tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-65182021353481938592024-03-19T08:47:41.156+00:00Confessions of a skepticJonathan Westhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00527063732905729010noreply@blogger.comBlogger432125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6518202135348193859.post-36780662020916042112024-01-27T15:52:00.000+00:002024-01-27T15:52:28.287+00:00The Procession: a chat with old school friends, a disclosure and a still from a film<p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEiLju4Xj19lGsGZVMLJ_RVYjQrQUW5DuTjAjQ7ERwcbKKV4CGFp88um9KdSfj2dR4H__lrO5BAeBm6RzGbQXu5OC4jG2_7b7hXoWXBPGGVV0N5PoADW86my7Av0p0ZO-Ifo0rLW0VZVeA0XlNR7An2wy4wfRKGNA0oxw-Po1-dpXkQK7tQjCIhyW5Coivc" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="611" data-original-width="911" height="269" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEiLju4Xj19lGsGZVMLJ_RVYjQrQUW5DuTjAjQ7ERwcbKKV4CGFp88um9KdSfj2dR4H__lrO5BAeBm6RzGbQXu5OC4jG2_7b7hXoWXBPGGVV0N5PoADW86my7Av0p0ZO-Ifo0rLW0VZVeA0XlNR7An2wy4wfRKGNA0oxw-Po1-dpXkQK7tQjCIhyW5Coivc=w400-h269" width="400" /></a></div><br /><i>This is a guest post by former St.Benedict's pupil Jeremy Mulvey.</i><p></p><p>I was a schoolboy at St Benedict’s Ealing in the 1960s where, it turns out, a number of the boys I knew were sexually abused. They were abused by monks who are now in prison. I had no idea as a child that sexual abuse was going on. The silence persisted for four decades until victims started to speak up and eventually with media reports of the trials, the truth came out into the open.</p><p>This painting is about hiding the truth. The splendour of church ritual dazzles the viewer, sunbeams and incense obscuring things that are not meant to be seen. While I respect the Catholic Church and it is by no means the only religious institution perpetrating sexual abuse, I feel all too often members of such organisations feel pressured to put the reputation of their organisation before the safety of the children in their care.</p><p>This misplaced loyalty is now being challenged, potentially at least, by reports from the Independent Enquiry into Child Sexual Abuse. <a href="https://www.iicsa.org.uk/reports-recommendations/publications/investigation/english-benedictine-congregation-ealing-abbey.html" target="_blank">One report was specifically about Ealing Abbey</a>, and <a href="https://www.iicsa.org.uk/final-report.html" target="_blank">the final report covered the entire scope of the Inquiry</a>. Among a number of proposals, one in particular makes it mandatory for people who work in regulated activity or in positions of trust to report allegations of child sexual abuse. The report’s proposals are currently before parliament. Should this proposal become law, the radiance of Rome will, perhaps, become less impenetrable.</p><p>The inspiration for this painting came from a chance remark made by one of my school friends at a St Benedict’s Old Boys reunion. When the topics of monks, teachers and sexual abuse came up, my friend mentioned that he had been abused by a monk who was known to us all. His revelation was followed by an awkward silence and a desire for the chatter to move on. How long had our friend’s suffering been a buried secret, I wondered.</p><p>I shall call my friend Benedict to protect his identity. As a boy I remember he was rather small, good looking, quiet, and well-behaved. What he said may have been blurted out for the first time in his life, unplanned. I don’t know. Whatever the case maybe, I could not get his revelation out of my head. A still from the film, Angels and Demons, showing a cardinals’ procession in the Vatican suddenly engendered in my imagination a way of dealing with my friend’s wounding memory and the decades of silence.</p><p>Benedict, this painting is for you. </p><p><i>If you have been affected by issues raised by this statement please contact:</i> <a href="http://macsas.org.uk">macsas.org.uk</a> <i>Minister and Clergy Sexual Abuse Survivors</i></p><p><i>Editor's note: It is very common for abuse survivors to delay years or decades before disclosing the abuse they suffered. The IICSA final report estimates that the average delay is <b>26 years</b>. That being the average, of course some will delay much longer. "Benedict" is by no means unusual in this.</i></p>Jonathan Westhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00527063732905729010noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6518202135348193859.post-58115566821339735852022-03-16T23:25:00.001+00:002022-03-17T08:46:42.117+00:00Ampleforth's latest failed Ofsted inspection<p>Ampleforth College was inspected (again) by Ofsted for its safeguarding last Novermber/December. It failed (again). The latest <a href="https://reports.ofsted.gov.uk/provider/27/121735" target="_blank">Ofsted report</a> was published today on its website. It is a sorry read and I suspect it means the end of the school.</p><p></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">First, a
bit of historical context. Ampleforth was the subject of extensive hearings at
IICSA (The Independent Inquiry into Child Sex Abuse) at the end of 2017. <a href="https://www.iicsa.org.uk/reports-recommendations/publications/investigation/ampleforth-downside" target="_blank">IICSA’s report</a> published the following year severely criticised the school for abuses
of pupils (some as young as seven years old) stretching over decades. The
perpetrators were predominantly but not exclusively monks. The failure of the
college and abbey to report the abuses or otherwise take effective action to
prevent the abuse was also severely criticized.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">In July
2019, in response to a failed ISI inspection, DfE sent Ampleforth a <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/ampleforth-college-warning-notice--2" target="_blank">Warning Notice</a> “requiring an Action Plan which details the steps that will be taken” to
meet those of the Independent Schools Standards it was failing. These covered health
and safety, child protection, complaints handling and leadership amongst other
items.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Ampleforth’s
first action plan submitted to DfE was rejected and had to be beefed up. Things
seemed to improve, and two ISI inspections in 2020 were passed. But DfE received
information to the effect that the second ISI inspection may have missed
something important, and so commissioned Ofsted to carry out an emergency
inspection in September 2020. Multiple serious problems were found.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">As a result,
in November 2020 <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/education/2020/nov/28/pupils-barred-ampleforth-college-catholic-school-abuse-scandal" target="_blank">DfE issued an Enforcement Notice</a> barring the school from
accepting any new pupils. If this ban were maintained for any significant
length of time, it would have meant the closure of the school. No school can
survive without new pupils.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Ampleforth’s
initial reaction was to deny that there was a problem, complain that Ofsted had
got it all wrong and threaten legal action to overturn the ban. This position
lasted until mid January. At this point, I rather suspect that they received advice
to the effect that legal action had very little prospect of success, and so
they were going to have to persuade DfE that they had changed. So they withdrew
the threat of legal action, admitted their faults, promised to improve and
requested another Ofsted inspection to demonstrate that things were better.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">That
inspection happened in February 2021 and the report published in March. They
failed again, about as badly as before. <a href="https://www.thetablet.co.uk/news/13931/ampleforth-ban-on-recruitment-to-stay-for-now" target="_blank">DfE declined to lift the ban</a> but
indicated that Ampleforth could ask for another inspection whenever they
wanted.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Things were
now quite desperate for the school. If it couldn’t take a new cohort of pupils in September
2021 this would almost certainly have meant the school having to close. No school can survive long without new pupils. But
offers have to be finalized around Easter for the following September, and Easter
was now very near.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">So the
school immediately asked for another Ofsted inspection. I suspect that they didn’t
believe they would actually pass, but perhaps they might demonstrate sufficient
improvement that they could persuade DfE to lift the ban while they carried on
working at it. The inspection took place on 23 March.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">They failed
again, with little if any sign of improvement. Interestingly, Ofsted added
another issue to their list of concerns: the governance of the school and the
extent to which it was interlinked with the Abbey.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">At the
IICSA hearings back in 2017, witnesses and Ampleforth’s legal representatives went
to great lengths to explain that everything was different now and the mistakes
of the past could not be repeated. One measure that was said to have been taken
was the separation of the governance of the Abbey and the school into two
separate charitable trusts. But Ofsted had concluded that this separation was
essentially in name only.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">But by a
miracle, even through the school had failed its third Ofsted inspection in six
months, <a href="https://schoolsweek.co.uk/dfe-lifts-ampleforth-college-pupil-recruitment-ban-despite-continuing-safeguarding-concerns/" target="_blank">DfE lifted the ban on new pupils</a>, claiming that the school had made
