Once again, well done. People who are traumatised through past abuse need to be helped with their trauma. Encouraging them to feel angry and punitive hinders the healing process. Changing the world so that nobody ever gets abused is an important part of the great moral task facing all society, but takes a long time and is not helped by campaigns to demonise individual sinners. Richie Scutt, I am a clergyman with PTO and would love to know who is red flagging me.
Me too Jonathan but actually licensed lay minister in my case. I have spoken publicly in front of my Bishop so happy to defend myself. I can disagree with him and most insiders on this. I wasn't slow to criticise Archbishop Justin when I disagreed amd I won't hesitate to support a man maligned without throwing Newcastle and Co under a bus in return. Highly object to threat. Bishop Jonathan Gibb is holding an urgent learning day in April amd I welcome this. We need robust and genuine debate and not vicious and I'm sorry cowardly take downs based on outrage and red mist. The abused and victims of the institutional church are a different case and category that deserve understanding and redress but are not a prop for moral outrage and self-serving misdirection by senior leadership or ordinary clergy and lairy.
Thank you for bringing some clarity to a situation which has given rise to much misrepresentation to the situation as a whole and of ++Stephen in particular.
Tudor was an made an Area Dean which is post with pastoral and legal oversight of other clergy. He was also rewarded by being made an honorary Canon at Chelmsford Cathedral. Given his known record Cottrell could and should have reversed those decisions rather than wait till he offend again. Which given his record was inevitable. His promotion probably encouraged him to seriously damage for life another young person. No one has any confidence in Cottrell. He should go.
I agree he should not have been confirmed as area dean, nor canonised. But Cottrell was not waiting for Tudor to offend again. He was waiting for another victim of historical abuse to complain to the police. That's the whole point of my distinction between the two meanings of safeguarding.
We have no reason to believe that Tudor did in fact offend again. If he had done I think that the victim would have come forward in the present climate. So I don't think his record made that inevitable at all.
You’re making a huge assumption about victims here and vastly underestimate the cost of coming forward, let alone publicly.
And re safeguarding your two definitions (past and present) are inextricably linked as demonstrated by the very recent assessment of Tudor as somehow unlikely to re-offend.
Tudor settled with a complainant who says that as an 11-year-old girl she was forced to give him oral sex. He was never going to be safe in Essex. He was an egregious risk and I would be very interested to hear what information the Lucy Faithful Charity had been given at the time they made their assessment.
These kind of assumptions (crimes were committed a long time ago/ repentant sinner/ before he was married etc etc) have a huge bearing on current safeguarding.
Thanks for this assessment. I think you are right on the technicals. The question for many is whether someone who has showed little interest in pressing for reform *for ten years* when in a diocese is the right person who can credibly lead reform now.
If the Archbishop of York were to resign*, we would still need another interim ABC until 2026. Would you consider the Bishop of London sufficiently credible to lead reform in the mean time? Or, if she were then defenestrated in turn, the Bishop of Winchester? Or would you be pushing for someone else to take over as acting ABC?
The reforms that we now have in place that means Tudor would not have been allowed to return to ministry, and every aspect of the case would be different. And how can one claim the situation was 'intolerable' when renewing the Area Dean licence and giving and honorific (which Guli immediately removed)?
Of course things are better done now than in 1986. But what, I wanted to know, were the reforms you'd like to see now which would have made the situation easier to deal with? Agree about the honorific canonry, and said so.
He should resign because of the terms of the recent letter he wrote to the Bishop of Newcastle. He made it clear he does not take safeguarding seriously.
Tempted to sue for defamation regarding your comments on Makin. Didn’t bother to read this but making sure that we monitor your comments field and also make sure that anyone with PTO in the UK who supports you is red flagged. You’re a danger to the church survivors and our families and should hang your head in shame.
That hypothetical bishop? Been vocal lately has she?
