I've been having an exchange of emails with Archbishop Vincent Nichols and with Peter Turner, his Diocesan Safeguarding Advisor. I initially wrote to the Archbishop
Requesting an enquiry at Ealing Abbey. The correspondence below starts with his initial reply to me.
from Archbishop Vincent Nichols
to Jonathan West
date 26 April 2010
subject RE: Ealing Abbey and St. Benedicts School
Dear Mr West
Thank you for your email of 22 April.
Thank you for the reports that you give me directly and indirectly about Ealing Abbey.
Clearly I must take these matters to those who have a specific role in safeguarding in the Diocese.
This I will do and I or they will get back to you.
With every good wish,
Yours sincerely
+Vincent Nichols
So far so good. I awaited his further communication. It came a week and a half later.
from Archbishop Vincent Nichols
to Jonathan West
date 7 May 2010
subject RE: Ealing Abbey and St. Benedicts School
Dear Mr West
I write again in response to your email of 22 April.
In it you send to me considerable material concerning St Benedict’s School, Ealing and Ealing Abbey and you request that I institute “as soon as possible a wide ranging enquiry into child sex abuse” there.
The issue is complex as neither Ealing Abbey nor St Benedict’s School fall under the remit of the Diocese.
It is clearly important therefore that you address your comments to the Trustees of St Benedict’s.
You will note that recent enquiries concerning St Benedict’s School and Ealing Abbey have been addressed to those authorities.
I am ready to pass on your comments to me to those proper authorities if you wish me to do so.
With every good wish
+Vincent Nichols
In essence the Archbishop is saying "nothing to do with me". Not good enough.
from Jonathan West
to Archbishop Vincent Nichols
date 8 May 2010
subject Re: Ealing Abbey and St. Benedicts School
Dear Archbishop,
Since I wrote to you, I have learned of another case of abuse at the school, though it is historical and not current. A victim has come forward with an account of abuse by Father Kevin Horsey (now deceased). The sexual abuse was regular and systematic, and committed against the victim and several others during PT lessons circa 1965. According to Horsey's obituary in the Old Priorian newsletter, he was one of the founding monks of the school, and so it is therefore likely that sexual abuse has been going on at the school since its foundation.
If I address my comments to the Trustees of St Benedict's, nothing will be done, because they are implicated in the abuse and its cover-up.
According to the Trust website, http://www.stbenedictsealing.org.uk/st_ben_trust.html, the following people are the Trustees.
Rt Revd Martin Shipperlee OSB - Chairman
Rt Revd Francis Rossiter OSB
Revd Thomas Stapleford OSB
Revd Gregory Chillman OSB
Revd Alexander Bevan OSB
Revd Dominic Taylor OSB
Martin Shipperlee has stated that he became aware of Pearce's activities in 2004 when he was interviewed on the "Sunday" programme on BBC Radio 4 on April 11th. However, the civil trial brought by C in 2006 he gave evidence under oath to the contrary - that although there had been complaints, it had not been thought necessary to take any action against Pearce. I can provide you with a copy of the broadcast recording of that interview if it would assist you. Given this conflicting testimony it is arguable that a case could be brought against him for perjury. At the very least, he has been complicit in covering up the abuse.
Francis Rossiter was Abbot from 1967 to 1991, which encompasses the time when Maestri and Pearce were simultaneously active and Father Anthony Gee (headmaster of the time) was threatening victims into silence. He must have had involvement in the decision to send Maestri on his way with a good reference. This is illegal - even in those days a statutory notification had to be made to the authorities when a teacher resigned suddenly, stating the true reason for the resignation. Rossiter is therefore also complicit in covering up abuse.
I have received a report of abuse committed by Gregory Chillman. I have encouraged the victim to make a statement to the police about this, though I do not know whether he has yet done so. But Chillman has to be regarded as being under suspicion of having committed abuses.
The other three are implicated in cover-up at least to the extent of having agreed to fund David Pearce's defence knowing that he had been placed on restricted ministry.
