My report on the SCIE Lambeth Palace report

 10/03/2023

Dear Scie and Jasvinder Sanghera, cc Lambeth Palace,

I am writing in response to the SCIE report on Lambeth Palace, 

It's not a good report and it will not make any difference to safeguarding. Reports by SCIE have proven to be shows to make no difference to the ongoing failure of safeguarding in the Church of England. SCIE essentially are simply making money off the Church of England, and despite all their overflowing professions of 'excellence in safeguarding', when they were contacted by a victim during their previous investigations, who told them that her life was being put in direct danger by Lambeth Palace and the Diocese responsible for her abuse, as they tried to silence her, SCIE, with a duty of care and duty of conscience, failed to act. They knowingly looked on as the Church of England, up to Justin Welby personally, essentially assassinated an abuse victim. 

The 'selection' of victims in the 'reports' carried out by and for the Church of England tend to be 'the usual group' who are known to silenced victims as 'The Stockholm Syndrome Crowd' or 'Groupies' among other names, and prominently feature victims of John Smyth and Peter Ball. Unfortunately, these victims do not represent the full range of victims who Lambeth and the NST and Diocese's forcibly silence, threaten, make accusations against. The Stockholm Syndrome militant victims who are used as 'case studies' for reports and who sometimes call themselves 'The House of Survivors' which is rather arrogant, do not represent the full range of survivors, and indeed some of this group have abused and harmed other victims themselves. 

The victim who I mention as an assassination victim by the church, with Justin Welby himself personally involved in that assassination, was set upon by some of these victims acting on behalf of the Church of England as most of them are enmeshed in the C of E despite their protests against it, their efforts on behalf of the church nearly caused the victim's death in 2017 when they lured her to Canterbury, bullied and insulted her and set upon her on behalf of the NST and also called the police against her without charge or genuine reason and significantly, lying to the police and wasting their time - she showed the police some of their lies on paper and the police left but she made a police complaint and then nearly committed suicide, an outcome very obviously much wanted by the NST who themselves had made quite a serious effort against her. 

The victim was innocent of any misdoing at Canterbury and there was no charge the police could bring, much to the dismay of the NST and their Stockholm Syndrome victims. The victim had been duped into thinking she was part of a 'large' peaceful protest against the state of Church of England safeguarding. Those involved will be among those used in the SCIE report, and their opinion and not the wider opinion and more realistic view, is what influenced the report. The 'Stockholm Syndrome Crowd' are essentially skewing the reality of reports and standing in the way of the true picture. Two of the Stockholm Syndrome group involved were Andy Morse and Mat Ineson, there is no doubt that despite their abuse of another very vulnerable victim and on behalf of the church, their opinion will be on the reports. This is a safeguarding issue that SCIE have consistently hidden because their reports, essentially PR for the Church in return for a sizeable lump sum, are reports of omission, so rather than being about 'fact', they are about...'Oh it's terrible but it's PR, it keeps the C of E in the news so that Mr Welby and his colleagues can keep up their handwringing, apologies and pretending things are going to change'. In order for things to change, the omissions have to be exposed to the light. SCIE aren't going to expose the omissions to the light, they are paid not to, and their report was delayed considerably by legal challenges from Lambeth Palace to protect people investigated, Justin Welby and William Nye, for example.

The report's omissions exclude the Archbishop's very open jeopardizing of a safeguarding case, the one involving the vulnerable adult who I mentioned. The evidence is still out there, of the Archbishop, during investigations, stating publicly that the wrongdoers involved were innocent, during, not after, the investigations. The investigations were very openly conflicted whitewashes, so while SCIE suck the Archbishop's toes in their report, burbling about him being moral authority, they are very well aware of this matter as it was raised with them by the victim during their previous report. Essentially there should be an investigation into the shortcomings of SCIE's investigations. The Archbishop himself is not a moral authority, he gives most of his time and energy to advertising himself as some kind of independent superstar and also pushing his World Economic Forum agenda, and despite constant criticism from many thousands of people in the UK and worldwide, he refuses to resign, and presumably wants the final vanity act of the Coronation before he goes. SCIE's comments on the Archbishop's consistent confliction of his own broadcasts and headlines are too mild considering, and reality is that he lies to the press, and so do his Bishops. Constant examples of this occurred during the case where he and the disgraced Bishop of Winchester publicly assassinated a vulnerable adult. 

A notable thing about the Winchester assassination case is that there has still been no effort by Lambeth Palace, to this day, to stop disinformation about the case and defamation and slurs of the vulnerable adult resulting from the media war and it continues to the this day, with the abusive Peter Ould and Gavin Ashenden, who personally attacked and harmed the victim still slurring her despite complaints to the C of E and Lambeth Palace over the years, both men by their behaviour, are a significant safeguarding risk who have not been placed under regulation by the Church of England, nor were they curbed in publishing hate and defamation. Reports by SCIE are notable for their omissions, including this victim's interactions with Lambeth Palace about the damage. Indeed, some of the damage done to the victim in the years of slurs against her were directly from Lambeth Palace, with the communications team's behaviour being extraordinarily vicious and underhand in the lies they broadcast - this, and other acts of the Lambeth Palace team - are extraordinarily absent from SCIE's safeguarding audit - there is nothing that can explain this omission. The way the Lambeth Palace Communications team led a vicious, years long and of course publicly evidenced attack on a vulnerable adult on behalf of the Archbishop of Canterbury and Bishop of Winchester. SCIE, as ever, are silent on this, as they were silent on the victim crying to them for help when every authority closed ranks and aided the C of E, because every authority is conflicted by the C of E, another matter SCIE tend to ignore in their ‘lump sum for PR’ deals with the C of E, which, having been reported previously, shouldn’t have continued, SCIE are essentially acting as paid employees, of the C of E, and are not neutral and have been complained about, their omissions are too serious for them to be ‘safeguarding experts’, and Jasvinder should recommend that they are not commissioned to carry out any further reports until their omissions, partiality, and their safeguarding failure towards the assassination victim in 2018 are investigated.

While SCIE and Lambeth Palace communications dance, victims are still left in silence and anguished. While the PR continues and Mr Welby, hated by a nation for what he’s done to the church if not his damage to abuse victims, refuses to step down, victims are still saying ‘what about us? What about the terrible way the NST are still treating us?’ those who live to say it, and presumably SCIE isn’t going to carry out a report into the impact on lives and the number of deaths caused by the C of E and Lambeth.

The very fact that Justin Welby lies in the press should indicate that he is untrustworthy to be overseeing safeguarding. He is asked by the government to bring his church in line with modern equality expectations and he makes it into a drama for the sake of the Anglican Communion, claiming he was forced and threatened and tries to make himself out to be a victim, he is no ‘moral authority’ to have his arse kissed by SCIE, he’s an untruthful manipulator, evidenced to have been dishonest and openly interfering in the Winchester assassination case, where the ‘reputation’ of the Trillion Dollar Island which funds his church was at stake, and also implicated in the other Winchester case, that of his friend, John Smyth. SCIE making this man out to be someone to be revered is SCIE essentially glorifying cover-up and condoning of abuse by those in positions of power. Too much of an omission, SCIE.

Lambeth Palace, they actually block the emails of victims and helpers reporting abuse, so do Bishopsthorpe, omitted from SCIE’s report, presumably the ‘Groupies’ don’t have this issue. LP also send round emails telling people to ignore the victims and implying that they are ‘insane’, this is not just Lambeth Palace, but a systemic C of E problem. I am reminded again of the Winchester assassination victim, because safeguarding protected the Bishop of Winchester and all authorities closed ranks, she contacted the clergy of the Diocese of Winchester, and Moira Murray told the clergy of the Diocese, aided by clergy members, to ignore the victim, that she was insane and in trouble with the police – the police acting on behalf of the Bishop to try to silence the victim. Funnily enough, the clergy themselves were outraged to be abused by the Bishop, these ‘normal’ clergy with families and stability, were happy to let the Bishop kill a very vulnerable adult on the advice of Moira Murray, and through public character assassination but not for the Bishop to bully them! And the Archbishop looked on and knew all of this, (You call this moral leadership, SCIE) especially what Murray her colleagues did to the victim, the Archbishop knew about this. Scie attempt to excuse the Archbishop but there is no excuse. SCIE have lost their credibility.