“unprecented undertakings” to improve. There would be a further Ofsted
inspection in the autumn term to see that those improvements had happened. Vast
sighs of relief all round from the school, abbey and their various influential friends
who had lobbied DfE on the school’s behalf.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">And so to
the present. Ofsted visited again at the end of November 2021, and as we have
now seen, failed the school yet again. In a direct repeat of the previous
autumn, Ampleforth is blaming Ofsted for getting everything wrong, and has
appealed the outcome. This is why it has taken over three months for the report
to be published.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The failures are all on the subject of safeguarding. In summary:</p><p></p><p class="MsoNormal"></p><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>The school doesn’t have control over which monks live at the monastery on site, who could include those who are judged a danger to children</li><li>The children aren’t in a position to know the difference between those monks with a school role and therefore entitled to be within the school grounds and those who don’t have a role and shouldn’t be allowed in the school</li><li>There was a serious incident around a sixth-form party involving drugs and excessive alcohol consumption</li><li><span style="text-indent: -18pt;">Inadequate
supervision leading to sex between pupils with special educational needs</span></li><li><span style="text-indent: -18pt;">Failure
to make a prompt DBS referral when a staff member is dismissed</span></li></ul><p></p><p>
</p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">On the
positive side, experienced safeguarding staff had been recruited, referrals
were getting made to external agencies, past records had been combed resulting
in further referrals, and the safeguarding policy itself was compliant –
although not being properly followed.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">But even
so, it obvious that there is a long way to go before there can be confidence in
the school, and Ofsted bluntly said so. “The arrangements for safeguarding are
not effective” and “there is still much work to do to ensure that the
independent school standards are consistently met over time”.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Ampleforth
is a long-established and prestigious school. It complained bitterly about the
September 2020 report before belatedly withdrawing its objections. Those
complaints included press articles from friendly journalists and commentators
suggesting anti-Catholic bias was motivating Ofsted and the government. Ofsted would
have known to expect something similar this time. One can therefore be reasonably
sure that the report has been triple-checked for factual accuracy and thoroughly
lawyered before publication. It is undoubtedly as bullet-proof as Ofsted and
the government legal service knows how to make it. (The government legal
service has some very good lawyers!)<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Nonetheless,
in its media statement in response to the Ofsted report, Ampleforth has claimed
that “Ofsted's report contains substantive factual inaccuracies which undermine
its conclusions about our safeguarding and leadership”. They go on to describe four
specific cases where they claim that Ofsted has got its facts wrong about
various incidents referred to in the report.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">In a message to parents and alumni, the school has said</p><p></p><p class="MsoNormal"></p><blockquote>“We have used, and continue to use, Ofsted’s complaints process to try to demonstrate these inaccuracies and request revision of their assessment. At our request, Ofsted are now carrying out an internal review, but they have decided to publish the reports while the review is ongoing. During and since the inspection, Ofsted have viewed our consistent attempts to correct inaccuracies as a failure of leaders to accept responsibility. However, we cannot simply accept damaging errors and ill-founded judgements. The Abbey have also been in touch today to say they have contacted Ofsted directly to express concern about inaccurate statements about the Abbey and the Abbot which are contained in the reports. We are expecting a follow-up inspection after Ofsted’s review has finished and we are ready. Aside from being factually inaccurate, the cases Ofsted have raised are not linked and do not demonstrate systemic inadequacy."</blockquote><p></p><p></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Ampleforth’s
big problem is that it hasn’t demonstrated to Ofsted’s satisfaction that there
is substantial improvement in safeguarding. Their great fear is that the ban on
new pupils will be re-introduced. Assuming DfE accepts Ofsted’s assessment, it
is hard to see how Baroness Barran (Minister for the School System) could politically justify not re-introducing the ban.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">But last academic year, the ban was introduced in late November and lifted in mid April, just in
time for the school to confirm offers of new places for September. But we are
now in mid March. If the ban were to be re-applied, then they would need to get
it lifted by end of April at the very latest in order to make offers to pupils
for September. (Easter is late this year, which helps somewhat.) That would mean
another immediate inspection, and given how long this saga has now dragged on
for, I can’t see DfE this time accepting anything less than a complete pass
from Ofsted as justification for lifting the ban.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Ampleforth (Abbey
and College) is also in serious difficulty financially. </span>The school has been
losing money. It is financially dependent on the Abbey (which owns the land and
the buildings), and the Abbey has missed scheduled repayments on a substantial
overdraft, which they hoped to clear with the proceeds of the sale of Gilling Castle.
They haven’t yet found a buyer at the £3.5m asking price. This seriously complicates the problem of demonstrating that the school is independent of the Abbey, which seems to be an aspect of safety DfE has insisted on.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">This
suggests that Ampleforth has concluded that its only chance of survival is to
fight Ofsted and try and get the report overturned, so that DfE isn’t persuaded
that a ban is needed. My guess is that this is a desperate and probably forlorn
hope. If they fail, they will further convince DfE that they aren’t willing and
able to make the changes that are needed, and enforcement will almost inevitably
follow. If that happens, the school will very probably close.</span></p><p></p>Jonathan Westhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00527063732905729010noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6518202135348193859.post-51736893494546938312021-05-10T10:00:00.000+01:002021-05-10T10:00:11.280+01:00The legal issues around the DfE decision<div><div>The Department for Education isn't free arbitrarily to do what it wants over issuing or revoking Enforcement Notices. There is law defining both the circumstances under which an Enforcement Notice can be issued and under which it can be varied or revoked. The relevant law is the Education and Skills Act 2008. <a href="https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2008/25/section/115" target="_blank">Section 115</a> defines the circumstances in which a notice can be imposed and <a href="https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2008/25/section/118">Section 118</a> defines how and when it can be revoked. Here is the wording of section 115.<br /><br /><b>115 Power of Secretary of State to take enforcement action</b><br /><br /></div><div style="margin-left: 40px; text-align: left;">(1) This section applies to a registered independent educational institution if the Secretary of State is satisfied, taking into account relevant evidence, that one or more of the independent educational institution standards is or are not being met in relation to the institution.<br /></div><br /></div><div style="margin-left: 40px; text-align: left;">(2) In subsection (1) “relevant evidence” means—<br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><div style="margin-left: 80px; text-align: left;">(a) the report of an inspection carried out by the Chief Inspector or an independent inspectorate, or<br /><br />(b) any other evidence in respect of the institution.<br /></div><br /><div style="margin-left: 40px; text-align: left;">(3) The Secretary of State may take enforcement action under section 116 against the proprietor of a registered independent educational institution to which this section applies if either of the following conditions is met.<br /><br />(4) The first condition is that—<br /></div><br /><div style="margin-left: 80px; text-align: left;">(a) the Secretary of State has, during the period of three years before the enforcement action is taken, required the proprietor of the institution to submit one or more action plans under section 114, and<br /><br />(b) any action plan required as mentioned in paragraph (a)—<br /><br /></div><div style="margin-left: 80px; text-align: left;"><div style="margin-left: 40px; text-align: left;">(i) has not been submitted, and the date specified by the Secretary of State under section 114(5)(b) has passed,<br /><br />(ii) was submitted but was rejected, or<br /><br />(iii) was approved but was subsequently not complied with.