough to put their head above the parapet.

**************************************************************
I am grateful to BBC Radio Jersey for providing the link to the Dean's interview and complement Chris Stone on manner in which he conducted the interview.

Please press HERE for the interview.