When I met the Abbot on 11th September last year, he gave me the impression that the Abbey had placed itself under the jurisdiction of the diocese of Westminster for the purpose of safeguarding issues. As I understand it, the Abbot does not respond directly to emails to him concerning past child abuse, but simply passes them unanswered to Peter Turner, the Diocesan Safeguarding Advisor. This impression is certainly reinforced by the Safeguarding page of the Ealing Abbey website, which provides contact details for diocesan safeguarding team.
http://www.ealingabbey.org.uk/01home-1aSafeguarding.htm
Clearly, referring the matter to the Trustees for them voluntarily to take action on an enquiry is useless - they are not going to consent to an investigation of their own potentially illegal activities, it would be like expecting turkeys to vote for Christmas. Therefore if an enquiry is going to happen, it must come from the outside. That is why I wrote to you. If you do not have the authority to initiate an enquiry, then who does?
Be aware that the school's safeguarding procedures are still a sorry mess, and with the continued presence of alleged abusers at the Abbey a new and current case of abuse could potentially appear at any time. If and when that happens, I doubt that the public would take much account of the independent status of Benedictine monasteries when judging whether you fulfilled the promise made in the Statement by the Catholic Bishops of England and Wales.
May I suggest a meeting to discuss these issues and find a way forward? There are some people who share my wish for an enquiry who would want to attend a meeting along with me - parents of past and present pupils, and former pupils who are victims and witnesses of abuse.
Regards
Jonathan West
3 days later I received a reply.
from Archbishop Vincent Nichols
to Jonathan West
date 11 May 2010
subject RE: Ealing Abbey and St. Benedicts School
Dear Mr West
Thank you for your further email of 8 May.
Would you like me to forward your comments to the proper authorities?
With every good wish
+Vincent Nichols
So, he thanked me for my email and totally ignored its contents.
from Jonathan West
to Archbishop Vincent Nichols
date 11 May 2010
subject Re: Ealing Abbey and St. Benedicts School
Dear Archbishop
If you wish to forward my comments to the Trustees (which is who I presume you mean by "the proper authorities") then please do so. If you are willing to add your own recommendation that a wide-ranging enquiry should be set up, I would be most appreciative. I suppose that a request to the Trustees for an enquiry is a necessary step, though it is one I have already made in a meeting I had with the Abbot on 11th September 2009, and my request was ignored.
For this reason and for the reasons I gave in my previous email, I expect that the request for an enquiry will be ignored, or as in the case of the "independent review" will be interpreted in the most narrow possible way so as to restrict the scope of the enquiry to safe areas which do not involve any examination of possible complicity on the part of the Trustees.
I realise that the Trustees have authority over the Abbey and the school, but who has authority within the Church over the Trustees, if you do not? I would be grateful if you could advise me who are those authorities, and I would be grateful if you would also forward my comments to them.
Regards
Jonathan West
No reply.
from Jonathan West
to Archbishop Vincent Nichols
date 31 May 2010
subject Re: Ealing Abbey and St. Benedicts School
Dear Archbishop
I am disappointed not to have received any reply to my email of 11 May.
In it I expressed a willingness for you to forward my concerns to the Trustees, though skepticism as to the good it would do.
Could you advise me whether you have in fact forwarded my concerns to the trustees, and if so, what response you have received?
Also, since you state that Ealing Abbey is not within your remit, are you able to tell me who within the church does have authority over the Abbot and trustees of the Abbey?
Regards
Jonathan West
Obviously this was getting a bit too specific for the Archbishop. The next email was from Peter Turner.
from Peter Turner
to Jonathan West
date 3 June 2010
subject Ealing Abbey
Mr West
I have been asked by Archbishop Nichols to acknowledge receipt of your previous e mails.
He has requested that I contact you and invite you to meet with me so that I can try and address the various issues that you have raised with him.
I would ask that you contact my office so that a suitable appointment could be made for us to meet at some mutually convenient venue.
I will be out of my office tomorrow (Friday 4 June) but you can leave a message or I should be in my office on Monday next.
Regards
Peter W Turner
Safeguarding Advisor
Diocese of Westminster
I phoned him to discuss the issues and wrote an email in confirmation.
from Jonathan West
to Peter Turner
date 7 June 2010
subject Re: Ealing Abbey
Dear Mr Turner,
Following our phone conversations this morning, I confirm that I would like to have a meeting to address my concerns about Ealing Abbey and St Benedict's School.
I do not think a private meeting between the two of us will achieve anything worthwhile. I am in touch with a significant number of people who share my concerns. Therefore I propose that we hold a meeting to which some of these can come, and to which you invite Abbot Martin Shipperlee, Prior Francis Rossiter and headmaster Mr Christoper Cleugh also to attend. This would be in accordance with the Archbishop's suggestion that my concerns be addressed towards the Trustees. I understand that you cannot do more than request that they attend, and that you cannot compel their attendance if they refuse.
