Showing posts with label Radio Jersey. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Radio Jersey. Show all posts

Monday, 5 May 2014

Jersey's Dean --- Archbishop of Canterbury BBC Radio Jersey Interview

Yesterday morning BBC Radio Jersey broadcast an interview between Matthew Price and the Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby. It is believed to be the first time that the Archbishop had spoken publicly on the fall out between the Diocese of Winchester and Jersey can be heard by clicking here

Thousands of words have been written since the Jersey Dean, Bob Key was suspended in March last year. Very few, if any of the main players have emerged with their hallos still in tact and having listened to the Archbishop I was not inspired. I understand that he was given sight of the questions with sufficient time to be properly brief yet he came across as remote, distant, ill informed and disinterested.

The Church of England has found itself in a mess simply because of its lack of leadership and having listened to the Archbishop it is easy to see why. He had the opportunity of putting the record straight and re-assuring Channel Islanders that the Church of England really cares for every one and in particular those who come to it when in need. It will be for readers to form their own opinion on the Archbishop's answers but the following are my thoughts.

The Archbishop described Bishop of Winchester Tim Dakin as outstanding and wonderful. I believe there are a number of people who might not support that view and that is why they welcome the news that a temporary arrangement is now place whereby the Islands are now within the Bishop of Dover's remit thus breaking a 500 year old link. We heard that it was a result of discussions between the Bishop and Archbishop but we heard nothing of any consultation with the rank and file members of the Islands' congregation.

We don't know how long temporary arrangement is or how long the proposed Commission will take as no time scale was given nor who will be commissioned to conduct it, but does seem that procrastination will be the order of the day. We know that Bishop Dakin commissioned Jan Korris to investigate the Dean's handling of a complaint by a lady known as HG but we don't know what his motivation was because the complaint was made in July 2008. However we know that the fall out has caused great distress particularly to HG, hundreds of thousand of pounds have been spent (wasted) on the subsequent Visitation and a break from Winchester yet no one is accountable.

Some readers may find it surprising that the Archbishop has met Dean Bob Key only once but he has no reason not to have confidence in him. Given the shenanigans that have arisen over the past 15 months one wonders why the Archbishop has not taken the trouble to be better informed or meet the Dean because it is evident that he is in close contact with Bishop Dakin. Often more than two sides to a story but it appears that he has only listened to one side.

The Archbishop says that he stands by his apology to HG and accepts that the Church has let her down. He can keep saying that until the cows come home but it is quiet evident that he has no interest at all in HG yet he adds insult to injury by saying that he has to make sure that she is receiving "pastoral care" If he really cared and practised the spiritual love he talks about he would have personally apologised to her and ensured that she received the tangible support promised by Bishop Dakin last June.

It was also interesting to hear how he sidestepped the question about the Dean claiming he had been exonerated because he has been put back in post. Readers who have been following my and other Blogs will be well aware of the pressure put on the Archbishop by Senator Bailhache and others to reinstate the Dean, therefore he should have given an honest explanation as to why the Dean was reinstated and stated that whilst no disciplinary action is being taken against the Dean, he has apologised for the mistakes made in his handling of HG's complaint so therefore cannot be exonerated of all blame.

The Archbishop should also have been aware that the report he spoke about ( the Dame Heather Steel) has not been published and cannot be published because of Dame Heather's conflict with the Dean supporters and her bias against HG which can be found in the transcript of my meeting with her last October which neither she nor Winchester will let me have. Thus breaking a promise made before the actual meeting.

In my view the Archbishop did little to allay any fears for the future and it is a case of not doing what I do but as I say. Its no wonder why Church attendances are falling.

I thank BBC Radio Jersey and Matthew Price in particular for his interview and for providing me with a copy of the interview which can again be heard by clicking here.

Friday, 28 March 2014

Jersey's Dean--- The Canterbury Agreement---Appeasement/ Sell Out.

