Church of England rejects fully independent safeguarding
The governing bodies of the Church of England rejected a completely independent model of protection to deal with cases of abuse.
Instead, Synod members describe an alternative proposal as “a short-term forward” before moving to full independence in the future.
But child safety expert Professor Alexis Jay called for a completely independent model, which he called the decision “very disappointing” and “destructive” for victims and survivors. of”.
The vote took place during the turbulent times of the church, which was the resignation of the former archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby, who handled abuse cases and criticism of Archbishop York Stephen Cottrell.
Mr. Cotrell, who served as interim head of the church, said he supported “protecting independence” and was “disappointed” and would now take place “two phases.”
He added that he would “fully commit” to “implementing Synod’s decision and achieving that goal”.
The church has been accused of failing in its way of handling cases of sexual and physical abuse spanning decades and has reviewed its safeguards process.
The conference committee is expected to vote on a model proposed by Professor Alexis Jay and barrister Sarah Wilkinson, who previously chaired the National Investigation on Independent Child Sexual Abuse.
However, after amendment, there was no vote on the model supported by Professor Jay (proposed to create a conservation institution that is completely independent of the church) and no vote on Wilkinson’s proposal.
This will allow the church to establish an independent central conservation team – but the conservation officials of the parish and cathedral continue to play the same role.
The alternative model will also make the church independent of the church organization among conservation officials across the country.
Given that the church has attracted turbulent and negative attention in recent months after the massive abuse scandal, adopting a more ambitious model is undoubtedly an opportunity to convey a clear message that it is indeed very serious to make the church more A safe place.
Throughout the debate, many of the many chambers—including Mr. Cotrell, who was under pressure and censored himself, begged the chamber to take up the opportunity.
Earlier, Professor Jay had The church says that if a more independent system is not adopted, the church may be in a crisis further To ensure people’s safety.
Speaking to the BBC’s news post-vote, Professor Jay said: “This will have a devastating impact on victims and survivors, and their trust and confidence will never be restored due to the outcome of the decision.
“In fact, it’s more likely to alienate them.”
Some opponents of the more independent protection model say they are just worried that it will not be implemented.
Bishop of Blackburn Philip North – Reduced the amendment to a pre-conventional option and believed that simpler models could be implemented faster.
He described the alternative as “striking complexity” and said it could take years to implement when the church and nation “now demand change.”
He added that despite the changes implemented by the church – a completely independent model remains “to a large extent” in the long run.
But at this crucial church pivotal moment, optics that make as ambitious as possible promises may be much better than they end up with.
Instead, their church doesn’t seem bold – but with the promise they will do better in the future.
The campaigners strongly condemned the vote, calling for a radical change in how the church handles abuse.
Lucy Duckworth of the Survivor Trust told BBC News: “It’s a devastating blow, not only the victims and survivors of paper abuse, but for today’s One million children attended by 4,600 schools under the power of the Church of England.
“It is a shameful disregard for the lifelong suffering caused by employees and clergy.
“I am very disappointed, both as a survivor of instrumental abuse, as well as a campaigner and policy adviser representing survivors.”
Andrew Graystone, a victim and survivor advocate, said the decision to reject a completely independent model of protection was “the gut of victims and survivors who abused the church and accused church leaders of “shocking” the arrogance.”