<br /></div></div><br /><div style="margin-left: 40px; text-align: left;">(5) The second condition is that—<br /></div><br /><div style="margin-left: 80px; text-align: left;">(a) at least two years before the enforcement action is taken the Secretary of State required the proprietor of the institution to submit an action plan,<br /><br />(b) at least one inspection of the institution has been carried out, by the Chief Inspector or an independent inspectorate approved under section 106 in relation to the institution, since that requirement was imposed, and<br /><br />(c) the Secretary of State has not at any time since that requirement was imposed been satisfied that the institution was meeting all of the independent educational institution standards.<br /></div><br /><a href="https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2008/25/section/116" target="_blank">Section 116</a> of the Act describes the possible kinds of enforcement action that can be taken, and <a href="https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2008/25/section/124" target="_blank">Section 124</a> describes how a school can appeal against a Notice. Ampleforth did in fact make an appeal but withdrew it on 22nd January, before any hearings had taken place. So it was in effect agreed by all parties that the Secretary of State had the legal right to act as he did in imposing the ban. He had "relevant evidence" as described in 115(2)(a) in the form of the September emergency Ofsted inspection report, and under 115(5) the school had previously been required to produce an action plan (in response to an earlier Warning Notice issued under Section 114), at least one inspection had been carried out since and the Secretary of State had not in the intervening time given the school a clean bill of health by withdrawing the Warning Notice.</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br />So the Enforcement Notice was issued on 27th November 2020 and went into force on 22 January 2021 on withdrawal of the school's appeal.<br /><br />Section 118 describes how the Enforcement Notice can be revoked.<br /><br /><b>118 Relevant restriction imposed by Secretary of State: supplementary</b><br /><br /><div style="margin-left: 40px; text-align: left;">(1) This section applies where the proprietor of an institution is subject to a relevant restriction imposed by the Secretary of State under section 116(1)(a).<br /><br />(2) If the proprietor fails to comply with the relevant restriction the proprietor is guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 51 weeks or to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale (or to both).<br /><br />(3) In relation to an offence committed before the commencement of section 281(5) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (c. 44), for “51 weeks” in subsection (2) substitute “six months ”.<br /></div><br /><div style="margin-left: 40px; text-align: left;">(4) The proprietor may apply to the Secretary of State for the restriction to be varied or revoked.<br /><br />(5) On an application under subsection (4) the Secretary of State must—<br /><br /></div><div style="margin-left: 40px; text-align: left;"><div style="margin-left: 40px; text-align: left;">(a) vary or revoke the restriction as requested in the application, if the Secretary of State is satisfied that it is appropriate to do so because of any change of circumstance, and<br /><br />(b) in any other case, refuse to do so.<br /></div></div><div style="margin-left: 40px; text-align: left;"><br />(6) The Secretary of State must notify the proprietor of the decision made under subsection (5).<br /><br />(7) A decision to vary or revoke the restriction has effect as from the date on which the proprietor receives notice of it.<br /> <br /></div>The key phrase is section 118(5). The school can apply under section 118(4) at any time for the ban on pupils to be revoked. Section 118(5) then defines what the Secretary of State can do in response. Under 118(5)(a), if he is “satisfied that it is appropriate” to lift the ban because there has been “any change of circumstance” making it appropriate, he must do so, and under 118(5)(b) he must refuse in any other case. <br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div><div style="text-align: left;">Ampleforth first applied for the ban to be revoked probably in late January. As a result DfE commissioned the February Ofsted inspection. It showed no evidence of any “change of circumstance” which in the context of this law can presumably only mean a transition from not meeting the Independent Schools Standards (ISS) to meeting them, or to really stretch the point, to have made great progress and to be very nearly meeting them. The Independent Schools Standards are clearly mentioned in Section 115 as the criteria against which action is decided on. As a result, DfE acted under section 118(5)(b) and refused to revoke the ban. DfE's public comment at the time was as follows.</div><div style="text-align: left;"><blockquote>“The most recent Ofsted inspection showed the school has made some progress, but not yet enough. The school is able to immediately request a further review of the restriction if it chooses, which would trigger another inspection."</blockquote>Ampleforth did precisely that and DfE therefore commissioned yet another Ofsted inspection. Ofsted visited in March. This is where legally things get a bit murky, because the March Ofsted report was no better than the February one, and yet the DfE's response was the opposite. They revoked the ban.</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br />On the face of it, that's hard to justify legally. If the situation following the February Ofsted was such that no "change of circumstances" had occurred making it "appropriate" to lift the ban, it is extremely hard to argue that a "change of circumstances" had happened at the time of the March inspection.<br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">To the best of my knowledge there is nobody who has both the standing (i.e. the right to bring a case having been adversely affected by the decision) and the resources to seek a Judicial Review of the decision to revoke the ban, so the decision is going to stand. But it would be interesting to see what the case might be either way. I asked a solicitor friend to take an informal look. This is my paraphrase of what he told me.</div><div style="text-align: left;"></div><p>The challenge would have to be on one or more grounds of illegality, procedural impropriety or unreasonableness.</p><p>Illegality is out. The Secretary of State for Education is the person with the legal authority to make the decision.</p><p>Procedural impropriety is similarly out, as the correct procedure has been followed: the decision was made following an application from the school to revoke the ban.</p><p>That leaves unreasonableness, in which case the <a href="https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/6-200-9152?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&firstPage=true" target="_blank">Wednesbury standard</a> applies. "A reasoning or decision is Wednesbury unreasonable (or irrational) if it is so unreasonable that no reasonable person acting reasonably could have made it". This isn't in any law, it was established by precedent in the judgement in the case <i>Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation (1948) 1 KB 223. </i>So it goes back a good long way.</p><p>It is an extremely low bar for the government to clear. A decision can be wrong or even unreasonable, but still not be so utterly irrational that it fails the Wednesbury standard.</p><p>The government could argue that the wording of section 118(5)(a) gives the Secretary of State wide discretion and that he is free to take absolutely anything into account in deciding what is "appropriate", and isn't limited to the kinds of "relevant evidence" or even the criteria described in section 115. The government would claim that in essence the Secretary of State has unlimited discretion in deciding what evidence and criteria are relevant since nothing on the subject is directly stated in section 118. So he is free for instance to take into account the fact that the school
has come up with a further action plan and promised to sort itself out.</p><p>The counterargument would be that sections 118 and 115 are two sides of the same coin and that the details of criteria and "relevant evidence" described in
section 115 also apply to section 118, and that the wording was not
repeated in full simply as a matter of brevity. It is therefore not rational to apply different criteria or different standards of evidence to section 118, and therefore if an Ofsted report was the basis for the decision to impose the ban, a further Ofsted report was the basis for the decision to maintain the ban then only an Ofsted report with a different outcome can be used to justify revoking the ban.<br /></p><p>The government could also argue that if the (presumably educated and successful) parents of 165 prospective new pupils are keen to send their children there, then it's not on the face of it outrageously unreasonable (to Wednesbury standard) to allow them, even if Ofsted's opinion is that the school is unsafe.</p><p>Also, if a judge were to rule against DfE then he would in effect be
demanding the closure of the school against DfE's wishes. Judges hate
doing that sort of thing, and of course most judges have been educated at similar