I would also appreciate it if Archbishop Vincent Nichols were also able to attend for at least part of the meeting, so that it can be made clear to all parties that this matter falls within the scope of the recent statement by the Catholic Bishops on child protection, particularly the paragraph on transparency which I quoted in my initial email to the Archbishop. If there are any other church officials who you think should attend, or if Abbot Martin wishes to have other Trustees also attend, I have no objection to that.
We have provisionally arranged for the meeting to be held on the afternoon of 29th June. Some people may have to travel a considerable distance to attend, so I suggest that the meeting is held at the diocesan offices in Westminster, that being a convenient central location. If you could confirm the date, time and location as soon as possible, this would make it much easier for people to make travel plans.
Nearer the time, I shall forward an agenda to you covering the issues we wish to address.
I also asked you who within the church has authority over the Abbot, if the Archbishop does not. I would be grateful if you would research this matter and raise it with the Archbishop so that a definitive answer is available prior to the meeting. If the Abbot is not willing voluntarily to take whatever measures are thought to be necessary, then we need to know to what higher authority within the church the matter should be addressed.
We discussed the Abbot General of the English Benedictine Congregation. It appears that we both share the impression that he does not have authority over individual Benedictine houses, but is more a representative of the EBC to the outside world. It would be helpful if you could check this and confirm whether this is so.
We discussed whether the Abbey had put itself under the authority of the diocese for the purpose of child protection issues, given that the diocesan child protection team was listed on the Abbey website. As I understand it, you as diocesan safeguarding advisor cannot compel any action on the Abbot but only make recommendations to the Abbey regarding child protection issues, and that the Abbot is not formally obliged to act on your recommendation, no matter how unwise you might consider such inaction to be. Is my understanding correct on this point?
We discussed the NCSC and the CSAS. I said that we had raised concerns with them, but that we had recently been advised that they had tipped the issue back into your lap, and that they therefore are not in a position to commission an investigation over the head of the Abbot. Again, please confirm whether this is your understanding also.
We also discussed the Charity Commission. They are not relevant to my question for two reasons. First, I wish to know the line of authority specifically within the Church, and the Charity Commission is a branch of government not of the church. Second, in any case, the Charity Commission is not the correct secular organisation to whom concerns should be put. I have been in touch with the Charity Commission, and they have advised me that they are keeping a watch on the situation, but that they hold no investigating brief in respect of child protection issues. Their supervisory role is restricted to ensuring that charitable funds are properly used for charitable purposes.
I asked who has the authority to order a Visitation in the event that one was thought necessary - for instance if the Abbot were to refuse voluntarily to mount an investigation, and that you as diocesan safeguarding advisor felt that the Abbot was being unreasonable. Could you find out who has that authority? If it is not the Archbishop, the Abbot General or the NCSC, is there any source of authority within the church lower than the Pope himself who can act?
Regards
Jonathan West
No reply for a week.
from Jonathan West
to Peter Turner
date 15 June 2010
subject Re: Ealing Abbey
Dear Mr Turner
Could you please let me know whether you have been able to contact the Abbot, Prior and Headmaster, and whether they will be attending the meeting we have provisionally arranged for the afternoon of 29th June?
The reason I need to know as soon as possible is that some of those who wish to accompany me (including victims of abuse at the school) will be travelling some considerable distance to attend, including in at least one case travelling from abroad. We therefore need to have confirmation of the meeting so that they can make their travel plans.
The areas that we wish to address are as follows:
1. Historical cases of abuse by Pearce, Maestri and others, and the Abbey's actions in response.
2. The independent review publicly promised by the Abbot on the day Pearce was sentenced.
3. The school's current child protection policy, and the failings thereof.
You will see from these items why all the attendance of all three people I have requested is necessary. I think that to discuss item 1 adequately, both the Abbot and the Prior need to be present, since Father Francis was Abbot at the time John Maestri was a teacher at the school and will therefore have a memory of those events.
The Abbot is necessary for item 2 since only he can address details such as the decision process which led to the selection of the terms of reference for the independent review.
The Abbot and Headmaster are both needed for item 3, since the Abbot has approved the child protection procedures and the Headmaster is responsible to all aspects of the day-to-day running of the school, including the implementation of the child protection policy.
Regards
Jonathan West
This did finally elicit a reply.
from Peter Turner
to Jonathan West
date 15 June 2010
subject RE: Ealing Abbey
Mr West
I am sorry I have not got back sooner, I have been out of the office and will be so until Friday.