On Tuesday in line with the announcement in January and at the fifth attempt the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Bishop of Winchester, the Bishop of Dover and each of the Deans of Jersey and Guernsey signed an Agreement to give effect to the interim oversight arrangements.  It is not known what the actual wording is but apparently it will allow for the Bishop of Dover to have temporary Episcopal oversight of Jersey and Guernsey and ending the Winchester link.
There are a number of issues arising from the Agreement and one must ask why it was deemed necessary and is it not hypercritical? On one hand the Church of England preaches the virtue of loving thy neighbour and seeking peace and conciliation yet it has two of its senior members not only acting as spoilt children by not practising what they preach but causing a 500 year split from Winchester without any thought of the thousands of ordinary church goers and the general public whose offerings and taxes pay for their keep and salaries.
Just what is the Archbishop of Canterbury playing at? In his press release he said: “I am delighted that we have found a way forward which engages the full support of everyone concerned, and which will enable the ministry and mission of the Church of England to flourish in the Channel Islands while acknowledging on the long and complex history of the Islands’ relationship to the Church on the mainland, and I look forward to doing so from the secure understanding we have now reached.”
Who are the everyone concerned, it would be unforgivable if they just happened to be the five people signing the Agreement.  What consultation has there been with the congregations within the Diocese, don’t their views count for anything?
To many readers the Agreement has more to do with appeasement than leadership. It is a sell out which is akin to Neville Chamberlain’s “Peace in Our Time remark.” Does the Archbishop not see the harm being caused by the split and also the message going out that personalities are more important than principles?
There are a number of outstanding issues which include the completion of the Gladwin and Steel Investigations. Does the Agreement transfer the oversight of the Visitation to Bishop Trevor? What about the promise to help HG and for her to give her account of events. What about the promised transcript following my meeting with Dame Heather. What about the Safeguarding issues, does Jersey follow the Canons Law or the Church of England Safeguarding Policies? Are these issues included in the Agreement?
One would have hoped that in the spirit of openness and transparency the Agreement would have been published at the time the Archbishop of Canterbury circulated his press release. I have emailed both Bishops requesting a copy but do not expect a reply as they have ignored my previous emails relating to other issues.
We may not know what is in the Agreement but there is one person who is overjoyed with its contents and that’s the Dean who can’t wait to work with Bishop Trevor. However the Dean seems to be oblivious to the fact that the split from Winchester and the hundreds of thousands of pounds spent on the Visitation and other related issues stem from his handling of HG’s complaint against a Church Warden in 2008.
Also he was party to HG's arrest and deportation from Jersey and left destitute in England. In his interview on Radio Jersey on Tuesday the Dean asks that we pray for Bishop Trevor but conveniently ignores HG who is the real victim. Where is love thy neighbour and peace and conciliation, where is the Christianity?
On BBC Radio Jersey on Tuesday morning Matthew Price interviewed the Dean about the Agreement which can be heard by clicking here.
I am grateful to BBC Radio Jersey for the link and inform readers that I shall be appearing on Radio Jersey after the 8am news on Sunday morning to discuss the events over the past year I understand that the Bishop of Winchester has been invited to participate, I hope he will accept the invitation.

Tuesday, 25 February 2014

Curtis Warren---- "Love In"-- Defending the Indefensible


At the last States Sitting the Home Affairs Minister, Senator Ian Le Marquand refused to accept that former Drugs Councillor Teresa Rodrigues had a 2 year love in with Curtis Waren whilst he was held on remand at La Moye Prison. As such he saw no reason to inquire into the allegation which had been reported in the Mail on Sunday on 16th February. It was also reported that Connetable Steve Pallet the Chairman of the relevant scrutiny panel had also declined to review the matter.

Both the Senator and Connetable are mature men and it is disappointing that they should have dismissed the matter in such a bravado manner.  Surely the simplest way of dealing with the matter would have been by calling for a report from the Prison Governor and the Jurats who form the Prison Board of Visitors. As it is they both lay themselves open to ridicule should it transpire that there is some substance to the allegation.

Given the abrupt dismissal it is not surprising that some States Members, Bloggers and the mainstream media are asking further questions. At the last States Sitting, Senator Le Marquand was unable to give the number of allegations of inappropriate relationship which had been reported during the last five years but said he would happily find out.

Ministers have a habit of failing to give answers but saying they will enquire and will inform the Member asking the question at some later time, but often fail to do so. Fortunately Deputy Tadier is not letting the Minister off the hook and has wisely lodged a number of written questions which should receive answers at the next States Sitting on 4th March.

Deputy Tadier wants to know how many disciplinary cases there have been in the past 10 years at La Moye Prison for employees, and in how many of those cases the employee was either dismissed or resigned pending, or after, the action. He wants the Minister to provide a summary of any alleged misconduct, in terms of its nature (i.e. sexual, drug dealing, etc.)?  He also wants to know whether Teresa Rodrigues was the subject of a disciplinary investigation and, if so what was the basis for, and result of, that investigation? Finally he wants the Minister make the case notes available.