sorts of schools. (That shouldn't make a difference, but it does.)</p><p>That's not to say a case brought for Judicial Review couldn't succeed, but these are the arguments it would be up against. I don't think anyone can say how a case would go, because to the best of my knowledge, these sections of the Act have never been tested in court.</p><p>But I would strongly suspect that the legal advice DfE received leaned more towards "you can get away with this because of Wednesbury" rather than "this is the right decision". </p><p>The same Wednesbury standard would have applied when Ampleforth was contemplating appealing the original ban, I'm pretty sure the legal advice the school received will have addressed the same issues of illegality, procedural impropriety or unreasonableness, and would have found that particularly in the light of the September Ofsted report, there was absolutely zero prospect of persuading a judge that the imposition of the ban was Wednesbury unreasonable. This is why the appeal was withdrawn in January before the matter reached a hearing.</p><p>Similarly, had DfE decided to maintain the ban following the March Ofsted inspection, the school could have had no conceivable means of overturning it because that decision could not plausibly be argued as being unreasonable to any extent, let alone Wednesbury unreasonable. So the school had put itself in a position where it was completely at the mercy of the decision of the Secretary of State for Education. In addition the leadership team, just to make things more difficult for themselves, had insulted Ofsted and DfE in their earlier public statements. Since they had failed to get the school's safeguarding right, the school's survival did in fact depend on its lobbying capabilities.<br /></p><p>There is to be a further Ofsted inspection in the autumn. The Warning Notice from July 2019 has not been withdrawn, <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/ampleforth-college-warning-notice--2" target="_blank">it is still up on the DfE website</a> though the Enforcement Notice has been taken down. Even though DfE has been extremely vague about what (if anything) it will actually do if Ampleforth fails the autumn Ofsted, it would seem that DfE has the legal power to re-impose the ban. It's entirely plausible that DfE would use that power if Ampleforth fails badly enough as there is a limit to how long DfE can be seen to let Ampleforth get away with inadequate safeguarding. Remember that DfE has not professed itself satisfied that Ampleforth meets the Independent School Standards since it issued the Warning Notice back in July 2018.</p><p>If the ban is re-imposed, then there will be the same merry-go-round of requests to revoke the ban, additional inspections and further decisions by the Secretary of State until around Easter next year, by which time the ban is either lifted again or the school acknowledges it can't stay open without the next September's intake. If Ampleforth hasn't got its safeguarding properly in order by then, it will most thoroughly deserve to close.<br /></p>Jonathan Westhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00527063732905729010noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6518202135348193859.post-34559659517501808142021-05-07T09:15:00.000+01:002021-05-07T09:15:24.503+01:00The DfE's decision on Ampleforth<p>On the face of it, the DfE's decision to lift the ban on new pupils at Ampleforth makes no sense at all. Two requests from the school to lift the ban, each of which triggered an Ofsted inspection which found serious and multiple safeguarding shortcomings. On 9th March in response to the February Ofsted report, DfE decided to maintain the ban, but on 14th April, having received the March Ofsted report with almost identical results, the ban was lifted. Why?</p><p>The process for recruiting new pupils in independent schools supplies the context for the decision. Schools like to get their roll for the following September finalized by Easter. It provides financial certainty and allows proper planning for staffing levels etc for the following year. But for as long as the ban was in place, Ampleforth was unable to guarantee that any prospective pupils would actually be able to take up their places.</p><p>Almost all those pupils would have had backup offers from other schools. Had the ban lasted even a week longer, those other schools would have been pressuring parents to make a final decision where they wanted to send their children. The 165 prospective new pupils that Ampleforth says it has on its books would rapidly have melted away. 165 pupils equates approximately £5 million in fees at risk. (The precise figure would depend on the mix of junior and senior, and the mix of boarders and day pupils.)</p><p>That £5m would not just be for one year. It's very hard to recruit significant numbers of pupils except at the standard entry points (1st year junior, first year senior, lower 6th), so that "missing year" would gradually move up through the school depressing fee income for some years. </p><p>The school is already in the red, it can't afford a loss of income on this scale. In recent years it has been subsidised by the Abbey which itself is in a tricky financial position and cannot afford indefinitely to bail out the school. The school owns no assets of its own, and so cannot borrow to tide it over. Almost certainly, had the ban not been lifted immediately, the school would have closed at the end of the summer term. No doubt the school and its friends and lobbyists made it clear to Gavin Williamson that a decision to delay lifting the ban was a decision to close the school.</p><p>It may well be that DfE never had any intention of forcing the school to close. After all, closing the school might result in the pupils having to be
educated in the state system at public expense! Conservative governments
are inclined to go to great lengths to help private schools. Most of
their MPs and cabinet members were educated in them. So it's reasonable to suppose that DfE just wanted to give Ampleforth a bit of a scare and get the leadership team to pull its socks up. </p><p>The Independent Schools Standards aren't <i>that </i>hard to meet. There are 2,500 independent schools in England and the rest of them seem to manage without too much difficulty. With even moderate competence and a bit of effort, the school should have been able by Easter to improve to the point where it passed an Ofsted inspection, and that is probably what DfE expected to happen. Ban lifted, school firmly slapped on the wrist, everyone happy.</p><p>But DfE perhaps didn't realise how deeply ingrained the problem was even after the September Ofsted report, and didn't count on the refusal of Ampleforth to believe it had a safeguarding problem at all, even when facing imminent closure. The school wasted valuable time challenging the original Ofsted report. The emergency Ofsted inspection was on 24-25 September. Because of the school's appeal against the result, the report was not published until 10th December. Even after Ampleforth was informed of the ban on new pupils on 27th November, the school was publicly claiming that Ofsted had got it wrong. the rest of the autumn term was wasted while the trustees and senior leadership team remained in denial.</p><p>The headmaster Robin Dyer was still following this line when he gave an interview to Times Radio on 29th December 2020. This is what he said in response to a question about what the school needed to do next.<br /></p><p></p><blockquote><p>There are three things I think. One we need an inspection and a new inspection team to arrive, whether it be the Independent Schools Inspectorate or Ofsted, to come with a fresh approach, fresh mind, perhaps not necessarily with the mindset of the inspection that occurred in September. So that's number one and we need that really in mid-January because any longer and the Restriction order will impact very adversely on the school.</p><p>The second thing is I think we need some political input here, because the secretary of state has issued this order. It seems to be cast in the past. It seems to be about 2016 to 2018 and remarkably little about what has happened in the school since August 19 when I started to lead the school, so I think we need some political action to be honest with you.</p><p>And third we need a much better relationship with North Yorkshire Safeguarding Partnership, NYSCP it is called, who we think are not terribly happy with the idea of the college living alongside a separate institution, the monastery. They seem to feel that the old relationship of the past continues and that isn't the case, we’re now separate institutions.</p></blockquote><p></p><p>In the answer to a single question he insulted the professionalism of Ofsted, suggested that decisions affecting the safety of pupils should be the subject of political lobbying, and made an extremely misleading statement about the degree of separation between the College and Abbey. His view was that Ofsted needed to change their attitude, the DfE must forget the past and NYSCP should turn a blind eye to the proximity of the Abbey and its monks.</p><p>It's hard to imagine a course of action more likely to enrage the Ofsted inspectors and sow distrust of the school at the DfE. The headmaster seemed not to have realised that the school's future in all probability depended on the good opinion of just two people: the lead Ofsted inspector for the next visit and the Secretary of State for Education.<br /></p><p>By the time the headmaster and the governors finally realised that the concerns of Ofsted and DfE weren't going to go away and had to be addressed (no matter how much they might privately or even publicly disagree), the autumn term was over, and it was clear that because of Covid the school would be unable to open as normal in January. This was an extremely stupid misjudgement on the part of those running the school. (Precisely who was responsible for this policy is of course not really known given the somewhat opaque governance arrangements and the school's continuing dependence on the Abbey.)<br /></p><p></p><p>It was at this point that the Safeguarding Alliance was commissioned by the school to come in to advise and assist. I suspect what they found when they conducted an audit in January severely shocked the leadership of the school. The audit found (amongst many other problems) a bunch of recent peer-on-peer abuse cases which should have been reported to the authorities but hadn't been. IICSA's principal criticism of Ampleforth in its 2018 report had been the school's failure to report abuse to the authorities. This new finding completely shattered the claim that all those problems of not reporting abuse were long past. On the contrary they were still horrifyingly current.