logo
Church vote on safeguarding ‘a punch in the gut for survivors'

Church vote on safeguarding ‘a punch in the gut for survivors'

Yahoo11-02-2025

A Church of England vote which delays fully independent safeguarding has been branded a 'punch in the gut' for victims of abuse.
Representatives of survivors said the outcome was 'incredibly disappointing' and showed the Church had decided to 'keep it in the family'.
Victims had pleaded with the Church's parliament to endorse a new model which would have seen all Church-employed safeguarding officers transferred to a new independent body.
But the General Synod instead voted for a less independent model 'as the way forward in the short term' and for 'further work' to be done to implement the move to full independence.
The endorsed model (option three) would see most national staff move to a new outside non-Church body, but other diocesan and cathedral officers remaining with their current Church employers, although no firm timeline has been given for work to begin on this.
Synod voted 392 in favour, nine against and six abstained on the final motion.
Former chairwoman of the national Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (IICSA) Professor Alexis Jay, who previously led a review into church safeguarding, said the vote had been a missed opportunity to improve safeguarding.
After hours of debate at Church House on Tuesday, an amendment from Bishop of Blackburn Philip North was supported by a majority of Synod members.
Proposing it, he told those gathered: 'Option four (the more independent model) is eye-wateringly complex and will take years to implement, assuming it is implementable.
'No organisation has done anything on this scale before and during those years, not enough will change when the Church and the nation are demanding change now.'
He rejected the idea that it was a delay, saying 'the two processes can run concurrently, not consecutively so this amendment is about the very opposite of long grass'.
He added: 'Whilst we implement three, we can establish a definitive view on whether option four is legally deliverable.'
Speaking to reporters afterwards, he said Synod had voted 'almost unanimously for a far greater degree of independence in safeguarding, for independence of scrutiny, for a far-strengthened role for Dsaps (diocesan safeguarding advisory panels), to ask questions about how we address inconsistencies, to a stronger regional system, and about funding for safeguarding'.
Asked for his response to victims' reaction, the bishop said: 'I think what I would really worry about is making promises to survivors, to the nation, to the Church, that we couldn't then deliver.'
He said option four is 'still very much on the table' and will return to Synod 'in a form where we know that legally it can be implemented'.
That option would have seen all safeguarding officers currently working in dioceses, cathedrals and the national Church transferred to work for a new independent organisation.
The Church has been plagued by safeguarding controversies over the years, with a damning report into serial abuser John Smyth leading to the resignation of Justin Welby as archbishop of Canterbury.
His temporary stand-in, Archbishop of York Stephen Cottrell has also faced calls to quit over failures in handling abuse cases, and admitted this week the Church has 'failed greatly' on safeguarding.
Addressing Synod on Monday, he said he had 'long believed that greater independence is the missing piece in the safeguarding jigsaw'.
Backing model four, he told those gathered how he had 'lived with the constraints of the inadequacies of our processes and their lack of scrutiny and I think I may know more than most how inadequate and unsatisfactory this is, for me, but it's not about me, it's for victims and survivors who have been an continue to be hurt by our church because of this'.
The more independent model of safeguarding was also supported during the debate by Bishop of London Dame Sarah Mullally and Bishop of Leicester Martyn Snow, with the latter describing it as a 'cultural reset'.
Bishop of Newcastle Helen-Ann Hartley, who has been strongly critical of Church leaders including Mr Cottrell, said she had abstained in the final vote and felt 'really disappointed' by the outcome.
She told Sky News: 'I'm afraid what this looks like is that we're just kicking the can down the road and we are failing our duty to victims and survivors. And I'm really desperately sorry and quite angry about that.'
She said she felt there had been 'a certain amount of confusion and a bit of scaremongering I have to say among some of my colleagues about what would happen if we tried to go to complete independence'.
Among concerns Mr North laid out to Synod were a claim that the data upon which model four was based is disputed, that the option could present 'nightmareish law', and that 'large numbers' of independent safeguarding professionals had said the option 'could make the church less safe'.
Prof Jay told Times Radio: 'All of the events over several years have caused victims and survivors to become very disillusioned with the Church and this will do nothing to address the issue: the trust and confidence that needs to be restored.
'It's retaining control of safeguarding for whatever reasons, one of which could well be for the protection of reputation.
'The culture of the church facilitated it becoming a place where abusers could hide.'
Abuse lawyer David Greenwood, who stood in solidarity with victims outside the venue ahead of the vote, said the result was 'incredibly disappointing'.
He said: 'Many have worked hard on the attempt to bring full independence to the church safeguarding process.
'This vote represents a rejection of secular standards in safeguarding and will lead to children continuing to be at risk in the church.'
Andrew Graystone, a longtime advocate for abuse survivors, said the vote showed the Church had decided to 'keep it in the family'.
He said: 'If you are abused by a vicar, you will still be expected to report it to a bishop.
'Safeguarding staff will still be located in church offices, employed by the very same bishop.
'The Church of England had an opportunity to start to rebuild trust, by admitting that it needed expertise from outside.
'But instead they have chosen to keep it in the family.
'Shocking arrogance, and a punch in the gut for victims and survivors of abuse.'
Bishop Joanne Grenfell, the Church's safeguarding lead also expressed her regret, saying: 'I am disappointed that we have not done today, or we may not do today as much as we could've done today.
'We need radical change to both our culture and our structures.'