There is outrage about the Lambeth Report, people say it is a ‘damning report’ but it isn’t, it’s a whitewash. The reason it was delayed and subject to Lambeth Palace legal teams was it’s a whitewash. And SCIE will continue to aid Lambeth Palace and the Church of England in these whitewashes in return for lump sums and despite SCIE’s criminal errors of omission and safeguarding failures, and there’s no authority yet intervening, and part of the reason for that is because these fake reports with the hand wringing scripts are designed to deflect outside intervention, the lines go like this ‘We got a damning report, we can’t actually have a damning report if we aren’t honest and with integrity and opening the doors to let the light shine in!!!’ Yeah, right, it’s all a show. The doors aren’t open and light isn’t shining in, if that was the case, the Church of England would be as dead as a dodo but it’s the illusions that have been cleverly thought up which are currently holding the Church of England together, the reality-twisting PR which is becoming more and more incredible.

A thought for the day. Where a whitewash is carried out, it is carried out in place of an impartial, balanced and truthful report, which is why Welby keeps commissioning whitewashes. 

Let me give you an example of the incredible PR and the unquestioning public. The Bishop and Archbishop suspended the Dean of Jersey in 2013, as a PR stunt to pretend about safeguarding while publicly destroying the already homeless and destroyed victim, during the ‘investigation’ the Archbishop kept declaring the Dean innocent to keep the guardians of the Trillion Dollar Island happy because both the church and the royal family rely on that island and the offshore funds, however while the Archbishop was declaring the Dean innocent, he was undermining the victim as she was attacked by the press and strangers, he showed no concern for her except his usual fakery which involves crying over victims for press releases – SCIE? -  The whitewash reports continued and the Bishop was allowed to lie to the press and undermine the victim in order to hide the fact she’d taken an injunction against him and his conflicted reports, and what did the Archbishop have to say on it? And the NST? The Archbishop's communications team worked overtime to destroy the victim, on the orders of the Archbishop, to cover up a horrific and inexcusable act of violence by the Archbishop and Bishop by launching a whitewash into the press and having the victim publicly destroyed, the NST only became involved to try to silence the victim for the Archbishop, it didn't work and they used the police yet again to try to have her incarcerated as insane, no justice has been done, SCIE know, SCIE are a joke. 

SCIE took a lot of money to essentially do nothing in the Lambeth report, their silly questions about what could change are reminiscent of a school essay. And the same with Bishopsthorpe, the previous Archbishop of York was made aware of the Winchester case as the Archbishop of Canterbury was obviously deeply biased and entrenched, the former Bishop failed to act, and blocked the victim, he was last seen trying to use populism to play the racist card so he could arrogantly strut into the House of Lords. The current Archbishop of York the same, elected despite harming people and behaving in a foul manner, elected as Welby’s choice, he too decided he wanted to block his ears on the unresolved consistent injustice of the matter. And the thing with this case is, it is publicly evidenced in the years of press releases attacking and undermining the victim, it isn’t hidden or not known to the Archbishops and their staff and clergy, they openly played a part in covering it up. Of course it is a case that would take years and hundreds of thousands of words to explain and I won't live to do that.  

SCIE report 1.1-1.6. The report by SCIE is PR, both Lambeth Palace and SCIE are withholding information, so what is the point of publishing the report when it is not seen in full by the general public? SCIE should have listened to feedback in 2018 and assessed their own competence for being essentially involved in manslaughter by knowingly allowing abuse of a vulnerable adult to continue while aware of it. SCIE are enmeshed and protected the C of E, and are thus not suitable to be carrying out safeguarding reports for them. What will it take for the Church of England to be independently assessed and for the ‘bumbling incompetence’ label and apathy, acceptance of the fake ‘lessons learned’ nonsense to be overturned and the Church of England to be forcibly held to account and made to safeguard or disband. 1.17, this isn’t the case, SCIE are essentially making excuses for the Church of England.

The SCIE report give an impression of the situation at Lambeth being ‘chaotic’ rather than the core of ‘calculated’ cover-up and failure of victims which is what is really being experienced, and the report of course doesn’t cover Church House or indeed make a proper link. And while the SCIE report has been in waiting, we have seen the leader of the National Safeguarding Team attack victims and do the classic Lambeth Palace Communications Team twist in making the NST out to be victims while leaving the glaringly obvious ‘Why would victims be that furious with the NST?’ The Church of England’s classic and trademark duplicity twists shouldn’t be credible any more.

1.18 – 1.9 But Scie are not working ‘with you’, they’re working with the Stockholm Syndrome survivors who are enmeshed in the C of E – some of whom defend the C of E in one sentence and attack it in the next as the assassination victim experienced at Canterbury, and excluding victims such as the assassination victim who was in immediate danger because of the efforts of the C of E to silence her, SCIE are working for, a lump sum of money, they have debased themselves and are not credible. Their reports have made no difference and will make no difference, a PR report which scratches the surface is not change, it’s PR one side and money the other. SCIE are not producing something that will bring about change, and if they had an atom more conscience than their friends and employers in the Church of England, they’d be ashamed of themselves.

There is a notable absence of William Nye in the whole report, as a victim has pointed out to me, Nye is the brains behind the PR not safeguarding campaign and the destruction of victims who are a threat to the church by their persistence, how did Nye miss out on this? Although in all the jargon and acronyms, he's possibly mentioned, well-hidden and not exposed for his wrongdoing. 

‘The SCIE method doesn’t conclude finding with recommendations’, this isn’t a true structured report then, their employers in the C of E wouldn’t allow it? The ‘essay questions’ for Lambeth Palace are vague and silly and not professional. A lot of money was paid for the 'not structured report' with its essay questions. 

SCIE need to be aware of their errors in glorifying the Archbishop of Canterbury as a ‘Moral Leader’ as most of the church no longer see him as so, the current Archbishop sets himself up as a faux superstar, meddles in politics and plays the victim, he contradicts himself constantly, he has left the church in chaos, and thousands of people, possibly tens of thousands no longer see him as a credible figurehead, while many people have left and are leaving or unhappy with being part of the church of England, you are setting him up as ‘above reproach’ by making him out to be a moral leader without understanding the general feeling of the nation and others further abroad towards him, and also his part in safeguarding failures and harm to those who speak up, his own direct failure, and in the Smyth case, his lies about this. SCIE essentially create a scenario of the Archbishop and Lambeth that the communications team still hope the general public see and believe. It's not reality, this isn't a nice friendly approachable place, it's a fortress of corruption. 

It is horrifying to think of Welby callously essentially giving the order for the Winchester victim to be silenced, having overseen and being very aware of his communications team leading the press war that destroyed the victim, Welby’s press releases alone misled the general public and at no point did he stop the harm or correct it, safeguarding was the last thought in his mind and it's clear he doesn't even understand the term 'safeguarding', and while SCIE are well-paid mouthpieces and Jasvinder is trying to do the impossible and change safeguarding in the Church of England, SCIE should bow out, not just from employment by the church, but also from social care, and Jasvinder should make sure there is a public inquiry, one not conflicted by the C of E’s own police, judges, medical staff, social services and others who are relied on by the church to act for them in abuse cases. But I think Jasvinder will find that if polite whitewashes like SCIE's don't act as a rebuff and she continues to stand up to the church, it could get nasty. Melissa Caslake left church safeguarding because she wasn't allowed to help victims and her career was on the line for trying. The current lead, who attacks victims and makes the NST out to be the victims, by the way, has an interesting career behind him, of a month or two months with this and that organization, SCIE don't mention this stuff, hence I need to do this report in reply. 