<br /></p><p>The school had already made an application to DfE for the ban to be lifted, and Ofsted arrived on 3rd February to inspect. There was no time to do anything other than come clean and promise to start improving. Had the school tried to hide the Safeguarding Alliance findings from Ofsted and Safeguarding Alliance not been willing to go along with this and blown the whistle, then the February inspection report would have been even more catastrophic (from the school's point of view) than it actually was. (I'm not saying this was ever seriously considered as an option, just explaining the probable consequences had it been attempted.)<br /></p><p>Even so, the February inspection was a disastrous failure, and by the time the DfE decision to maintain the ban was announced on 9th March the spring term was almost over. A change of mind from DfE following a further inspection after Easter would be too late. So another application to revoke the ban was made immediately and maximum pressure no doubt applied to DfE to get Ofsted to visit again before the end of term. They just scraped in: Ofsted visited on 23-25 March, the last three full days of the spring term.</p><p>By now, the trustees and senior leadership team had almost certainly realised that actually <i>passing </i>the March Ofsted inspection was an unattainable goal. The headteacher effectively said as much to the <a href="https://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/education/ampleforth-college-head-says-separating-school-and-abbey-will-be-complex-and-college-has-no-assets-its-own-3134014" target="_blank">Yorkshire Post</a>, as they reported 13th February.</p><p></p><blockquote><p>Mr Dyer, who joined Ampleforth from Wellington College in Berkshire in 2019, admitted that the school would close if the decision were not reversed.</p><p>He has led reforms and accepts that Ampleforth's past is 'indefensible'.</p><p>He has removed several senior staff from their posts but says that a further three years would be required to oversee a complete overhaul of the school's culture.</p></blockquote><p></p><p>This is a remarkable change from the belligerent tone adopted in the interview with Times Radio a mere six weeks earlier. It sounds like an exercise in managing expectations - telling DfE that they couldn't possibly be expected to get all the way to passing Ofsted in one go and should be allowed an extended period of time in which to bring themselves up to standard. They pinned their hopes on making enough improvement that they could justify a decision by DfE to lift the ban while they continued to work at it. </p><p>But they blew it. This strategy required that they show some substantial improvement to show they were on the right path, but the March report was no better than February and in some ways worse, partly because DfE and Ofsted had finally noticed that they needed to take a hard look at governance and the school's claims about separation from the abbey.</p><p>But because the school wanted to remain open and DfE presumably didn't <i>really </i>want to force it into closure, something had hastily to be cobbled together to justify lifting the ban. The local MP Kevin Hollinrake said he had "had a number of conversations with the Secretary of State for Education, Gavin Williamson". I'm sure there were several meetings to try and come to some arrangement that would save face all round.<br /></p><p>The result was a triumph of political lobbying. It might have been better had the school put the same effort into being good at safeguarding and not needed its political lobbying capabilities. In the end DfE announced that:</p><blockquote><p>Our robust action in relation to the school has secured unprecedented commitments to improve governance and safeguarding. With this in mind, we have lifted the restriction on Ampleforth admitting new pupils. We will be monitoring it closely and if it is not meeting the standards at the next inspection we will not hesitate to consider whether further action is necessary.</p></blockquote><p>The DfE is remarkably vague as to what (if any) action it will take if the school fails the next Ofsted inspection. Promising that they "will not hesitate to consider whether further action is necessary" is about as meaningless a statement as it is possible to make. It commits the DfE to precisely nothing and leaves open the option of letting Ampleforth get away indefinitely with failing to meet basic safeguarding standards. </p><p>The DfE's actions (such as they are) are the opposite of robust and the requirements are unprecedented only in their leniency in the circumstances. Any other school that has got this bad and not improved has actually been closed.</p><p></p><p>Some of the commitments demanded of the school have been disclosed by DfE to the press.</p><p></p><blockquote><p>The school has committed to a formal action plan to sustain a strong safeguarding culture and meet the independent school standards in full at the point of its next Ofsted inspection in autumn 2021.</p></blockquote><p>That word "sustain" is rather curious in this context. Achieving a strong safeguarding culture needs to come first before we can think about sustaining it, and that still seems a distant goal.<br /></p><blockquote><p>Amongst other measures, it is to make substantial changes to the trust board, appointing new trustees with no previous connection to either the school or the Abbey, employ a new, experienced designated safeguarding lead, and contract an external agency to provide ongoing safeguarding support for a period of three years.<br /><br />It is also to commission twice yearly independent monitoring reviews of
its safeguarding practices, with findings made available to the
Department. This will be in addition to Ofsted inspections as required.</p></blockquote><p>The action plan hasn't been disclosed, so we have no idea what these "other measures" are, what else
the school has actually promised to do and by when. Without that,
neither staff nor parents nor public have any means of telling what
progress is being made.<br /></p><p>Of the measures we have been told about, the most striking is the requirement to "employ a new, experienced designated safeguarding lead". It looks as if the school has been forced to accept that the existing designated safeguarding lead was part of the problem. Hardly surprising given that Ofsted had made serious and specific criticisms about his competence. But it doesn't reflect well on the headmaster and trustees that it took three Ofsted inspections failing specifically on safeguarding and the need for an action plan that would satisfy DfE for this decision to be forced on them.</p><p>A job advert has already been posted for his replacement. From the wording of the job ad, it looks as if they expect the new person to arrive immediately (without working out their notice at their previous school), hit the ground running and transform safeguarding in the school in a single term in time to pass an Ofsted inspection in the autumn. All while working on a temporary contract. That's a challenging brief to put it mildly. The new person will need to work miracles.</p><p>A great deal of independent monitoring for the next three years has been demanded. This is an indication of how deeply DfE mistrusts the school. It is pretty clear that DfE has agreed with the headmaster's revised view that it will take three years to change the school culture and have concluded that they need to keep close tabs on the place for the entire duration. I expect that the Warning Notice is going to remain in force for all that time, so any backsliding by the school could easily see the ban re-imposed. Even for an old-established public school with friends in high places, there is ultimately a limit to how much patience the DfE can justify.</p><p>All the additional support that DfE is demanding that the school obtain is going to be expensive. The school is going to have to pay for it out of fee income, and the finances aren't great at the moment.</p><p>Overall though, whole thing stinks. The government has scrambled to find some figleaf of justification to avoid making a decision that (for the safety of the pupils) it knows it should, but doesn't want to for fear of upsetting friends. I guess the main reason this story hasn't hit the news to a greater extent is that it has had to compete with much bigger stories about government cronyism.<br /></p>Jonathan Westhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00527063732905729010noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6518202135348193859.post-86286266426879550412021-05-05T12:13:00.000+01:002021-05-05T12:13:18.348+01:00Ampleforth's finances<p>Ofsted found that "The St Laurence Education Trust and the Ampleforth Abbey Trust remain linked closely" and clearly weren't happy about it for reasons I described in my previous article. So one needs to take a look at precisely how closely they are linked, and how easy would it be to separate them. An experienced professional accountant has conducted an examination of Ampleforth's finances, based on their Companies House and Charities Commission returns published last year.</p><p>A quick summary of the organisations involved: The Abbey is
represented by <b>The Ampleforth Abbey Trustees Ltd </b>and
<b>Ampleforth Abbey Trust</b>, and the <b>St Laurence Education Trust</b> runs the
school. Where a charitable body also engages in trading activities of some kind,
it is common for it to be registered both as a company and a charity.