However, I am meeting with Abbot Martin on Thursday and will seek his answer then and let you know.
Peter W Turner
I phoned him on the Friday after the meeting to find out what the Abbot's response was. He told me and confirmed it an email.
from Peter Turner
to Jonathan West
date 18 June 2010
subject RE: Ealing Abbey
Mr West
I apologise for having to curtail our conversation earlier.
As I mentioned during our conversation the Abbot, Fr Rossiter & the Head teacher feel that in the circumstances it would be inappropriate to attend the meeting.
If you have knowledge of any further victims, these should be advised to contact the Statutory Agencies to report there concerns and the matter would then be dealt with. However, I am willing to assist in this process, but would only wish to see each victim alone in the first instance in order that no allegation could be later aired in any court proceedings of collusion I would urge you to bear this in mind in any further dealings with possible victims.
In view of our conversation regarding the proposed meeting, I will contact the Archbishop with your request to meet with him.
To answer you earlier questions:
1. Pearce remain in prison and Maestri has no contact with the school, as a result of earlier convictions.
2. The review has been published, as far as confidentiality permits.
3. The schools current child protection policy has been approved by the Independent Schools inspection team.
Please let me know at your earliest convenience, if you still wish to attend the meeting on the 29 June.
Peter W Turner
This was starting to get ridiculous.
from Jonathan West
to Peter Turner
date 22 June 2010
subject Re: Ealing Abbey
Dear Mr Turner
To confirm our phone conversation yesterday, I understand that the 3 points in your email were provided to you by the Abbot with the assistance of his press officer.
Point 1 is not relevant to anything we wish to discuss, since we wish to discuss what child protection measures were taken at the time Pearce and Maestri were at the school.
Point 2 is not true. The review has not been published. What has been published is a summary of it prepared by Father Peter Burns. The PDF file shows "Peter B" as the author in the document properties. In any case, the point is irrelevant since we wish to discuss matters surrounding it, such as the choice of the terms of reference.
Point 3 is also not true. Over the last week, I have been in contact with the ISI and the DfE. The latter in particular have been most insistent in their assurance that the ISI is still working with the school to bring its child protection policies "up to requirements" and that the May 24 update currently published on the school website is not the outcome of that work.
You also indicated that the Abbot believes his attendance to be inappropriate because further new allegations of abuse may be made. That is not the intended purpose of the meeting, I wish to discuss the response of the Abbey and the school to abuse which has happened in the past, and the school's current policies and procedures to prevent abuse in future. No victim will be making new statements concerning abuse at this meeting.
The Abbot's reason for believing his attendance to be inappropriate is therefore not applicable. I therefore request that you repeat your invitation to the Abbot, Prior and Headmaster to attend. Given that some of my party will be travelling from abroad, time is now of the essence and I request that you obtain a response somewhat more quickly than the 2 weeks the previous rejection took. However, if it takes longer to obtain a response from the Abbot, I propose that the meeting be postponed by a week in order to give people the opportunity to make travel plans.
In addition, I request that you provide an answer to the question I put in my earlier email - within the Catholic Church, who has authority over the Abbot?
By the way (although we did not touch on this in the phone call) I have been approached privately by many victims of abuse at Ealing Abbey and St. Benedict's School. I always encourage them to come forward and make a statement to the police, and I provide contact details for the local Child Abuse Investigation Team. The correspondence with each victim is kept confidential from the rest, so no victim knows details of any other victim who has contacted me privately, nor of the abuse suffered by any other victim. Unless somebody has made a public comment on the blog about abuse by a particular monk or teacher, I do not even indicate to a victim whether anybody else has come forward with accounts of abuse by the same person.
Regards
Jonathan West
I was quite certain that the Abbot would again refuse to meet. But I was curious to know what excuse he would choose this time. It wasn't long coming.
from Peter Turner
to Jonathan West
date 24 June 2010
subject Ealing Abbey
Mr West
I have now heard from Abbot Martin and he does not wish to attend the proposed meeting on Tuesday next.
He is willing to meet any victims, either individually or as a group. (Albeit, it would of course be better for him to see any victims alone, in order not to compromise any future criminal proceedings). I would also be willing to attend such a meeting with the Abbot.
You asked me to ascertain who is responsible for overseeing the Abbot and I have tried to explain below.