In 2008, the assassination victim contacted Lambeth Palace and was rebuffed by Andrew Nunn, the Archbishop’s assistant, Nunn has never been disciplined and spouts proudly and falsely about all things Christian as a kind of media peacock, no shame, does SCIE’s report mention this, the damage to the victim by being denied justice by Nunn? No. 15 years later no one involved has been disciplined, not Nunn, not the clergy protecting the serial abusers What exactly do SCIE achieve with their toadying of the Archbishop and the ‘essay questions’ which aren’t addressed to anyone particular at Lambeth Palace and will thus be ignored. It’s such an open farce, like many of those led by Lambeth Palace communications, the emperor has been strutting about naked for a decade now.

Survivors were not contacted about the audit individually, just as there is no contact with survivors for the whitewashing of past cases by conflicted individuals, a matter that has been repeated but more recently with a pretence of including survivors and in fact just causing harm and distress all over again for many. ‘Handpicked’ is the key word, the Stockholm Syndromers, not those such as the Winchester assassination victim, who had a lot of contact with Lambeth Palace and experienced not incompetence but deliberate cover up, from Andrew Nunn to the communications team who she begged to stop harming her, to William Nye, Graham Tilby, Jane Dodds, Moira Murray, Caroline Venables and their associates at the palace, not incompetence or bad communication, deliberate harm.

1.2.7 The Archbishop’s idea of safeguarding is ‘Cover up at all costs and spew fake apologies and fakery about safeguarding all over the press, headlines totally at odds with victims’ experiences and which leave them screaming with anguish while proper safeguarding still isn’t carried out. It sounds like the response to SCIE was very narrow, and includes the Archbishop’s council, who, if Jasvinder doesn’t already know, engineer the horrific treatment of victims which is ongoing, and were part of the Winchester assassination.

‘1.2.9 In the weeks prior to the audit, as noted earlier, anyone who had experienced a safeguarding response from Lambeth Palace and who wished to contribute to the audit was invited to contact SCIE’. This isn’t the case, I wasn’t invited to come forward, neither was the Winchester victim, nor many others, this is simply deceit. Like the Jersey and Winchester conflicted whitewashes, this is a report designed for an outcome to suit the employers – Lambeth Palace, and the employees – SCIE.

Many were professionals in their chosen field of expertise. Keep in mind that former social workers and police officers employed to cover up for the Church of England in past cases whitewashes, whitewash reviews and also the terrible safeguarding leads who have come and gone are supposed to be ‘professionals in their chosen field of expertise’ and are used as such to conflict authorities and protect the C of E, so unfortunately that comment, typical church jargon, has little meaning in the context of this report and is a kind of superfluous ‘report speak’ nothingness comment.

1.2.10 Each individual had their own unique story to tell, and in some instances, this went back many years. Again, what is the point of this comment? How much of the report did Lambeth Palace legal team have to shoot down for SCIE to be adding irrelevancies to bulk up what is a weedy report at best, it is already widely known that victims of the C of E have been abused by Lambeth Palace for reporting abuse for years. This report, from the reading, could have been written in a matter of days, after Lambeth Palace shot the original down in flames.

1.2.11 Although some had lost their faith as a result of their experiences, and others had retained their faith but lost confidence in the Church of England, the majority were keen to emphasize that they wanted to contribute to positive change by the Church, to make it a truly safe place for victims and survivors. There was significant collective wisdom about the kind of changes they thought would help to achieve this. First bit irrelevant, second bit, the Stockholm Syndrome group desperately trying to crawl back into the C of E’s womb, not the experience of victims destroyed by the C of E. It's toadying, nothing else. 

The last paragraph of 1.2.11 is flannel again, this isn’t anything anyone doesn’t know, but it doesn’t include significant victims whose lives have been destroyed and who SCIE have excluded by their selective, of Lambeth’s selective choice of victims.

SCIE’s audits have made no difference to the way victims are treated, SCIE’s audits, despite SCIE’s awareness, have not let to major investigation into massive corruption which saw the Winchester assassination victim silenced or the way Kendal House victim Teresa Cooper has gone on being seriously harmed, SCIE appear to spend their whole audit trying to advertise themselves to potential clients, and like the church, are very self-satisfied, and yet their reports change nothing, their reports were a transaction which benefited them greatly and increased the public falsehood and PR around C of E safeguarding, that’s the bottom line of the bottom line in 1.2.13 onwards.

SCIE speak of other safeguarding investigations but fail to mention how Lambeth Palace were silent on the conflicts of interests of Baroness Butler-Sloss and Fiona Woolf as church officers while leading the IICSA, I wonder about SCIE, they are very inexperienced in the field of safeguarding, are they not? The IICSA was always compromised, and the Archbishops further wounded victims by their crass crowing apology BEFORE the report was released, it was just a tick box exercise and more falsehood. Why would any person in a position of authority apologize before the results of a report, and yet the fake apology and fake hand wringing grew so old that no one can believe either in reports commissioned by the C of E or in the ‘apologies’ which go on and on without any change.

SCIE like to use acronyms and initials without explanation, this is presumably to lose members of the public.

1.2.16. SCIE would do better to keep the whole report in English for the benefit of those who don’t understand garble. 1.2.17 Excuses - Others who had been recruited to their post during the past two years were new to their surroundings, despite having been in their role for some time. Either they knew their job or they didn’t. SCIE making excuses makes their ‘investigation’ worthless. 1.2.18 PCR2 was just concluding, an excuse for SCIE to not take in any information from cases, PCR2 was a whitewash that excluded victims deliberately like the first one, it was carried out, releasing private information and disinformation from the church at the expense of victims who were helpless and harmed, SCIE don’t know much about safeguarding so they don’t understand this, it is purely a publicity whitewash and does nothing, and I mean nothing, for victims.

At this point, I wonder, as I have victims of the church to support and they killed our friend, could I get a lump sum from Lambeth Palace for writing garble and misleading people, or rather, I could write the reality and if you look at the SCIE report, the garble, the excuses, it is a report full of holes, it is 78 pages of nothing and more damage to some victims.

During the time our friend contacted Lambeth Palace, she contacted every point of contact, the Bishop of Lambeth – several in a row have been reported to behave terribly towards victims, and the Archbishop’s staff, and many others, not a single one did anything effective, most ignored her, and like many persistent victims who don’t stop seeking justice and a voice, she had been labelled as ‘all ignore her, she’s nuts’ – SCIE’s report conveniently omits this horrifying systemic abuse that many victims who persist, for example Teresa Cooper, are subjected to in an attempt to silence them.

1.2.21 SCIE would be responsible for getting a proper submissions process running, and as they excluded many relevant victims and their stories, the national response being poor and thus making the report less balanced would be their responsibility, they could have extended the report, no wait, they had to do that anyway to rewrite it because of legal intervention by Lambeth. Translated, 1.2.21 is that no one dares to put their job on the line because like SCIE and the victims and the press and all authorities in the UK, no one who values their life challenges the Archbishop, all you have to do is look at their example, the Winchester assassination victim, who was mercilessly driven from her life and to death, ‘thus shall be done to anyone who says the emperor is naked’.

CDM files, no access, a major part of the audit missing.

1.2.23 The Stockholm Syndrome victims got to talk about John Smyth, they get significant coverage of their views through all channels, partly having been to a high fee paying school, they have money and power behind them while other victims are very often left with very little as a result of their abuse and have no voice. That’s not to minimise what Smyth did, nor what he was allowed to go on to do due to Welby, however, this is just part of Welby’s misconduct, and is part of the head of the church and the head of a whole system of these same cover-ups, if it’s okay for the Archbishop, it’s okay for his whole cohort, as you know, the Smyth case caused loss of life, and as you can imagine, some victims have never had a voice, having lost their lives directly or indirectly due to the officials in the church. SCIE have used this point 1.2.13 to wipe away a number of cases as a kind of afterthought.

The points from 2 onwards, neither myself nor any victim I know were asked to contribute to the review, SCIE were picky. Apparently sixty cases are the largest evidence base the church have, what exactly are SCIE on about, was that written after a bottle of scotch and are the general public supposed to believe it? The whitewash past case reviews supposedly contain more victims’ views? The public will be misled or confused. 2.1.3 is surprisingly accurate.