Both the abbey and the school have this dual registration. The key
question analysed is how independent the school is from the Abbey.</p><p>The overall conclusion is that the school is dependent on the Abbey financially, organisationally and operationally, and their combined somewhat precarious financial position offers little or no prospect of being able to achieve a meaningful separation for the foreseeable future. </p><p>In fact the ability of Abbey and school to continue operating as going concerns is an open question, since there is a substantial bank loan secured on the property (all owned by the Abbey) and repayable in full by January 2024. That's a stiff repayment schedule for a group of organisations which collectively appear currently to be <i>losing </i>money.</p><p>It may be that satisfying Ofsted that the school can meet the Independent School Standards section on leadership depends (among other things) on achieving the separation in governance which the Independent Inquiry into Child
Sex Abuse has described as essential. If so, then there's very little chance of the school passing an Ofsted any time soon. Quite what this means for the future of the school remains to be seen.<br /></p><p>Here is the accountant's analysis.<br /></p><p>=== <br /></p><p>
</p><p class="MsoNormal">The statements examined were those for 31 August 2019 in
respect of:</p>
<ul style="text-align: left;"><li><span style="font-family: Symbol; mso-bidi-font-family: Symbol; mso-fareast-font-family: Symbol;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;"><span style="font: 7pt "Times New Roman";"></span></span></span>The Ampleforth Abbey Trustees Ltd, (TAAT) <a href="https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/00396036/filing-history">Company</a>
</li><li><span style="font-family: Symbol; mso-bidi-font-family: Symbol; mso-fareast-font-family: Symbol;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;"><span style="font: 7pt "Times New Roman";"></span></span></span>Ampleforth Abbey Trust (AAT) <a href="https://register-of-charities.charitycommission.gov.uk/charity-search?p_p_id=uk_gov_ccew_onereg_charitydetails_web_portlet_CharityDetailsPortlet&p_p_lifecycle=2&p_p_state=maximized&p_p_mode=view&p_p_resource_id=%2Faccounts-resource&p_p_cacheability=cacheLevelPage&_uk_gov_ccew_onereg_charitydetails_web_portlet_CharityDetailsPortlet_objectiveId=A10383967&_uk_gov_ccew_onereg_charitydetails_web_portlet_CharityDetailsPortlet_priv_r_p_mvcRenderCommandName=%2Faccounts-and-annual-returns&_uk_gov_ccew_onereg_charitydetails_web_portlet_CharityDetailsPortlet_priv_r_p_organisationNumber=1026493">Charity</a>
and </li><li><span style="font-family: Symbol; mso-bidi-font-family: Symbol; mso-fareast-font-family: Symbol;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;"><span style="font: 7pt "Times New Roman";"></span></span></span>St Laurence Education Trust (SLET) <a href="https://register-of-charities.charitycommission.gov.uk/charity-search/-/charity-details/3941722/charity-overview">Charity</a>,
<a href="https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/03415320">Company</a></li></ul>
<p class="MsoNormal">The relevant financial statements can be inspected through the
hyperlinks listed above. </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">All figures and quotations below come from these statements.
Underlining and italics have been added for emphasis.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>How independent is SLET?</b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The purported independence of SLET is set out by implication
in SLET's financial statements, Note 16: <i>“St Laurence Education Trust is a
company limited by guarantee and <b>until May 2019 was a wholly owned
subsidiary of the Ampleforth Abbey Trust</b>, a charity registered in the United
Kingdom (charity registration number 1026493).… In May 2019 the Ampleforth Abbey Trustees (on behalf of Ampleforth Abbey
Trust) ceased being the sole member of the St Laurence Education Trust and
there was no ultimate controlling party from this date. In May 2019 the
Ampleforth Abbey Trustees (on behalf of Ampleforth Abbey Trust) ceased being
the sole member of the St Laurence Education Trust and <b>there was no ultimate
controlling party from this date</b>.”</i>. </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Eight criteria normally associated with control or autonomy are
shown below in points (a) – (h). For an entity to qualify as independent, <b>all
eight need to be met</b>, but not one is in respect of SLET. Evidence for the
non-compliance with the criteria is demonstrated for each of the eight criteria
by the numerous extracts below taken from the financial statements that the
Ampleforth companies have drafted themselves:</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>(a) Not being a subsidiary of any other body and/or no
other body publishes consolidated accounts incorporating those of the body
claiming control or autonomy.<br />
</b>The following extracts portray a different picture from the one shown in
italics above, while perhaps not being necessarily mutually exclusive.<br /><br />
AAT’s audited financial statements at 31 August 2019 were consolidated ones which
included 100% of SLET’s figures. Per Note 1 “<i>In relation to the subsidiary
entity of St Laurence Education Trust, which represents a material component of
these consolidated financial statements</i> …”.<br /><br />
Similarly, per AAT Note 6. “<i>St Laurence Education Trust (company number
3415320, charity number 1063808) and The St Benet's Trust (company number
7684231, charity number 1143350) are wholly owned or controlled subsidiary
charities, incorporated in the United Kingdom which are included within the
consolidated figures</i>.” These figures related to the year ended 31 August
2019. </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>(b) The unfettered ability to appoint directors/trustees
(and dismiss them).<br />
</b>According to SLET Note 16 “<i>Trustees </i>[directors of SLET] <i>are
appointed by the sole corporate member of the St Laurence Education Trust, The
Ampleforth Abbey Trustees</i>.” (TAAT) <br /><br />Until 10 December 2019, all the directors
of TAAT are/were in holy orders, thereafter (Companies House records were
accessed on 15 March 2021), the majority of the directors are/were in holy
orders and therefore in control. (Information taken from the TAAT Directors
report and Companies House).</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>(c) Having a business model that is independently
sustainable<br />
</b>For the year ending 31 August 2019 SLET lost £(1,473,000) and at 31 August
2019 it had net liabilities of £(1,083,000) (SLET Pages 16 and 17). SLET is
entirely dependent on AAT’s goodwill to continue.<br /><br />
Per SLET Page 11: “<i>The College’s projected deficits to 31 August 2021 are
expected to be funded by a non-repayable grant from Ampleforth Abbey Trust.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The intention to provide this funding has
been confirmed in writing to the Trustees and this support is subject to
certain performance and monitoring conditions</i>.”<br /><br />
Per SLET Page 13 “<i>the Trust </i>[SLET]<i> is financially reliant upon the
support facility provided by Ampleforth Abbey Trust for the foreseeable future</i>”.
<br /><br />
Per AAT Note 1: “[AAT] <i>has agreed to provide a certain level of financial
support for the period to 31 August 2021. … The trustees of St Laurence
Education Trust have taken action accordingly and, having prepared updated
financial forecasts, are satisfied that, with the support provided by
Ampleforth Abbey Trust, there are adequate resources to continue in operation
for at least the next 12 months from the date of approval of these financial
statements</i>.” <br /><br />
Without such support, SLET could not survive.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>(d) Retaining sole control over all important activities <br />
</b>“<i>Joint committees with Ampleforth Abbey Trust have been formed to
consider Trustee appointments and senior staff remuneration, safeguarding,
health and safety and risk management</i>.” (SLET Page 4)<br />
Similarly, “<i>Management of Risk - The management of risk is exercised by the
Trust through the quarterly consideration of a consolidated risk register
containing risks pertaining to the three on-site entities (Ampleforth Abbey
Trust, St Laurence Education Trust and Ampleforth Abbey Trading Ltd).</i>” (SLET
Page 5) <br /><br />
Also “<i>On 26 October 2018, the Ampleforth Abbey Trust and the St Laurence
Education Trust signed a Framework Agreement governing the works of Ampleforth.
