Thanks for posting this - always brave to go against the grain!
For me the most unfair paragraph in Makin is 14.3.47:
"The Bishop of Ely’s Safeguarding Adviser responded to an email from a victim stating she had no authority over the South African authorities. While this is true, it demonstrates a lack of persistence to ensure that follow up had taken place to prevent further harm by the abuser. Any report of suspected abuse or safeguarding concern should be actively pursued until safety is ensured - that would have been expected to be the case in 2013."
Oh that any of us had the power to ensure safety...
One other thing puzzles me. Did anyone from Channel 4 News alert the police when Cathy Newman confronted Smyth in 2017? He was in the country and they had an opportunity to question him under caution. It seems that this did not happen (Para 14.3.71) - why didn't this happen? Should it have happened??
Thanks for that. I had been struck by that paragraph too, and wanted to quote it. But my memory failed me, and I was searching for "assured" and even "assurance" rather than "ensured". It is exactly the attitude that sparked this post.
From my own experience the police are not interested unless you have a taped confession and video evidence of the offence. Historically they were not interested in abuse, then, when they did take up matters the victims were often left deeply traumatised by the process.
There seems to have been lots of contacts with police .. but no follow up.
The enquiries and investigations so far are not by the police - and yet Makin was now suggesting those who didnt act appropriately or didnt do enough in his judgment should be investigated by the police.
Has anyone suggested looking at all these contacts with the police and finding out why nothing happened?
It couldnt be that being a lawyer, part-time judge frightened them off?
Thanks for posting this - always brave to go against the grain!
For me the most unfair paragraph in Makin is 14.3.47:
"The Bishop of Ely’s Safeguarding Adviser responded to an email from a victim stating she had no authority over the South African authorities. While this is true, it demonstrates a lack of persistence to ensure that follow up had taken place to prevent further harm by the abuser. Any report of suspected abuse or safeguarding concern should be actively pursued until safety is ensured - that would have been expected to be the case in 2013."
Oh that any of us had the power to ensure safety...
One other thing puzzles me. Did anyone from Channel 4 News alert the police when Cathy Newman confronted Smyth in 2017? He was in the country and they had an opportunity to question him under caution. It seems that this did not happen (Para 14.3.71) - why didn't this happen? Should it have happened??
Thanks for that. I had been struck by that paragraph too, and wanted to quote it. But my memory failed me, and I was searching for "assured" and even "assurance" rather than "ensured". It is exactly the attitude that sparked this post.
Who is the "Graham" referred to in the final paragraph?
One of the most prominent survivors. See the long Conway blog.
Very thoughtful responses
From my own experience the police are not interested unless you have a taped confession and video evidence of the offence. Historically they were not interested in abuse, then, when they did take up matters the victims were often left deeply traumatised by the process.
There seems to have been lots of contacts with police .. but no follow up.
The enquiries and investigations so far are not by the police - and yet Makin was now suggesting those who didnt act appropriately or didnt do enough in his judgment should be investigated by the police.
Has anyone suggested looking at all these contacts with the police and finding out why nothing happened?
It couldnt be that being a lawyer, part-time judge frightened them off?
Indeed. What Makin is suggesting amounts to getting the police to mark their own homework. Of course they will discover that the bishop ate it.