No matter what victims’ experiences, things aren’t changing, things won’t be seen to change until the hand wringing stops and a number of people admit responsibility and step down, Welby and Nye included, the failure begins with them, and those officials or clergy who try to stand up for victims or go against a rotten policy that works to protect the church’s reputation are likely to suffer for their efforts. The church remains obsessed with image above all else, even at the cost of vulnerable human lives.

SCIE were made aware that Macsas have been used to harm, defame and silence survivors on behalf of the Church of England, and that Macsas are an unregistered fake charity closely allied with the Stockholm Syndrome victims, indeed SCIE were made aware of very serious misconduct by Macsas with some of the most vulnerable victims who have been silenced by the church, our friend, the Winchester assassination victim and her friend included articles led by Macsas, defaming and discrediting her in one of her files, the church times published a number of hostile and untruthful attacks on the victim including one led by Macsas themselves. Macsas are a device of the Church of England, they are not a registered charity and they have systemically and repeatedly harmed victims.

Our friend’s experiences of Macsas included these: The decimating hate attack against her in the church times as part of a false report by Macsas themselves on victims, at no point did Macsas treat the victim as a victim when she was flung into the news in the horrendous misconduct by Justin Welby and Tim Dakin which was designed as a fake safeguarding stunt and went badly wrong, leading to years of press and media war and public lies. Previous to this, Macsas had misadvised the victim, trivialised her case and shown no understanding of it, aided the church in tracing her and defaming her and driving her from help when she was homeless on the streets due to the church destroying her for reporting abuse, and when the press and media war broke out due to Welby and Dakin’s idiocy, Macsas pestered her, manipulated people to try to trace her, maligned her to those helping her, and then stopped communication, realising the trouble they’d be in. However, they have strong links to the Stockholm Syndrome victims of Ball, Smyth and others, who are abusive to ‘lesser’ victims, and Macsas were a direct part of the attack on the Winchester assassination victim at Canterbury while she was still being destroyed by the public and incessant attack on her and the press war led by Lambeth and Winchester. A member of Macsas, drunk, approached the victim at Canterbury as she was set upon by his Stockholm Syndrome friends and rubbished her.

SCIE were made more than aware of the harm Macsas have done, and as a body of such standing as they have, SCIE must be aware that Macsas are not a registered charity but essentially a smoke screen, a tool of the C of E and their Stockholm Syndrome crowd. What would possess SCIE then to liaise with Macsas, knowing, and having access to evidence of, what Macsas have done? It makes SCIE and their report completely without credibility, Macsas are part of the problem, strongly linked to Lambeth and having been evidenced to harm, and the Winchester victim definitely did give SCIE this information, I have it on the records I hold, and I hold these aware that the C of E try to silence witnesses as well as victims through arrest and other forms of discrediting. Scie are trying to clean a kitchen floor with a toothbrush with their report, and for some reason they’ve put mud on the toothbrush by liaising with macsas and thus rubbishing victims who have suffered because of Macsas. Witnessing Macsas’ behaviour, it ranges between unprofessional and abusive. SCIE have wasted a lot of time and money and have caused hurt with their report and their inclusion of a fake charity geared to support the church and undermine victims when SCIE were made aware of what this ‘charity’ does. And of course they missed the experiences of Macsas’ victim off the report, and it was significant.

Section 3. The Archbishop is widely not considered to be a Christian, but an opportunist, pushing his own agenda, public feeling toward him is not good, and gets worse every time he has a ‘mental health’ type episode and says ridiculous things in the press and agitates people, hundreds of articles condemning him exist in smaller press such as ‘Conservative Woman’ and each of the many press stunts he does is answered by hundreds of people responding to condemn him in comments sections of online newspapers and media, he is not a spiritual voice for the nation, he is a someone who has cost the church the support of thousands of people. SCIE come across as ‘toe sucking’ in their description, because their description is not how the nation know this man, he is not a voice for most true Christians. And aside from his general unpopularity, he is a man who has protected abusers and harmed, even caused the death of victims, if that is what you describe as Christian or a Spiritual Voice then something is horribly wrong. The Archbishop of York is a second undesirable and abusive man who was chosen personally by the Archbishop of Canterbury, these people do not represent the nation or Christianity, and their deceit and bad behaviour is helping to kill faith in the UK.

SCIE decide at this point to explain the term NCI’s, which they have been using earlier in the report without bothering to explain. They then refer to the Archbishop of York or Canterbury in his ‘corporate capacity’, as well as SCIE not explaining this burble to the general public, how does that tie in with the claim of spiritual and Christian? The Church of England is a business, it is a corporation, a money making and PR using body, and Jesus turned the tables in the temple over because business was being done in the temple, the C of E has no validity as a Christian body and they have destroyed lives and are being excused by SCIE instead of forcefully disbanded, the people leaving in droves are disbanding the church slowly.

A better description of the synod is a club for the privileged. SCIE omit the abuse of the synod wherein questions and anything that the church doesn’t want the general public to know, are squashed and silenced, while a huge effort goes into making it a PR show, as SCIE know, the synod was used as a platform by the current head of the NST to attack and undermine victims and to warn victims off making contact, this was heartily approved by Justin Welby. My open letter relating to the matter was surprisingly popular but didn’t do much to counteract the damage done to victims, SCIE do not address this.

The Archbishop’s council is a body set up to protect the Archbishop from liability and to abuse their considerable power to silence victims, in this capacity they oversee the NST, it is unclear why a body such as SCIE cannot be transparent nor listen to victims on this. SCIE’s flannel is for the unsuspecting public and doesn’t relate to reality. The steering group and panel are a joke to survivors and do nothing to change the reality that under the archbishop’s council, no safeguarding is possible, hence the high turnover of poorly chosen safeguarding leads and the lack of change in safeguarding.

The IICSA was compromised, and was simply used as a show by Welby, as all reports on church abuse were, thus nothing changed. ‘Accepted in full’ by the church sadly didn’t mean any change, and any efforts to try to show that things have changed are a show for the public and those who might see and be alarmed at how bad things are. SCIE simply toadying the C of E again. The independent safeguarding board compromised themselves regarding the Martyn Percy case and haven’t been very credible, and along with the other numerous safeguarding inventions that are supposed to make the church look good, have not made any difference as yet to the rot from the top, and our friend is still gone, still suffered, and Justin Welby is one of the perpetrators, while SCIE toadies the perpetrators, all these fancy boards are of no worth. SCIE recording anything said at the synod is ridiculous as it is a PR show and one of the biggest outlets for the church’s press and media fake safeguarding campaign designed to pretend to government, the public and the ignorant within the church that all is rosy, the outburst by the head of the NST, which SCIE are shy to mention, is the real gauge of whether there is change. The interim support/redress scheme has been a farce and has been used to bully victims and also have access to their personal details such as whereabouts – our friend fled and hid from the church constantly and with the help of Macsas they kept tracing her and destroying her, so understand why the redress scheme is a joke, it’s been used to bully Teresa Cooper into serious illness and hospital admission, she has shared with many how she’s been treated and it’s evidenced.

Past cases review are a PR stunt which re-abuse victims and are carried out by conflicted people, no actions that have helped victims have come of these intrusions which exclude victims and leave them helpless, it is unclear why SCIE have run their review when their insight and understanding are so low and all they are doing is toadying the church.

It was made quite clear by victims that ‘safe spaces’ was a sick joke, it’s a puzzle why SCIE, having made such an effort to ‘include victims’ views’ have omitted this common view, and of course silenced victims, living in fear and hiding like the Winchester victim, had no access to this ‘resource’ anyway. The Safe Spaces farce was criticized in the press and media by victims, much to the Church’s mortification.

The Makin review is mentioned, isn’t that the one that is never published and has been ‘delayed’ for the same reason as the SCIE report?