The Abbot President (Abbot Robert Yeo) [sic] has the duty to advise and warn, but cannot directly intervene in the life of a united Community.
The local bishops have an interest but like the President have no power to directly intervene
Ultimately there is recourse to the Holy See. This could be done via the Apostolic Nuncio, but he’s very sick, so you would have to approach the Congregation for Institutes of Religious Life and Societies of Apostolic Life in Rome. They could ultimately invoke an Apostolic Visitation, but they’d probably go first to the Abbot President
The Abbot President of the English Benedictine Congregation
Abbot Richard Yeo OSB
Downside Abbey
Stratton-on-the-Fosse
Bath BA3 4RH
Peter W Turner
Safeguarding Advisor
Diocese of Westminster
This is quite extraordinary. First is the matter of the Abbot's excuse. Initially he had claimed that it would be inappropriate to meet me because there would be victims present. Now he is happy to meet victims so long as I am not present!
But much more important is that there is nobody within the Catholic Church in England and Wales who has any authority over the Abbot. If there is any suspicion of wrongdoing, then you have to go to Rome to ask for something to be done about it. The same of course applies to all the other Benedictine monasteries and convents in Britain (Ampleforth, Belmont, Buckfast, Colwich, Curzon Park, Downside, Portsmouth, Stanbrook, and Worth). And I would expect that the same applies to the Carthusians, the Cistercians, Carmelites, Poor Clares and so on.
Although geographically they are part of the Catholic Church
in England and Wales, organisationally they are not part of the Catholic Church
of England and Wales, and the writ of the Bishops and of Archbishop Vincent Nichols does not run there. So much for Archbishop Vincent Nichols' promise of transparency. If he is genuinely unable to do anything about Ealing Abbey or the other schools run by religious orders (some of which have
had child abuse problems as well), then he shouldn't have been making the promise of transparency in the first place. But if the promise of transparency does apply to the religious orders, then perhaps they should have been included in the drafting process and persuaded to sign up to the Statement.
But first things first. I wrote to the Archbishop, forwarding the correspondence with Peter Turner, and saying that I had done what he suggested in raising the matter with the Trustees, and that they take no notice of my written concerns and refuse to meet me in person. What does he suggest next?
from Jonathan West
to Archbishop Vincent Nichols
cc Peter Turner
date 24 June 2010
subject Fwd: Ealing Abbey
Dear Archbishop
As you be able to see from the email below from Peter Turner, the Abbot is not prepared to meet me to discuss my concerns. Initially the reason given by the Abbot to Mr. Turner was that it would be inappropriate for him to be present in a meeting with victims who might be recounting experiences of abuse.
On being told this by Mr Turner, I explained to him that although a number of old boys of the school (including some victims) wished to accompany me to the meeting, our intention was to discuss safeguarding policies and procedures at the Abbey and St. Benedict's. This was therefore not a reason to avoid attending the meeting.
Now, as you can see from Mr Turner's email below, it seems that meetings of the Abbot with victims individually or collectively are perfectly OK, so long as I am not present. This appears to be a complete about-face compared to the reason given previously. I cannot help but think that any excuse will do so long as it serves to avoid a meeting with me.
The school has recently updated its child protection policy (the new version is dated May 24 of this year)
http://www.stbenedicts.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/Child-Protection-and-Safeguarding-Policy-2010-24th-May-Final.pdf
However, the few changes have been made since the September 2009 version have done nothing to address my concerns, which I have expressed both in emails to the Abbot and Headmaster and publicly.
Therefore since it is clear that the Abbot takes no account of concerns raised in writing and refuses to meet with me, I have now exhausted all means of raising the matter with the Trustees as you suggested in your earlier email.
You should also note that the original response from the Abbot as forwarded by Mr. Turner (I have included the relevant emails below) contains material untruths.
Specifically, the Abbot's statement that the "Independent Review" has been published is not true. What was published is a summary probably prepared by Fr Peter Burns.
Also, the Abbot's statement that the school's current child protection policy has been approved by the Independent Schools Inspectorate is also untrue. I have been in communication both with Mr. Durell Barnes, Director of Communication of the ISI, and with Ms. Georgina Carney, of the Independent Education & Boarding Schools Team at the Department for Education. I have been categorically assured that work to bring the school's safeguarding policy "up to requirements" (Ms. Carney's words) is ongoing and that the May 2010 version of the school's child protection policy is not the outcome of that work.