The revised governance relationship enshrined in the Agreement allows the
trustees of each Trust to discharge their legal duties and responsibilities,
operate as independent charities with intrinsic links.</i>” (AAT Page 4)</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>(e) Having control of strategy<br />
</b>Work is almost complete, following significant collaboration and
consultation, on the development of a strategic plan for the Ampleforth site which
spans both trusts. (AAT Page 13)</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>(f) Having control of finance<br />
</b>“<i>the trustees </i>[of AAT] <i>have renegotiated the existing banking
covenants and realised funds through the sale of a proportion of the Trusts investments
in order to fill the short term funding gap</i>.” (AAT Page 11)<br /><br />
SLET is in no position, even if it were permitted to do so, to negotiate
finance, including for working capital or covering operating deficits - without
which it cannot continue to operate. It has no assets to offer as security and had net
liabilities of £1,083,000. (SLET Page 11)</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>(g) Having control over expenditure <br />
</b>Per AAT Note 1: “<i>The Trust incurs expenditure on behalf of its
subsidiaries, the St Laurence Education Trust, The St Benet's Trust and
Ampleforth Abbey Trading Limited. These costs are then re-charged to the
relevant companies and are shown as income and expenditure within the Trust
accounts</i>.” This re-charge exceeded £8,000,000 for 2018/9 (SLET Note 17b)</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>(h) Having control of its physical infrastructure
necessary to operate<br />
</b>SLET has no property (SLET Page 17) which is owned by AAT (Page 23). And
rather than being held under a lease, its occupancy of the property is included
in the arrangement overall agreement with AAT, which as shown above, is
conditional.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>AMPLEFORTH FINANCES (BASED ON 31 AUGUST 2019 FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS OF SLET AND CONSOLIDATED ONES OF AAT)</b></p>
<ol style="text-align: left;"><li><b>Overall asset deficit, stripping out unrealised and
unrealisable property gain</b><u><br />
</u>“<i>The unrestricted reserves at 31 August 2019 were £41 million. This figure
is inclusive of £43.6m of fixed assets which are essential for the charity to
operate. If the net book value of such unrestricted assets is excluded from the
calculation of free reserves, this gives a net deficit of £2.6 million</i>.” (AAT
Page 11)<b><br /></b><br /></li><li><b>Auditors’ defensive comment</b><u><br />
</u>“ …<i>the Trust </i>[SLET]<i> is financially reliant upon the support facility
provided by Ampleforth Abbey Trust for the foreseeable future. … These events
and conditions indicate that material uncertainties exist which may cast doubt
on the College’s ability to continue as a going concern. Our opinion is not
modified in respect of this matter</i>.” [SLET Page 13]<br /><br /></li><li><b>Bank reducing facility and requiring security.</b><u><br />
</u>The bank loan was £4,897,000 at 31 August 2019. “<i>In April 2019 a new 5 year
revolving credit bank facility of up to £7 million was taken out, secured over [Ampleforth
Abbey Trust] property. Repayment of this facility commences in January 2022
(the reduction date) <b>where the facility must be reduced to £4m. Repayment in
full must be completed by January 2024. Subsequent to the year end this [£7
million] facility was capped at £5.65m</b></i>.” (all AAT Page 37)<br /> <i><br /></i></li><li><b>A major reduction in employees<u><span face=""Calibri",sans-serif" style="font-size: 11pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><br /></span></u></b>The average number employed including recharges was 370 (2018: 440) (SLET Page 34)</li></ol><p>====</p><p>Since the accountant's analysis was carried out, a news item relevant to Ampleforth's finances has appeared. <a href="https://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/people/ampleforth-abbey-investigated-for-possible-breach-of-planning-rules-over-scheme-to-convert-former-prep-school-gilling-castle-into-a-holiday-camp-and-glamping-site-3220604">The Yorkshire Post</a> has reported that Ampleforth has taken Gilling Castle (the former location of the Ampleforth's prep school St. Martins) off the market. The asking price had been £3.5m. Instead, Ampleforth has formed a partnership with children's activity camp provider Activate to use the site as a holiday resort and glamping site. It appears that the correct planning permissions for the change of use may not have been obtained and Ryedale Council is investigating whether there has been a breach of planning regulations.</p><p>Presumably the repayment terms for the bank loan were negotiated on the
assumption there would be a successful sale of Gilling Castle, and this
is not now happening. <span>It is not
obvious how the necessary repayments to avoid a default on the loan can
be made without substantial proceeds from asset sales, so the withdrawal of Gilling Castle</span> from the market is potentially a serious blow. Even if the planning issue is overcome, a partnership with a holiday camp company is hardly going to do much to fill a £3.5m gap in the finances.<br /></p><p>Ampleforth's 2020 accounts are expected to be published towards the end of June, so we may find out more then.<br /></p><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:OfficeDocumentSettings>
<o:AllowPNG/>
</o:OfficeDocumentSettings>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:WordDocument>
<w:View>Normal</w:View>
<w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>
<w:TrackMoves/>
<w:TrackFormatting/>
<w:PunctuationKerning/>
<w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/>
<w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>
<w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent>
<w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>
<w:DoNotPromoteQF/>
<w:LidThemeOther>EN-GB</w:LidThemeOther>
<w:LidThemeAsian>X-NONE</w:LidThemeAsian>
<w:LidThemeComplexScript>X-NONE</w:LidThemeComplexScript>
<w:Compatibility>
<w:BreakWrappedTables/>
<w:SnapToGridInCell/>
<w:WrapTextWithPunct/>
<w:UseAsianBreakRules/>
<w:DontGrowAutofit/>
<w:SplitPgBreakAndParaMark/>
<w:EnableOpenTypeKerning/>
<w:DontFlipMirrorIndents/>
<w:OverrideTableStyleHps/>
</w:Compatibility>
<m:mathPr>
<m:mathFont m:val="Cambria Math"/>
<m:brkBin m:val="before"/>
<m:brkBinSub m:val="--"/>
<m:smallFrac m:val="off"/>
<m:dispDef/>
<m:lMargin m:val="0"/>
<m:rMargin m:val="0"/>
<m:defJc m:val="centerGroup"/>
<m:wrapIndent m:val="1440"/>
<m:intLim m:val="subSup"/>
<m:naryLim m:val="undOvr"/>
</m:mathPr></w:WordDocument>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" DefUnhideWhenUsed="false"
DefSemiHidden="false" DefQFormat="false" DefPriority="99"
LatentStyleCount="376">
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="0" QFormat="true" Name="Normal"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" QFormat="true" Name="heading 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" QFormat="true" Name="heading 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" QFormat="true" Name="heading 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" QFormat="true" Name="heading 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" QFormat="true" Name="heading 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" QFormat="true" Name="heading 7"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" QFormat="true" Name="heading 8"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" QFormat="true" Name="heading 9"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="index 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="index 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="index 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="index 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="index 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="index 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="index 7"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="index 8"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="index 9"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name="toc 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name="toc 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name="toc 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name="toc 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name="toc 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name="toc 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name="toc 7"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name="toc 8"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name="toc 9"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Normal Indent"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="footnote text"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="annotation text"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="header"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="footer"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="index heading"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="35" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" QFormat="true" Name="caption"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="table of figures"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="envelope address"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="envelope return"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="footnote reference"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="annotation reference"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="line number"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="page number"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="endnote reference"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="endnote text"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="table of authorities"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="macro"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="toa heading"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List Bullet"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List Number"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List Bullet 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List Bullet 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List Bullet 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List Bullet 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List Number 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List Number 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List Number 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List Number 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="10" QFormat="true" Name="Title"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Closing"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Signature"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="1" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name="Default Paragraph Font"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Body Text"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Body Text Indent"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List Continue"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List Continue 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List Continue 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List Continue 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List Continue 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Message Header"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="11" QFormat="true" Name="Subtitle"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Salutation"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Date"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Body Text First Indent"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Body Text First Indent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Note Heading"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Body Text 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Body Text 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Body Text Indent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Body Text Indent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Block Text"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Hyperlink"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="FollowedHyperlink"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="22" QFormat="true" Name="Strong"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="20" QFormat="true" Name="Emphasis"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Document Map"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Plain Text"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="E-mail Signature"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="HTML Top of Form"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="HTML Bottom of Form"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Normal (Web)"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="HTML Acronym"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="HTML Address"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="HTML Cite"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="HTML Code"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="HTML Definition"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="HTML Keyboard"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="HTML Preformatted"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="HTML Sample"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="HTML Typewriter"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="HTML Variable"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Normal Table"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="annotation subject"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="No List"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Outline List 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Outline List 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Outline List 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Simple 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Simple 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Simple 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Classic 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Classic 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Classic 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Classic 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Colorful 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Colorful 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Colorful 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Columns 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Columns 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Columns 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Columns 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Columns 