Welby being mentioned as a Privy Councillor brings back memories, he abused all of his positions to silence the war that broke out over the Winchester victim, including that one. The Archbishop has no moral authority, he is known as a liar who contradicts himself frequently and publicly, and as the man who is destroying the church while he pushes his World Economic Forum agendas via his communications team and the press, it is an annoyance at least and a furious outrage to many, that he’s getting away with this. He is not seen as a Christian, a Christian leader or a man with credibility by any but the most naïve who think an archbishop ‘must be ‘ highly Christian, he has his speeches written for him, drones them out, using a lot of manipulation techniques, and sometimes makes them even worse by his use of PR stunts such as ‘giving his sermon from his kitchen, the most nauseating of stunts, but he seems unaware of the disgust he generates among the general public, he is blind to himself and that increases our disgust. He carries no moral weight whatsoever, but he does have power, and he does abuse that power and he does harm victims by abusing that power.

A man using his own daughter’s mental illness to get limelight for himself is not acquainted with morals.

SCIE go on from faking morality in the Archbishop to launch into another language, C of E acronyms, and then omit to tell anyone what they mean by BACY and OBACY, which you have to guess. They claim that the Bishop is new, there has been a Bishop at Lambeth blocking victims and ignoring safeguarding complaints for many years, Tim Thornton was exceptional at it, as was the female Bishop who left almost before she arrived, and it continues. Although SCIE mention numerous resignations and vacancies at Lambeth, they don’t discuss the high turnover, or staff being gone nicely in time for their report. There’s a lot of irrelevancies about Lambeth Palace in the report, like where it is, and most people know that, and how it gets instant armed response from the police who help the church to silence victims, while the victims get no help from the conflicted police. Every police force, every social services, every court in the UK is conflicted by the C of E, which isn’t something mentioned by SCIE despite victims sending them details. There will never be justice while the church, sitting in the house of Lords, interfering in matters not concerning them, abusing their power, using the police and other authorities, are above the law, so why do we need to know where Lambeth Palace is? SCIE bulked their report up with irrelevancy rather than making anyone accountable.

Question, if any company, and the C of E is a company, making money and pursuing aims, does a safeguarding audit, why would they splash it all over the press as if it was something to be proud of, no company I know of would make their safeguarding audit headline news, and then of course, LP are suddenly whining about ‘That’s a picture of safeguarding at the time of the audit’, of course it was, what exactly could it be otherwise? And if they mean things have improved, no they haven’t, and each toadying by SCIE, IICSA, the conflicted investigators and others ensure that nothing ever will improve, why do a real job if you can fake it with less effort? Who are SCIE addressing their ‘Questions for the Palace to consider’ to? And do they even slightly believe that anyone gives a damn? The questions asked should already be part of internal policy anyway, if they aren’t, why is SCIE wasting time auditing this place?

4.3.4 embodies everything the church of England are in hypocrisy, safeguarding failure and snobbery. Why would SCIE include such despicable rubbish in their report unless they truly have no understanding whatsoever of the vulnerable and of how the church of England work? Basically the church treat distressed people, especially their victims as nuts, Lambeth Palace in all its finery, would have a homeless person or an abuse victim locked up for turning up at their gates, and why does the Archbishop live in lavish style and get afforded the protection that a politician would have? Because he’s abusing the position of what should be the spiritual head of the nation to push his own agenda, and he is unaware of very simple parables such as Lazarus and the Rich man. The Archbishop should neither be protected nor deferred to, he should be seen as what he is, on the evidence and he should be removed and try a stint in the cells he has had victims and the vulnerable sent to. He is essentially above the law and SCIE have no choice but to grovel and kiss his arse otherwise they will be ruined. So their audit, like the others, is worthless, but they get the money, and that’s what matters to them.

Lambeth Palace, from SCIE’s description, is a business, it is little to do with religion although they have token ‘communities’ who also ignore safeguarding concerns raised with them by victims when all other staff at Lambeth Palace block or ignore the victims. A business which does so much damage to abuse victims and the vulnerable should not be operating, as victims have said of the wider church, an equivalent business would be closed down and there would be arrests, what makes these people at Lambeth so far above the law that the police are at their beck and call to repel and arrest anguished victims? SCIE seems keen to protect the poor church against the nasty abusive general public throughout points 4, which indicate their lack of understanding of what the poor little vulnerable church is, and how the lack of safeguarding and the harm to abuse victims is calculated and deliberate. It’s a very poor take by SCIE who appear to be of the same mind as the church, hence their liaison with the church’s macsas branch. Also the review should have waited until the palace was running as normal after the pandemic – ‘very few volunteers’, ‘staff not orientated’. Why is a business with billions in stocks using volunteers anyway?

SCIE have been told and decided to accept that volunteers are recruited with safeguarding in mind, and that the trainers of volunteers haven’t been trained. Did SCIE look into whether the Archbishop rehabilitates abuse victims who the church has had arrested and lets them have a fresh start as volunteers, or is volunteering at Lambeth only for the privileged? This report is so shallow, it doesn’t address the realities of the culture of Lambeth and the Church of England and at no point does it hold Lambeth, Welby or his associates accountable. It sounds like the certain people wanted some young male company in the palace, hence the communities, interesting, any end up dead in swimming pool?

 Have C of E safeguarding ‘policies’ made any difference whatsoever to the number of abuse cases? No, didn’t think so. I’d say from reading, that it’s a very vulnerable situation, especially considering the Archbishop’s involvement in abuse cases and the damage he has done, and the description of these ‘communities’ within Lambeth which supply a feed of foreign nationals, some of whom have been abused and damaged and who are essentially trapped there, a pervert’s paradise. I mean, the Archbishop’s idea of safeguarding is to have a vulnerable adult publicly destroyed in the press and then violently beaten by police when she still persists in asking for justice, SCIE are no authority and I am extremely concerned about the risk, all the waffle about Deans and safeguarding policy mean nothing in the context of what Deans and safeguarding policy have achieved or not, so far in the C of E. ‘Spiritual Companions’, yes it does sound like the old orphanages and industrial schools, and I am guessing that SCIE didn’t get to interview any of the inmates.

5.1 Responding to safeguarding contact, now our friend was ignored by the NST until the Bishop and Archbishop used them to try to coerce and silence her. She contacted Lambeth Palace and was answered by someone who claimed to be part of the NST and then when asked to action things to do with the situation, changed her mind and said she wasn’t part of the NST. It isn’t in SCIE’s report because they worked hard to silence the victim and sweep the matter under the carpet, along with the evidence and with the help of their friends at the C of E and Macsas, Macsas is essentially part of the C of E and is partially run by position holders in the C of E by the way.

5.1.3 Or rather, Lambeth don’t want the records of the Winchester victim begging for mercy to be found by SCIE or the Charity Commission or anyone else.

4.1.4 Or rather, the Archbishop frequently provokes victims to fury and distress as a result of his appalling behaviour in the press at the expense of victims, SCIE stop toadying.

SCIE sidesteps round the fact that the Archbishop can abuse his power and positions to interfere and influence the outcome of a case, and at the present time, with SCIE doing little more than brown-nosing, there is no sign of ultimate justice, the removal of the Archbishop’s infallibility.

‘The correspondence team is working through historical records from the webform to ensure that everything has been picked up and responded to appropriately, but the completion of this work is affected by the lack of capacity in this small team’ – let’s be choosy and avoid cases like the horrific public destruction of the Winchester victim, which hasn’t gone away just because huge force and power has swept it under the carpet, the carpet is a hill that no one can climb now. – and again, fantastic excuses from an inexperienced charity such as SCIE ‘The contact mailbox itself is not ‘owned’ by anyone, which meant that any items which were put into the ‘quarantine’ inbox could not be accessed. Having identified the issue, the Correspondence Manager has worked with IT colleagues to find a way of maintaining oversight and ensuring that nothing is overlooked’.

A Safeguarding Correspondence triage procedure, reviewed and updated by the LPSO in March 2022. – In March 2022, after years of serious failings, there’s no excuse. SCIE follow that with another ‘Poor victim Archbishop under threat’ thread. Never mind the victims he’s killed, SCIE, think about that lovely money you’re getting, and you might get a bonus if your nose goes up there far enough, the Archbishop is a criminal operating in plain sight and protected all round, from you to the conflicted police – who can go to the MET police with a complaint about the Archbishop? No one, because they act as his protectors, and that’s not in your report.