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

148 Democrats back noncitizen voting in DC as GOP raises alarm about foreign agents
148 Democrats back noncitizen voting in DC as GOP raises alarm about foreign agents

Yahoo

time2 hours ago

  • Yahoo

148 Democrats back noncitizen voting in DC as GOP raises alarm about foreign agents

The majority of House Democrats voted in favor of allowing non-citizens to participate in Washington, D.C. elections on Tuesday. The House of Representatives passed a bill led by Rep. August Pfluger, R-Texas, to prohibit non-U.S. citizens from voting in elections in the nation's capital. It passed 266 to 148, with 56 Democrats joining Republicans in passing the measure. One Democrat voted "present," while 148 voted against the bill. "I believe strongly in not having federal overreach, but we have jurisdiction, Congress has jurisdiction over Washington, District of Columbia…and we don't like to utilize our jurisdiction and our authority, but in this case, they've gone too far," Pfluger told Fox News Digital in an interview before the vote. D.C.'s progressive city council passed the Local Resident Voting Rights Amendment Act in 2022, granting non-U.S. citizens the ability to vote in local elections if they've lived in the district for at least 30 days. Scoop: House Gop Memo Highlights Republican Wins In Trump's 'Big, Beautiful Bill' Read On The Fox News App Noncitizens can also hold local elected office in the D.C. government. The local measure has been a frequent target of GOP attacks, with Republican national security hawks raising alarms about the possibility of hostile foreign agents participating in D.C. elections. But progressive Democrats like Rep. Maxwell Frost, D-Fla., who spoke out against the bill on Tuesday afternoon, have dismissed that as an implausible scenario. "Republicans claim that Congress has a constitutional duty to legislate on local D.C. matters, but this is historically and legally incorrect. Republicans legislate on local D.C. matters only when they think they can score political points, such as by demonizing immigrants," Frost said during debate on the House floor. "They only bring it up to the floor when they think they can score political points, taking away the democratic rights of people here in D.C. and home rule." Frost also argued that it was "highly unlikely" foreign officials would vote in those elections, claiming they would have to "renounce their right to vote in their home country" and because "D.C. has no authority in federal matters." But Pfluger, who spoke with Fox News Digital before the vote, was optimistic that it would get at least some Democratic support. He noted that 52 Democrats voted for the bill when it passed the House in the previous Congress. It was never taken up in the formerly Democrat-controlled Senate, however. "It's hard to go back to your district as a Democrat and say, yeah, I want foreign agents to be able to vote in our elections – 'Oh yeah, it's not federal elections,' some may say. But it has an impact on the way the city is run," Pfluger said. Meet The Trump-picked Lawmakers Giving Speaker Johnson A Full House Gop Conference "This could be Russian embassy personnel, they could be Chinese embassy personnel – a number of folks. It's just wrong. It goes against the fabric of our society," he added. Another bill receiving a vote on Tuesday is legislation that would grant D.C. police the ability to negotiate punishments via collective bargaining, and would help shield the capital's police force from at least some liability by installing a statute of limitations against the Metropolitan Police Department. That legislation was introduced by New York Republican Rep. Andrew article source: 148 Democrats back noncitizen voting in DC as GOP raises alarm about foreign agents