Deputy Tadier is doing his job as a Back Bencher and is to be commended for doing so, but should it not have been Scrutiny’s job or better still for the Minister to come clean in the first place.

This morning Radio Jersey invited Deputy Tadier and Senator Le Marquand to its studio to answer a number of questions in relation to the allegation. Unfortunately Senator Le Marquand was not available so his Assistant Minister, Senator Farnham stood in for him, unfortunately he was poorly briefed and Matthew Price had little difficulty in exposing his short comings. I am grateful to Radio Jersey for providing the link to the interview. Please click here.

Senator Farnham struggled from the outset because it is very difficult defending the indefensible. There is no way that he is as adept as Senators Bailhache, Ozouf or Le Marquand  in sidestepping questions and his replies soon led Matthew Price calling them “weasel words.” It is a poor tradesman who blames his tools and it is pointless claiming that the logistics of the prison may have led to the possibility of an affair taking place. However was Senator Farnham trying to say that there is a possibility that Ms Rodrigues might be telling the truth because apart from Curtis Warren there is no one who can say she was not.

Or is it that there is evidence of the affair but it has been suppressed.What is so frustrating and unseemly is that Senator Farnham believes that everything is just conjecture, with no hard facts and wants Deputy Tadier to produce the evidence. I am sure that if Deputy Tadier asked the Prison Governor to open his books and allow for inmates both current and former to be interviewed in confidence and without prejudice his request would be instantly rejected.

I know that Senator Farnham took objection to the “Weasel words” but listening to the answers he gave this morning one could hardly say that he convinced anyone and probably not even himself. He is on record as wanting a Department of Justice but justice for whom? He knows the difference between right and wrong and by defending his Minister’s obstinacy he is not only failing himself but also the electorate who in few months’ time will be looking to vote for candidates with backbone and the courage of their convictions.  

For the Radio Jersey interview  Please click here

Monday, 17 June 2013

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.










Monday, 29 April 2013

Jersey's Dean, Victory or Climb Down ????


Yesterday there was a press release stating that the Dean had been reinstated. The news was met with jubilation by the Dean’s supporters who believed that the withdrawal of the Dean’s Commission had been unfair and in the words of Senator Bailhache “was disproportionate to any alleged failings of the Dean.”

There are others who believe that the reinstatement is a climb down or a U turn by the Bishop. It will be for the respective camps to justify their claims but I do not believe the reinstatement is a victory for Senator Bailhache but if there is a climb down by the Bishop, he is not alone. I do however believe the matter has been badly handled and the leading players are now attempting to justify decisions taken some weeks if not years ago.

I have always deplored lengthy suspensions because of the impact they not only have on the employee but also on their family. John Day and Graham Power and others were cruelly suspended for years yet unlike the Dean they were not supported by the Church, Chief Minister, and Senator Bailhache etc. Why? I understand that a police officer who had been suspended since last November has recently been told that his suspension has been lifted with no charges forthcoming but where was the outcry where were the prayers?

I am pleased that the Dean’s Commission has been reinstated because it now seems to have been a pointless exercise. However we are not party to what the “new Commission” is? The Bishop now appears to have acted decisively and humanely but questions need to be asked as to what was the real reason for the withdrawal in the first place? Normally suspensions are instigated to allow for the completion of investigations into the complaint; however the Investigation/Visitation has not been completed. So was the suspension because of the Dean’s failings or to bring him to heel?

For those who claim a victory or climb down it is worth reflecting on the Press Statement.

It should be noted that although the Dean has publicly apologised to HG he has not done so personally. I hope that along with the Bishop and Archbishop they will feel “humble, Christian and Godly enough” to meet HG and personally apologise to her, anything less is not an apology. This morning I heard the Dean and the Bishop’s interviews on Radio Jersey but little if anything was said about the lady at the centre of the affair. Why?

It is apparent that in addition to the apology, as part of the re-instatement “package” the Dean has effectively had to eat the proverbial “humble pie” and “climb down” by accepting the alleged failings referred to by Senator Bailhache.

1. He has confirmed that he shares the Bishop of Winchester’s and Archbishop of Canterbury’s stated commitment to safeguarding in the Diocese and the wider Church. (Did he not share that commitment before the suspension?)