The remainder of 5 is a waffle which doesn’t reflect the way correspondence is actually handled, the horrible way victims are treated when they contact Lambeth and are referred back or ignored or blocked, made out to be mad, refused help etc.

5.1.14, on whose evidence? This isn’t true.

5.1.15 The poor systems and quality of record keeping pre 2019 was made worse by parameters set on the Palace inbox which filtered out and destroyed certain types of correspondence within a very short time. – Yes, a lot of correspondence and data was deliberately deleted to protect wrongdoers, I can write that more concisely than SCIE.

While the individual efforts of the current correspondence team are to be commended – don’t keep commending people who abuse survivors SCIE, you’ll have no credibility.

The auditors can’t assess the safeguarding triage affectively, now, what is this report about again? Ah, brown nosing a man who should be in prison. Yes, and if the Bishop of Winchester hadn’t decided to extend his abuse to his own clergy as well as the vulnerable adult he killed, he’d still be around to be brown nosed by SCIE.

My experience of raising the Winchester assassination the other year led to me being fobbed off to Tim Bonnet, who was not the relevant person for the matter, while the person I contacted, who didn’t want to know, was. The thing with SCIE is, they mainly just have the defendants and their careful cover up and the Stockholm Syndromers who defend the church while attacking it, the rest of us are carefully left out which doesn’t make a balanced report.

Does SCIE notice how many carefully ‘now introduced’ or ‘introduced in…’ measures and actions there are? Read between the lines. All the policies and ‘reference maps’ (only the c of e could have ‘reference maps’ are worthless in the context of the reality behind Lambeth, the Archbishop’s council and Welby and his henchmen. Nothing can change no matter how many documents are in place.

Safeguarding training at Lambeth is chaos to say the least, 78 pages weren’t needed to confirm that, all you need is to phone Lambeth.

The difference between what is said for the sake of the press or investigators is massive. Bishop Wilmott, involved in the Winchester cover up and a whole lot more that he was never disciplined, said during the assassination, ‘safeguarding is good’, not a single person who had protected an abuser or harmed the victim, himself include very much, was disciplined, they held ‘safeguarding lunched’ everything was swept under the carpet, and all was well, the victim suffered horrifically and lost her life. All is not well and SCIE is part of the delusion that it is.PR ’Damning reports’ which miss every possible point and are totally compromised are part of the problem, and nothing is done about them anyway.

and it is not yet clear whether or how the OABCY can avoid it, given that the constitutionally decentralised nature of the dioceses, means that the Archbishop is unable to intervene or become involved – but he personally had a victim assassinated after repeatedly publicly intervening in her case on behalf of the wrongdoers, he can be involved when it suits him!

Victims’ experience of the palace has been terrible, so SCIE sets them some nice essay questions in the hope they ever either see them or care, both unlikely.

5.2 CDM. The Bishop of Winchester boasted of escaping CDM, his victim brought the CDM, Justin Welby personally intervened, had the victim threatened and protected the Bishop, the Bishop’s boasting was raised when his clergy rebelled, Welby has never faced the consequences of his severe corruption.

CDM is inexcusably corrupted in general and ruins people. Disciplinary panels and ‘core groups’ another sickly C of E term, are hopelessly conflicted and unprofessional.

6.3, safer recruitment, horse stable door, bolted, the decades of perverts choosing to work in the church aren’t being addressed, the church still attracts clever perverts who know how to stay under the radar, the church retains and protects abusers. Winchester, two known abusers allowed to target a vulnerable adult, and they got to look on and laugh as the church had her brutalised and imprisoned, given a record, both men if they were alive, would still get jobs at Lambeth, while their victim, with her record c/o the current archbishop, would not, move it along, SCIE, nothing to see, remember the victim asked you for protection before that final police beating and imprisonment for the disgraced Bishop? Funny thing is, SCIE, you wouldn’t be able to look the case up on Lambeth or C of E records as it has been so well whitewashed. The records don’t relate to the reality, this is the C of E, who had Jimmy Savile as an honorary churchwarden just miles from where he was abusing bodies in a morgue, the church who spent a million on ruining Martyn Percy publicly while he got loads of sympathy and the Winchester victim got none. They aren’t going to ‘safer recruit’ because it wouldn’t suit the ethos, they have to cover up abuse, corruption and so much more and they have to employ people willing to be part of that. The disgraced Bishop of Winchester was elected on false qualifications and with no experience or aptitude for the job, he started causing harm immediately and backed up by Justin Welby.

Just a thought, where the c of e and Lambeth recruit former police officers and social workers, this is not for their experience as such, it’s for their ability to conflict anything reported to the police or social services in order to protect the church, an example is the use of a conflicted judge in the Winchester assassination, the judge was openly conflicted and made it clear to the victim she would publicly destroy her, the same for Lambeth Palace’s safeguarding officer who is making life a misery for victims. It looks good to the public and protects the church. Like SCIE and other whitewashes.

The high staff turnover at Lambeth means nothing is consistent except their contempt for abuse victims and the orders from William Nye to fob victims off. Nye isn’t mentioned by SCIE despite his starring role in harming victims and preventing safeguarding.

Given that the Church audit programme has been in place since 2017, its findings to date informed the IICSA investigation into the Anglican Church, and each diocese and cathedral had been audited prior to that in Lambeth Palace commencing, the auditors were extremely concerned at what this appears to indicate about the lack of priority given to safeguarding at Lambeth Palace. – if you can translate that to English.

Another SCIE omission is that LP is forced on matters of racism, equality and safeguarding and is an unwilling player under pressure from the government. They’d be burning witches if they had completely free rein, but they enjoy a good cover-up as much as the next man, SCIE tries to give that grim place and its grim people humanity, which is why my audit, more rambling than theirs, is better, I am not pretending Lambeth and the C of E are something they’re not.

Section 7, the comments about the Archbishop’s oversight being spiritual, this is one of the reasons the nation sees the C of E as collapsing or finished, there is no ‘spiritual’ oversight as the Archbishop has no interest in such things, and he reads scripts and acts, the Emperor’s New Clothes has been an issue for a long time and it’s said that under Welby, most Bishops are the same and nothing to do with scripture nor God, many have stated on public forums and comments on news articles that Justin Welby is the reason that they have left the C of E for other churches or stopped attending church. SCIE are pretty much giving an opinion, so I’m just adding the other side of things that SCIE don’t mention.

7.1.2 This is all part of ‘The Welby Show’ and is an insult to victims who have been harmed personally by Welby and Lambeth Palace. He can say what he likes and naïve members of the public as well as SCIE, are taken in by it and regurgitate it as Welby caring about abuse. In the Winchester assassination case, his main aim was to make sure that the money and power were protected, he undermined the victim, he compromised an investigation, he’s faced no actions and has gone on producing scripted lies such as those eagerly regurgitated by SCIE, and Welby and his communications team rely on the trick of everything they say going unchallenged. I’m personally sickened to see his scripts repeated as if they were fact while his misconducts are not challenged by SCIE.

SCIE also fail to mention that the C of E’s hand has been forced in many things such as safeguarding and equality and it remains that these are an unwanted burden to the Church which they would happily skip, but they are under pressure, so they do a show, they do not do a genuine show, and the growing voice of survivors in discontent at the publicity stunts to do with safeguarding and abuse is pretty much ignored by SCIE, who spread the Archbishop’s scripts about reaction to the IICSA, for example, but fail to discuss the pre-empting apology given out before the IICSA results and for publicity and survivors’ disgust at the apology by the Archbishops and the falsehood of it. SCIE, as an inexperienced and untrained investigator and safeguarding body, fail to understand that the C of E’s press releases are falsehood and script, broadcast to try to show Justin Welby in good light, the naïve, including SCIE, might fall for such falsehood, but most people now do not, and most people have been calling for the removal of Justin Welby for a very long time. While victims continue to suffer, and these ‘damning reports’ by SCIE are full of glaring omissions and lack of understanding of how the Church of England really work.