Trump reverses Army base names in latest DEI purge
Trump reverses Army base names in latest DEI purge

Yahoo

time2 hours ago

  • Yahoo

Trump reverses Army base names in latest DEI purge

President Donald Trump announced on Tuesday that he plans to revert the names of seven major Army bases back to the Confederate leaders for which they were originally named. 'We are also going to be restoring the names to Fort Pickett, Fort Hood, Fort Gordon, Fort Rucker, Fort Polk, Fort A.P. Hill and Fort Robert E. Lee,' Trump said. 'We won a lot of battles out of those forts, it's no time to change.' Trump's announcement, during a speech to soldiers at Fort Bragg, follows Biden-administration era alterations in 2023 that changed the installation names to honor new, non-Confederate individuals. Those included changing Fort Hood to Fort Cavazos, for the Army's first four-star Hispanic general. The Army previously redesignated Fort Liberty, previously known as Fort Bragg, to its original name, but honoring Private First Class Roland L. Bragg, a World War II hero instead of the Confederate general Braxton Bragg. The service also redesignated Fort Moore, after Gen. Hal Moore and his wife Julia Compton Moore, for Fred G. Benning, who won the Distinguished Service Cross during World War I. The Army is taking the same approach for the bases tapped for renaming on Tuesday, finding award-winning soldiers with the same last names as the Confederate leaders to name the bases after, according to a statement released by the service after the president's speech. The president gave no timeline for the name changes and it was not immediately clear whether the Army's bases would be renamed after Confederate leaders or soldiers from different eras. One army official, granted anonymity because they weren't authorized to speak, said they were caught off guard by the rapid-fire developments, which could take months to Army did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Though the Trump administration insisted the redesignations were in-line with laws that prevent the Pentagon from naming bases after Confederate leaders or battles, Ty Seidule, a retired Army brigadier general who was the vice chair of the Congressional Naming Commission, which is tasked with relabeling bases and U.S. military assets, said that Trump's decision went against the spirit of the new rule enacted after the George Floyd protests. 'The bottom line is he's choosing surname over service,' said Seidule, who's now a visiting professor at Hamilton College. 'It is breaking the spirit of a law that was created by the will of the American people through their elected representatives.' Seidule said that the commission, which was made up of three Republicans, one Democrat and four retired flag officers, spent 20 months seeking input from the public and got 33,000 responses to change the names of Army bases and other installations and assets named after Confederates, including several U.S. Navy ships. But he said the decision still reflected that the Trump administration 'realizes that Confederates chose treason to preserve slavery, and they are unworthy of having bases named for them in America in 2025.' On Tuesday, Trump criticized Biden at several points during his speech, which was full of asides about immigration, transgender Americans and the spending bill currently being debated in Congress. His political comments in front of hundreds of soldiers from the 82nd Airborne Division led to a smattering of boos from the mostly uniformed audience when he criticized former President Joe Biden. Audience members also jeered when Trump mentioned California Gov. Gavin Newsom, whom the president clashed with over protests in California that were sparked by the Trump administration's immigration raids. Presidents normally avoid giving political speeches to military personnel. 'Do you think this crowd would have showed up for Biden,' Trump said at one point in his remarks. 'I don't think so.' 'We will liberate Los Angeles and make it free, clean and safe again,' Trump said, claiming parts of the city are under the control of international criminal gangs. The president has ordered 4,000 California National Guard soldiers and 700 Marines to Los Angeles, though so far only about 300 guardsmen have entered the city. The Marines are positioned outside Los Angeles, where they're undergoing training on crowd control, said one defense official who was granted anonymity because they were not authorized to speak to the media. The move to rename Army bases comes just days after Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth moved to relabel a Navy vessel named after gay rights activist Harvey Milk as well as other ships named after civil rights leaders and women. Seidule, the retired Army brigadier general who served on the Biden-era naming commission, said that Trump's decision creates the risk that future administrations could take turns renaming the Army's bases. 'What happens if some other administration would name something after someone that one party thinks is just absolutely beyond the pale,' said Seidule. 'I think that this could absolutely be a tennis match.' Sam Skove contributed to this report.