Once again, well done. People who are traumatised through past abuse need to be helped with their trauma. Encouraging them to feel angry and punitive hinders the healing process. Changing the world so that nobody ever gets abused is an important part of the great moral task facing all society, but takes a long time and is not helped by campaigns to demonise individual sinners. Richie Scutt, I am a clergyman with PTO and would love to know who is red flagging me.
Me too Jonathan but actually licensed lay minister in my case. I have spoken publicly in front of my Bishop so happy to defend myself. I can disagree with him and most insiders on this. I wasn't slow to criticise Archbishop Justin when I disagreed amd I won't hesitate to support a man maligned without throwing Newcastle and Co under a bus in return. Highly object to threat. Bishop Jonathan Gibb is holding an urgent learning day in April amd I welcome this. We need robust and genuine debate and not vicious and I'm sorry cowardly take downs based on outrage and red mist. The abused and victims of the institutional church are a different case and category that deserve understanding and redress but are not a prop for moral outrage and self-serving misdirection by senior leadership or ordinary clergy and lairy.
Thank you for bringing some clarity to a situation which has given rise to much misrepresentation to the situation as a whole and of ++Stephen in particular.
Thank you for your clear thinking, as ever.
Tudor was an made an Area Dean which is post with pastoral and legal oversight of other clergy. He was also rewarded by being made an honorary Canon at Chelmsford Cathedral. Given his known record Cottrell could and should have reversed those decisions rather than wait till he offend again. Which given his record was inevitable. His promotion probably encouraged him to seriously damage for life another young person. No one has any confidence in Cottrell. He should go.
I agree he should not have been confirmed as area dean, nor canonised. But Cottrell was not waiting for Tudor to offend again. He was waiting for another victim of historical abuse to complain to the police. That's the whole point of my distinction between the two meanings of safeguarding.
We have no reason to believe that Tudor did in fact offend again. If he had done I think that the victim would have come forward in the present climate. So I don't think his record made that inevitable at all.
You’re making a huge assumption about victims here and vastly underestimate the cost of coming forward, let alone publicly.
And re safeguarding your two definitions (past and present) are inextricably linked as demonstrated by the very recent assessment of Tudor as somehow unlikely to re-offend.
Tudor settled with a complainant who says that as an 11-year-old girl she was forced to give him oral sex. He was never going to be safe in Essex. He was an egregious risk and I would be very interested to hear what information the Lucy Faithful Charity had been given at the time they made their assessment.
These kind of assumptions (crimes were committed a long time ago/ repentant sinner/ before he was married etc etc) have a huge bearing on current safeguarding.
Thanks for this assessment. I think you are right on the technicals. The question for many is whether someone who has showed little interest in pressing for reform *for ten years* when in a diocese is the right person who can credibly lead reform now.
If the Archbishop of York were to resign*, we would still need another interim ABC until 2026. Would you consider the Bishop of London sufficiently credible to lead reform in the mean time? Or, if she were then defenestrated in turn, the Bishop of Winchester? Or would you be pushing for someone else to take over as acting ABC?
*which I do not think he should
What reform should he have been pressing for? Who, if anyone, was then pressing for a reform of the CDM?
The reforms that we now have in place that means Tudor would not have been allowed to return to ministry, and every aspect of the case would be different. And how can one claim the situation was 'intolerable' when renewing the Area Dean licence and giving and honorific (which Guli immediately removed)?
Of course things are better done now than in 1986. But what, I wanted to know, were the reforms you'd like to see now which would have made the situation easier to deal with? Agree about the honorific canonry, and said so.
He should resign because of the terms of the recent letter he wrote to the Bishop of Newcastle. He made it clear he does not take safeguarding seriously.
Tempted to sue for defamation regarding your comments on Makin. Didn’t bother to read this but making sure that we monitor your comments field and also make sure that anyone with PTO in the UK who supports you is red flagged. You’re a danger to the church survivors and our families and should hang your head in shame.
You really didn't need to say the quiet part quite so loud. But now you've made your point (and mine) I'll ban you if you comment again.