 

7.1.8 is classic C of E communications spin, designed to brown nose the Archbishop and fob off victims who he has criminally harmed, where’s the proof? What was his interest in the Winchester matter? He ignored and undermined the victim while supporting the powerful people attacking her, shame on you, SCIE! - 7.1.8 The present Archbishop has sought to provide strong theological and moral leadership, and to make clear his belief that safeguarding the most vulnerable is at the heart of the Church’s mission. His ability to turn his expressed personal commitment into visible action is constrained by the constitutional reality of the Church of England and leaves the Archbishop open to accusations of inconsistency regarding safeguarding. Clarification of the role of the Archbishop as a moral leader in this context appears vital as the Church seeks to address past failings and respond well to victims and survivors

The above paragraph indicates SCIE are invested in protecting an abusive archbishop to the point of unqualified praise of him when he has personally committed grave misconduct. There is no evidence of strong theological and moral leadership and a huge percentage of the UK and beyond agree that, SCIE has no evidence of this, it is purely brown-nosing and an insult to those who Welby has harmed, SCIE really need some training and experience before they carry out any more of these whitewashes, indeed safeguarding is obviously not really their field of expertise so they should find something more suitable to waffle about. Welby killed my friend to hide the wrongdoing of people in power, he is hated by a large proportion of the population for his bad behaviour and destruction of the church, why is he being praised by the people whitewashing safeguarding for him? It’s not appropriate and it’s not clear why SCIE are lying and praising him as it is not part of a safeguarding review. Basically they are assuring those suffering that they will uphold the deference culture of the all authorities and bodies who allow the Archbishop and his church to continue their relentless corruption and harm. SCIE’s report is a whitewash, and if anyone doubted it before 7, and they are capable of thought and understanding, they shouldn’t doubt it from 7 onwards.

Again, this is pure brown-nosing and does not relate to the reality that this man is duplicitous and has seriously harmed people, SCIE love him and the money they are getting for brown nosing him, but it won’t bring our friend who Welby killed to protect powerful abusers back from the dead. Tell me, those of you who can think, what exactly does the brown nosing here actually contribute to the report other than being SCIE taking part in the deference culture that protects the abusive and duplicitous archbishop? This is a man who has caused deaths to protect abusers, if an organisation such as SCIE actively brown noses him publicly, what does it say about SCIE?  ‘By virtue of his position, the Archbishop has many opportunities to demonstrate courageous leadership by publicly confronting past failings by the Church and by responding well to victims and survivors of historic abuse, holding colleagues across the Church to account, and modelling how to learn from past mistakes. The auditors were given examples where the Archbishop had provided strong leadership in acknowledging 59 past failings, and in encouraging a culture of mutual accountability which is open to learning rather than being driven by fear and shame. These examples, however, tended not to be public, creating a disjunct between what may be done and what is seen to be done by the Archbishop.’

It's an insult to those who Welby have harmed, it’s an insult to those who have endured his public lies about safeguarding. This is not a ‘Damning report’, it is just called that as part of the unquestioned PR spin by Lambeth Palace that is an insult to victims, especially those who see all these SCIE and other whitewashes which aren’t done to ensure good safeguarding practice. What Lambeth Palace communications team rely on, is people seeing the huge showy press releases of shame and hand wringing, but not the responses from survivors and their supporters, which instead go on social media while the press and media ignore them, however, the Winchester College victims are private schoolboys whose parents had enough money for huge fees, so they have some money and power and get to the head of the queue both for press interviews and actual attention from Lambeth Palace, who at the same time don’t like the bad publicity, however, the Teflon Archbishop and Lambeth Palace remain an unregulated and above the law nightmare for victims, especially when obviously inexperienced agencies such as SCIE, brown nose them and make the pain worse. The lies about the Archbishop are truly harmful and not in any way evidenced, like most of his communications teams’ press releases, because no one questions or challenges them. While we wait for justice for the victim that Welby and Dakin killed to please powerful people and restore the ‘status quo’, the empty and evidenceless praise of Welby is a true insult to us and to our dead friend’s name.

In 7. SCIE continue to try to praise and excuse the Archbishop, and they try to excuse his support of rogue Bishops such as Winchester (retired), he was actively and fully involved in the matter in support of the Bishop and personally sabotaged a clergy discipline complaint. SCIE were obvious put in a position where they really had to skate over this and make excuses and their report is as useless to safeguarding as their employers the church of England, are.

SCIE assume that the general public and clergy are not aware of what Welby is as they praise him, many people will be disgusted even if half SCIE’s report is waffle that no one can follow and some people give up reading part way through.

With regards the Archbishop speaking out or not speaking out, it is very evident he does as he pleases and involves himself in cases to suit his need to protect the church’s reputation. SCIE are trying to make a saint out of a cold empty-hearted narcissistic and cruel man whose continuation in his role and continued public falsehoods about safeguarding after his destruction of the Winchester victim indicate psychopathy. He personally had the victim assassinated, he personally should have stepped down and never done another public show in the press, but he has no conscience and is pretty much the most untouchable man in the UK, no wonder he has communities of vulnerable people right on his doorstep, if only his old friend John was around, they could have a wonderful time and who minds a body or two in the swimming pool?

While SCIE brown nose Welby, they fail to make a very important point. Who investigates the many safeguarding and abuse complaints made against Welby himself? SCIE are silent, but they are amateurs, they probably did some basic training before doing their report but it’s obviously not their normal industry. Justin Welby has personally been reported hundreds of times for safeguarding issues, from the Winchester College case to his assassination of the Winchester victim, to his use of his daughter and mother for headlines to get limelight at their expense, funny how SCIE, while brown nosing Welby, forget to mention his immoral and horrible use of his mother for limelight, which was obviously a deep shock to her as she hadn’t been forewarned and is a private person. All SCIE’s ‘praise’ of this creep is an insult to those who have suffered him. They seem blind to what has really gone on and how Welby uses his position as Archbishop for something totally lacking in alignment with ‘moral leadership’. Justin Welby’s behaviour is appalling and he has seriously harmed people, SCIE trying to give him new clothes is sick, but he remains naked to the general public and those who have suffered him. There is no avenue to complain about the Archbishop, and SCIE seem blind to this, astonishingly. Several years ago, a victim reported Welby to the victim’s local Bishop, Welby was put under investigation by his own safeguarding team!!! The NST are notorious for attacking, undermining and damaging victims and using their connections with social services, police and local safeguarding partnerships (yes that old joke) to give the victims a bad name and remove their credibility, needless to say, nothing was done about Welby, why would the NST ruin their careers to try to bring their own boss to account, giving the church bad publicity when the whole aim of safeguarding in the C of E is to silence victims and protect the church’s reputation?!

On the subject, the Jersey and Winchester matter, whitewashed many times by the church and their complicit authorities, remains unresolved, the officials who Welby protected broke the law, the police broke the law, the police used extreme violence and caused serious injury and worked very hard to make the victim out to be insane, the church destroyed the victim publicly and still are doing, but not a single offender in that case, whether it be for violence, defamation, massive abuse of power – for example Justin Welby using his infallible position to influence the case, data breaches and much more, has been held accountable, not one. And as Welby presided with his personal bias and his efforts to protect the church’s reputation, isn’t it time he was held to account rather than SCIE’s pitiful begging him for scraps in their whitewash report, SCIE themselves are guilty of looking on as the victim begged them for protection when everyone else deferred to Welby, his NST and communications teams etc. SCIE, who is going to investigate you, and Jasvinder, when is this matter going to be brought to justice? The Church of England have a policy, not mentioned by SCIE, to ensure everyone involved in abuse cases is retired or dead before they investigate, and in the whitewash past cases reviews, if someone is dead, they can’t investigate. SCIE don’t seem to understand much about Lambeth Palace and what’s really going on.

Are SCIE aware of the bodies who Welby has been reported to? Including the House of Lords regulator? And would SCIE comment on the way the UK is collapsing under Welby’s ‘Moral Guidance’? It does explain a lot about the horrifying state of the UK now, it’s Welby’s ‘moral authority’, isn’t it? There is essentially nothing left of the Church of England, there’s nothing left of the church I used to know and be part of.