Trump reverses Army base names in latest DEI purge
Trump reverses Army base names in latest DEI purge

Politico

time4 hours ago

  • Politico

Trump reverses Army base names in latest DEI purge

President Donald Trump announced on Tuesday that he plans to revert the names of seven major Army bases back to the Confederate generals for which they were originally named. 'We are also going to be restoring the names to Fort Pickett, Fort Hood, Fort Gordon, Fort Rucker, Fort Polk, Fort A.P. Hill and Fort Robert E. Lee,' Trump said. 'We won a lot of battles out of those forts, it's no time to change.' Trump's announcement, during a speech to soldiers at Fort Bragg, follows Biden-administration era alterations in 2023 that changed the installation names to honor new, non-Confederate individuals. Those included changing Fort Hood to Fort Cavazos, for the Army's first four-star Hispanic general. The Army previously redesignated Fort Liberty, previously known as Fort Bragg, to its original name, but honoring Private First Class Roland L. Bragg, a World War II hero instead of the Confederate general Braxton Bragg. The service also redesignated Fort Moore, after Gen. Hal Moore and his wife Julia Compton Moore, for Fred G. Benning, who won the Distinguished Service Cross during World War I. The Army is taking the same approach for the bases tapped for renaming on Tuesday, finding award-winning soldiers with the same last names as the Confederate generals to name the bases after, according to a statement released by the service after the president's speech. The president gave no timeline for the name changes and it was not immediately clear whether the Army's bases would be renamed after Confederate generals or soldiers from different eras. One army official, granted anonymity because they weren't authorized to speak, said they were caught off guard by the rapid-fire developments, which could take months to Army did not immediately respond to POLITICO's request for comment. Though the Trump administration insisted the redesignations were in-line with laws that prevent the Pentagon from naming bases after Confederate leaders or battles, Ty Seidule, a retired Army brigadier general who was the vice chair of the Congressional Naming Commission, which is tasked with relabeling bases and U.S. military assets, said that Trump's decision went against the spirit of the new rule enacted after the George Floyd protests. 'The bottom line is he's choosing surname over service,' said Seidule, who's now a visiting professor at Hamilton College. 'It is breaking the spirit of a law that was created by the will of the American people through their elected representatives.' Seidule said that the commission, which was made up of three Republicans, one Democrat and four retired flag officers, spent 20 months seeking input from the public and got 33,000 responses to change the names of Army bases and other installations and assets named after Confederates, including several U.S. Navy ships. But he said the decision still reflected that the Trump administration 'realizes that Confederates chose treason to preserve slavery, and they are unworthy of having bases named for them in America in 2025.' On Tuesday, Trump criticized Biden at several points during his speech, which was full of asides about immigration, transgender Americans and the spending bill currently being debated in Congress. His political comments in front of hundreds of soldiers from the 82nd Airborne Division led to a smattering of boos from the mostly uniformed audience when he criticized former President Joe Biden. Audience members also jeered when Trump mentioned California Gov. Gavin Newsom, whom the president clashed with over protests in California that were sparked by the Trump administration's immigration raids. Presidents normally avoid giving political speeches to military personnel. 'Do you think this crowd would have showed up for Biden,' Trump said at one point in his remarks. 'I don't think so.' 'We will liberate Los Angeles and make it free, clean and safe again,' Trump said, claiming parts of the city are under the control of international criminal gangs. The president has ordered 4,000 California National Guard soldiers and 700 Marines to Los Angeles, though so far only about 300 guardsmen have entered the city. The Marines are positioned outside Los Angeles, where they're undergoing training on crowd control, said one defense official who was granted anonymity because they were not authorized to speak to the media. The move to rename Army bases comes just days after Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth moved to relabel a Navy vessel named after gay rights activist Harvey Milk as well as other ships named after civil rights leaders and women. Seidule, the retired Army brigadier general who served on the Biden-era naming commission, said that Trump's decision creates the risk that future administrations could take turns renaming the Army's bases. 'What happens if some other administration would name something after someone that one party thinks is just absolutely beyond the pale,' said Seidule. 'I think that this could absolutely be a tennis match.' Sam Skove contributed to this report.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store