2. He has also agreed that, in the light of recent events, there are areas in Jersey Canon Law which would benefit from further review and is committed to working with the Bishop as necessary to revise them. (Were these issues not discussed before the suspension, if not why not?)

3. He regrets the mistakes he made in the safeguarding processes and upon reflection, it would have been more helpful if he had co-operated more fully with the Korris Review. (What mistakes are being regretted and why did the Dean not co-operate with Jan Norris?)

4. He will be co-operating with the Visitation and Investigation announced by the Bishop on 26 March. Together with the Bishop he is committed to the importance of safeguarding children and vulnerable adults in Jersey and to working to ensure the safeguarding procedures of the Diocese achieve this as part of the whole Church's mission." (Surely as Dean, does he not have a duty to co-operate?)

In relation to the Visitation it should be recalled that in the Korris Report/Review the following potentially very serious matters came to light relating to the Dean which must be investigated as soon as possible these include;

1) Allowing a church warden to operate in contravention of the Safeguarding procedures and the training he had undertaken.

2) Failure to notify the Safeguarding Advisor on receipt of the complaint.

3) Failure to implement and act in accordance with Diocesan Safeguarding Procedure in the handling of the initial complaint interview.

4) Failure to record and make all documentation available for a review of a Safeguarding matter as required by the Safeguarding procedures.

5) Despite the request of the Bishop of Winchester, unwillingness to permit review of safeguarding practice and also discouraging others from participating.

The Report also stated that there will also be a need for an investigation into the deportation of H.G. on 11th October 2010 and why there is a complete lack of recording of this matter by Dean from the date of her arrest. (I will return to this matter later.)

Are these matters going to be addressed or will they be swept under the carpet as part of the “package deal?”

The way people in positions of responsibility process allegations of abuse is at the very heart of the complaint. We have seen how the BBC failed to address allegations of abuse about Jimmy Savile. His victim’s claims were conveniently ignored because of who people perceived Savile to be. The victims like HG were deemed to be trouble makers, but now it has been established that Savile was guilty, those who dealt with the initial allegations are now conveniently apologising for their “mistakes.” What a let off. What about the victims?

Jersey is so concerned about the reporting mechanism that in the impending Historic Abuse Inquiry that issue is part of the Terms of Reference. Yet it appears that the Dean’s handling of HG complaint can be dismissed by way of an admission that it was a mistake along with an apology which has not been given to HG. However was the complaint not dealt with properly because of whom the Church Warden was or was it a genuine mistake? Will the Visitation provide an answer?

HG is now being demonised because according to some people she has made a similar complaint before. I understand that allegation has no substance however if it was true, that does not deny her or anyone else being treated fairly when making a similar allegation. The Dean’s problem is not that he is the abuser but that he failed to address the matter in a professional way to which he has now accepted and apologised. So it matters not who the complainant is.

What has been forgotten is that it was not only the Dean who failed HG but so did the former Bishop of Winchester and the failures have had serious repercussions for her. In her quest for justice she did make regular email contact with both men, however to solve their problem HG was arrested early on a Sunday morning taken to the police station and detained overnight before appearing in court and being remanded in custody for two weeks. In previous Blogs I have mentioned the arrest and that I have asked the Chief Minister to instigate an investigation. Given the Dean’s admission to his failings surely HG is entitled to a review of her arrest and conviction.

Once I have further information about the arrest I will publish another Blog on the arrest. What is now is now evident is that after being convicted, HG was placed into a police car which called at her lodgings, she was not allowed to collect her belongings but was left in the car whilst a police officer collected some of her clothing before driving her to the airport and putting her on a plane. She arrived in Southampton in the dark with no support or friends to meet her. This is the way Jersey treats people who make abuse complaints. 

I heard Matthew Price on Radio Jersey this morning interviewing Bishop Dakin. Matthew repeatedly pressed the Bishop about HG’s welfare and official apology but he would not be forthcoming, no wonder HG has any confidence in the Church of England. However to her credit she is willing to see John Gladwin. I hope she fares better with that former Bishop.

For the convenience of new readers my 3 previous Blogs on the Dean’s suspension can be accessed by clicking onto the websites below.

Friday, 22 March 2013The Dean, Bishop and Good Shepherds, Fact or Fiction?

Wednesday, 3 April 2013The Dean---- And a Voice in the Wilderness 
 
Monday, 22 April 2013Jersey's Dean and the Victim's Tale