Leeds Diocese Safeguarding, Past Case Review 2, A whitewash

The Church of England, Safeguarding, Past Case Review 2

There is a strong possibility that safeguarding cases involving bellringers have never been reviewed, hence adjustments to future Safeguarding Policies will not take those cases into account.

I believe that the Past Case Review is actually just a mere whitewash and a “backslapping” exercise.

In The Leeds Diocese, the PCR2 Review has been very constrained in the limited number of files that were made available to The Independent Reviewers. The protocols issued originally have been ignored.

I have a serious concern that the submission to the Archbishop’s Council from The Leeds Diocese has serious omissions that were never identified to the Independent Reviewers.

Here is the massive point that, possibly, thousands of concerns ( about volunteers) would not have been made available to the Independent Reviewers (IRs).
This is contrary to the requirements of Protocol and Practice Guidance Past Cases Review 2 (PCR2) Issued July 2019.
I understand the reasons of personal information legalities, however there was nothing in the Leeds Diocese's Terms of Reference to approach any of the thousands of none C-COs for their permission to allow their personal information to be available to the IRs.
Also, while the Leeds Diocese declare 2085 files to be reviewed, they do not declare how many excluded concern files exist.
Hence there may be many employees and volunteer leaders whose files have not been reviewed.
Typically, Youth Group leaders, Bellringing Tower Captains, Choir Masters, Sport teams, Festival organisers, Mother/baby group leaders, Inter-denominational worship projects and many more; all taken as none-C-COs.
Extrapolating that nationally that could be thousands of files.

Are all these innocent incidents, or could there be some dangerous individuals afoot ????

It would be easy to dramatise this by using Jimmy Savile as an example of a person whom the Leeds Diocese would not have included in The Review, although case files would have existed.

Hence I conclude that the submission by The Leeds Diocese does not meet the requirements of Protocol and Practice Guidance Past Cases Review 2 (PCR2) Issued July 2019 and should be rejected.

The Leeds Diocese submission is nothing more than a whitewash and "back slapping" exercise.

Additionally, the submissions from other Diocese should be assessed for compliance.

Are bellringers safe ??? Who knows ???

Further information can be found at

The Church of England Past Cases Review 2

The Leeds Diocese Past Cases Review 2

Tower Captain as a Church Officer

This is another issue where the Leeds Diocese does not comply with The Bishops Guidance, which clearly defines a Church Officer as "A church officer is anyone appointed/elected by or on behalf of the Church to a post or role, whether they are ordained or lay, paid or unpaid."

This is Parliamentary legislation.

However

It's the wording "appointed/elected or on behalf of" that is not being understood.

In a recent email letter from Jonathan Wood, Chief Executive Officer of the Leeds Diocese has written to me to say "Everyone is covered by safeguarding, however the definition of a church officer does not by default include Tower Captain (or many other roles which people undertake).". I believe that statement to be completely wrong.

I have approached my Rector for clarification, and although I have been Tower Captain for around 7 years, there seems to be no record of me being “Appointed”. That has been corrected as the PCC have recently “Appointed” me as Tower Captain.

I have emailed Jonathan Wood regarding my appointment and receive a response “I'm not prepared to engage in this discussion....”. Hence things are not that simple. Something needs to be discussed.

All this raises an important question; Where do Tower Captains stand as regards "Safeguarding? My attitude has become, EXTREMELY CAUTIOUS.

I feel the PCR2 Review should have incorporated some review of how the Bishop's Guidance is being interpreted in every Diocese. ?