I request that you intervene in this matter, making a personal request to the Abbot to meet with us both, so that my concerns can be properly addressed.
Please would you telephone me so that we can discuss the matter.
Yours sincerely
Jonathan West
So far I have had no reply from the Archbishop. But a few days later, I received this laughably irrelevant email from Peter Turner.
from Peter Turner
to Jonathan West
date 28 June 2010 08:07
subject RE: Ealing Abbey
Mr West
Can you please confirm whether you will be attending the meeting at Vaughan House tomorrow?
Peter
I replied as follows.
from Jonathan West
to Peter Turner
date 28 June 2010 09:24
subject Re: Ealing Abbey
Since the Abbot will not be attending, and I have received no reply to my last email to the Archbishop, I see no point at this time in having a meeting. Perhaps you could ask the Archbishop to telephone me to advise what (if anything) he proposes to do.
Regards
Jonathan West
The next email was even more ridiculous.
from Peter Turner
to Jonathan West
date 28 June 2010 09:35
subject RE: Ealing Abbey
Mr West
Many thanks for letting me know that you will not be attending tomorrow.
I will certainly inform the Archbishop of this and your request for him to contact you.
Can I again please impress upon you that, should any victims become known to you that you ask them to contact the Police or Social Service’s. I am always available to assist them should they wish to speak to me, in the first instance.
Peter W Turner
I'm coming to the conclusion that he doesn't even read my emails properly. I've already told him that I encourage any victims who contact me to make a statement to the police.
from Jonathan West
to Peter Turner
date 28 June 2010 10:21
subject Re: Ealing Abbey
Dear Mr Turner
I have already advised you that I have been contacted by several victims of various monks and teachers at St. Benedicts. I always encourage them to come forward and make a statement to the police, no matter how long ago the abuse occurred, and no matter whether the perpetrator is still alive. A number of victims who first contacted me have gone on to make a statement to the police, and I understand that one or more such complaints led to the arrest of Father Gregory Chillman earlier this year.
I leave it to the police to investigate to see whether any criminal prosecutions can be brought as a result. I have been in touch with DS Gareth Morgan, to ensure that my approach to this will assist rather than impede any criminal investigations carried out by the police.
My concern is more about the culture of cover-up at the Abbey, and the way in which the school's child protection procedures are written so as to enable the school to avoid reporting allegations and suspicions of abuse, and to classify various kinds of sexual contact as not being incidents of abuse. This the complete opposite of the "transparency" promised by the Archbishop and his colleagues in the Statement from the Catholic Bishops of England and Wales a month or two ago. Could I ask whether you have actually read the school's child protection policy, whether you consider it a document which is appropriate to its purpose, whether you have requested changes, and whether those changes have been implemented?
I added in at this point a further account of abuse that had recently been brought to my attention, where I had been requested to bring the matter to the attention of the relevant authorities. It is not appropriate for me to publish the details at this time.
I closed with the following:
Finally, you should be aware that the Abbot's refusal to meet has caused great anger amongst those who intended accompanying me to the meeting and the others supporting them - including parents, old boys, victims and members of victims' families.
Regards
Jonathan West
So far, no response to this last email.
So, here is the situation. The Abbot is avoiding meeting me. He doesn't reply to emails. His excuses for not meeting me quite frankly contain lies, and not even very subtle ones. It would seem that he would prefer to be seen to be a liar than have to spend any time in the same room as me.
The Archbishop is not formally able to force the Abbot to do anything he doesn't want to do, and has not given any indication of a willingness to use informal influence to persuade the Abbot to make changes.
The School has recently updated its child protection policies, but they remain as weak as ever and bound about by caveats and matters of subjective judgement, even down to the very definition of "sexual abuse" which is written in a way as to depend on an opinion on the part of the school as to whether a child understands what is being done to him. In essence, the school's safeguarding policy is a paedophile's charter.
The Abbey itself has no safeguarding procedures. At least, it has no procedures which it either publishes or refers to on its website. It has a
Safeguarding Statement, which is an expression of intent with no procedures. The Safeguarding Statement is followed by contact details firstly of the diocesan safeguarding team and then afterwards of the Parish Safeguarding Representatives, but without giving any clue as to what their duties are or whether allegations or suspicions of abuse should be raised with them. And it contains a link to the recommendations and procedures of the
Catholic Safeguarding Advisory Service, but I notice that there is nothing on the Abbey website which says that the Abbey is actually following those procedures.