Justin Welby, despite SCIE’s terrified and awestruck hero worship, intervenes in safeguarding cases to protect the church’s image and is unchallengeable and above the law, has the police and authorities at his beck and call, he is dangerous and he is above criticism and is deferred to and receives false praise even from organisations such as SCIE, this is a very dangerous safeguarding failure, especially considering that he is evidenced to have deliberately and publicly jeopardized a case at the expense of the victim.

Reality is that safeguarding has only changed because it has to, the Archbishop is under pressure from government, and the damage the callous lack of safeguarding does to the church’s image is too much of a liability, the reality is, safeguarding, as in Lambeth Palace and Diocesan, hasn’t changed, victims are still treated in the same cruel and brutal way, maybe when SCIE pull their nose out of the Archbishop’s behind, they could look at this and review it and ask the Archbishop how it fits with his great and moral leadership when he’s aware of it. Oh, hang on, he’s busy publicly attacking his family and unethical firms he has shares in, you’ll have to wait.

The Archbishop’s chiefs of staff have harmed abuse victims, isn’t it time SCIE looked into what they personally have done rather than waffling and then concluding that the chiefs of staff have no safeguarding training?

What are the significant improvements to safeguarding? Victims outside of the Stockholm Syndrome clique who tend to praise the church and attack it in one sentence do not see that when they are turned away and damaged by Lambeth and the church. The Archbishop’s idea of safeguarding is to personally interfere in an abuse case and have a vulnerable adult undermined, slurred even by his own communications team, an assassinated, this remains without justice and SCIE’s report isn’t credible while it praises the Archbishop and improvements in safeguarding. Am I repeating myself, SCIE repeat themselves in toadying and the Archbishop and praising imaginary changes, if victims are destroyed now by Lambeth and the church, what on earth was happening that this is an improvement?

SCIE don’t tell us, who deals with complaints against Welby, Nye and other abusive figureheads connected to safeguarding in the C of E? Welby is personally responsible for what he’s done in harm to victims, SCIE are happy to praise him and excuse him, and the Lambeth Way continues unchecked. The kind of people you find at Lambeth aren’t interested in safeguarding because they see it as belonging to a lower tier of society, people who can be groomed and abused, people who are damaged, nothing to do with the elite. SCIE try but founder, in trying to make the people of Lambeth Palace human and on our level.

Essentially SCIE depict Lambeth as headless chickens, no one accountable and no safeguarding, but a jolly good show, a large part of it personally whipped up for SCIE’s benefit, but SCIE aren’t allowed to investigate or do recommendations, so they did a whitewash and did essay questions directed at no one whatsoever and which will be ignored until the next whitewash if Welby or the next one are forced to do another whitewash. Lambeth Palace is a closed club for the very elite, it is nothing to do with safeguarding and SCIE were essentially commissioned for part of a series of vanity stunts.

7.5.5 As the senior bishop and principal leader of the Church of England, the Archbishop of Canterbury is influential in setting expectations regarding the culture of the Church. This is an aspect of his moral and theological leadership regarding safeguarding. The present Archbishop has spoken frequently on the importance of establishing a safe, healthy culture across the Church, including the necessity to challenge the tendency towards a culture of deference towards clergy. This spin from a man unaccountable and playing the biggest duplicity game the UK have ever known, he isn’t influential in the church, they are having to survive by turning away from him, and any amount of spin is worthless if it is duplicity. Why are SCIE working so hard to be blind and to blind people?

A temporary officer was recruited for the sake of the audit, that says it all about safeguarding at Lambeth, and the Archbishop and Nye and friends cannot promote a culture of transparency while they lead from a place of corruption, duplicity and horrific deliberate damage to abuse victims to silence them.

SCIE, I conclude with: ‘No change can be made while safeguarding in the C of E is mainly PR spin and the incessant use of safeguarding and abuse by the church to advertise themselves is not backed up by real action. Your report, carefully worded and praising the abusive Archbishop, is just spin, just part of the advertising campaign. Justin Welby, to maintain his position after what he’s done, must be a psychopath and is a significant risk to victims and survivors, and nothing has been done about many dangerous people in the case that he publicly jeopardised, you aren’t any better, knowing about the case and failing to act, a duplicitous SCIE aiding a duplicitous Archbishop, the general public can be fooled to a certain extent, but this ongoing farce is a festering sore, made worse with every whitewash and every use of the press to lie about safeguarding and rip the skin of the suffering and silenced victims.

At very least instead of SCIE praising up the fake apologies in the press, which survivors have told SCIE are harmful, SCIE could make sure the Archbishop knows that these apologies are harmful and seen through, and could ask him to stop and have some shame – that’s asking a lot of a psychopath, I know, but sometimes, explained in terms a four-year-old could understand, it could work. Also, using victims for public weeping displays was purely for the Archbishop’s own gratification and the press displays, nothing to do with the victims, despite SCIE trying to put that spin on it. No matter what spin SCIE put on anything, the reality is, the fish rots from the head down, the reality is that spiritually, the C of E is no longer home to many members including myself, who were of long standing and in positions in the church, because Welby is a bad leader and a bad man. No matter what spin SCIE put on it from what they were fed by Lambeth Palace for their whitewash., Justin Welby has knowingly interfered in abuse cases for untoward reasons, and has destroyed people. SCIE border on ridiculous by being paid to say otherwise.

My report, which reflects the reality of Lambeth and not the polite whitewash, took a few hours, SCIE earned a huge amount over years, to whitewash Lambeth. SCIE are obviously inexperienced, unaccredited and very opportunistic.

Any organisation, be it Lambeth Palace, SCIE or the wider church, can pop out ‘publications’ on safeguarding, for show, and never follow their own advice, the C of E are notorious for show publications about safeguarding which they simply don’t follow but it ‘makes them look like they’re progressing’.

SCIE omit that anyone abused at the palace itself would have no recourse to justice as the authorities are so badly conflicted and the culture of silencing there is absolute. Welby’s daughter acts as an abused child, and in a way she is, he pimped her and her mental illness out as a limelight PR show for himself when indeed she was only suffering ‘depression’ or more to the point, spoilt unhappy child syndrome, she was not newsworthy and it was disgusting the way he and she behaved to get attention, not fitting of this great ‘Spiritual Moral Leader’ that SCIE desperately want to ram down our throats.

It remains incomprehensible why SCIE, instead of doing a neutral report, did a display of toadying the Archbishop and continuing the scheme of unquestioned praise of the man that is done for PR stunts by the communication team, where is the evidence that this man is a great spiritual and moral leader and doing so much for safeguarding and victims? There is none, this is a delusion constantly spun by the communications team and horrifyingly regurgitated by SCIE despite the victim begging for protection from Welby and Dakin giving clear evidence of Welby’s underhand behaviour in the press war.

Tell me, how is new and improved safeguarding going to change the fact that victims have been blocked and blacklisted by the Palace? 

SCIE’s report is a joke and an insult, an insult to those of us harmed by Welby and still awaiting change, which would include shame from Welby, and his resignation or arrest. SCIE shouldn’t really carry out reports until they are trained, until they understand impartiality and until they understand that publicly protecting and praising an abusive and corrupt authority figure is an act of criminal harm and not conducive to safeguarding. SCIE’s report is completely devoid of description of the atmosphere at Lambeth Palace, the elitist and separated from the real world atmosphere which isn’t conducive to safeguard, they spend a lot of their 78 pages on waffle and undeserved praise for the worst Archbishop of all time, a man described constantly by churchgoers and the public as a man with a mission to destroy the church.

Those of us who didn't have the privilege of being publicly wept over by Welby for show would like to meet him face to face and say to him 'Satan, where is Justice, where is Justice for the victim that the Archbishop Himself personally destroyed, and for Bob Hill who lost his life while defending the victim because of the level of stress the case caused him, where is justice for the victim found dead after Smyth was allowed to abuse in Africa? But Lambeth Palace is a fortress which protects the guilty Archbishop.