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Grid 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Grid 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Grid 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Grid 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Grid 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Grid 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Grid 7"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Grid 8"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table List 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table List 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table List 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table List 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table List 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table List 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table List 7"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table List 8"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table 3D effects 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table 3D effects 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table 3D effects 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Contemporary"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Elegant"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Professional"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Subtle 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Subtle 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Web 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Web 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Web 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Balloon Text"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="Table Grid"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Theme"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" Name="Placeholder Text"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="1" QFormat="true" Name="No Spacing"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" Name="Light Shading"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" Name="Light List"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" Name="Light Grid"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" Name="Medium Shading 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" Name="Medium Shading 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" Name="Medium List 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" Name="Medium List 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" Name="Medium Grid 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" Name="Medium Grid 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" Name="Medium Grid 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" Name="Dark List"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" Name="Colorful Shading"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" Name="Colorful List"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" Name="Colorful Grid"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" Name="Light Shading Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" Name="Light List Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" Name="Light Grid Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" Name="Revision"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="34" QFormat="true"
Name="List Paragraph"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="29" QFormat="true" Name="Quote"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="30" QFormat="true"
Name="Intense Quote"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" Name="Dark List Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" Name="Colorful List Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" Name="Light Shading Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" Name="Light List Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" Name="Light Grid Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" Name="Dark List Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" Name="Colorful List Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" Name="Light Shading Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" Name="Light List Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" Name="Light Grid Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" Name="Dark List Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" Name="Colorful List Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" Name="Light Shading Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" Name="Light List Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" Name="Light Grid Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" Name="Dark List Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" Name="Colorful List Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" Name="Light Shading Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" Name="Light List Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" Name="Light Grid Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" Name="Dark List Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" Name="Colorful List Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" Name="Light Shading Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" Name="Light List Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" Name="Light Grid Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" Name="Dark List Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" Name="Colorful List Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="19" QFormat="true"
Name="Subtle Emphasis"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="21" QFormat="true"
Name="Intense Emphasis"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="31" QFormat="true"
Name="Subtle Reference"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="32" QFormat="true"
Name="Intense Reference"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="33" QFormat="true" Name="Book Title"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="37" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name="Bibliography"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" QFormat="true" Name="TOC Heading"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="41" Name="Plain Table 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="42" Name="Plain Table 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="43" Name="Plain Table 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="44" Name="Plain Table 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="45" Name="Plain Table 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="40" Name="Grid Table Light"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="46" Name="Grid Table 1 Light"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="47" Name="Grid Table 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="48" Name="Grid Table 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="49" Name="Grid Table 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="50" Name="Grid Table 5 Dark"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="51" Name="Grid Table 6 Colorful"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="52" Name="Grid Table 7 Colorful"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="46"
Name="Grid Table 1 Light Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="47" Name="Grid Table 2 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="48" Name="Grid Table 3 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="49" Name="Grid Table 4 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="50" Name="Grid Table 5 Dark Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="51"
Name="Grid Table 6 Colorful Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="52"
Name="Grid Table 7 Colorful Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="46"
Name="Grid Table 1 Light Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="47" Name="Grid Table 2 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="48" Name="Grid Table 3 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="49" Name="Grid Table 4 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="50" Name="Grid Table 5 Dark Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="51"
Name="Grid Table 6 Colorful Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="52"
Name="Grid Table 7 Colorful Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="46"
Name="Grid Table 1 Light Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="47" Name="Grid Table 2 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="48" Name="Grid Table 3 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="49" Name="Grid Table 4 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="50" Name="Grid Table 5 Dark Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="51"
Name="Grid Table 6 Colorful Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="52"
Name="Grid Table 7 Colorful Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="46"
Name="Grid Table 1 Light Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="47" Name="Grid Table 2 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="48" Name="Grid Table 3 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="49" Name="Grid Table 4 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="50" Name="Grid Table 5 Dark Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="51"
Name="Grid Table 6 Colorful Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="52"
Name="Grid Table 7 Colorful Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="46"
Name="Grid Table 1 Light Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="47" Name="Grid Table 2 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="48" Name="Grid Table 3 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="49" Name="Grid Table 4 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="50" Name="Grid Table 5 Dark Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="51"
Name="Grid Table 6 Colorful Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="52"
Name="Grid Table 7 Colorful Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="46"
Name="Grid Table 1 Light Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="47" Name="Grid Table 2 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="48" Name="Grid Table 3 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="49" Name="Grid Table 4 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="50" Name="Grid Table 5 Dark Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="51"
Name="Grid Table 6 Colorful Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="52"
Name="Grid Table 7 Colorful Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="46" Name="List Table 1 Light"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="47" Name="List Table 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="48" Name="List Table 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="49" Name="List Table 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="50" Name="List Table 5 Dark"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="51" Name="List Table 6 Colorful"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="52" Name="List Table 7 Colorful"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="46"
Name="List Table 1 Light Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="47" Name="List Table 2 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="48" Name="List Table 3 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="49" Name="List Table 4 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="50" Name="List Table 5 Dark Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="51"
Name="List Table 6 Colorful Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="52"
Name="List Table 7 Colorful Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="46"
Name="List Table 1 Light Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="47" Name="List Table 2 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="48" Name="List Table 3 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="49" Name="List Table 4 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="50" Name="List Table 5 Dark Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="51"
Name="List Table 6 Colorful Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="52"
Name="List Table 7 Colorful Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="46"
Name="List Table 1 Light Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="47" Name="List Table 2 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="48" Name="List Table 3 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="49" Name="List Table 4 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="50" Name="List Table 5 Dark Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="51"
Name="List Table 6 Colorful Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="52"
Name="List Table 7 Colorful Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="46"
Name="List Table 1 Light Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="47" Name="List Table 2 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="48" Name="List Table 3 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="49" Name="List Table 4 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="50" Name="List Table 5 Dark Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="51"
Name="List Table 6 Colorful Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="52"
Name="List Table 7 Colorful Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="46"
Name="List Table 1 Light Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="47" Name="List Table 2 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="48" Name="List Table 3 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="49" Name="List Table 4 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="50" Name="List Table 5 Dark Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="51"
Name="List Table 6 Colorful Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="52"
Name="List Table 7 Colorful Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="46"
Name="List Table 1 Light Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="47" Name="List Table 2 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="48" Name="List Table 3 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="49" Name="List Table 4 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="50" Name="List Table 5 Dark Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="51"
Name="List Table 6 Colorful Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="52"
Name="List Table 7 Colorful Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Mention"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Smart Hyperlink"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Hashtag"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Unresolved Mention"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Smart Link"/>
</w:LatentStyles>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]>
<style>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin-top:0cm;
mso-para-margin-right:0cm;
mso-para-margin-bottom:8.0pt;
mso-para-margin-left:0cm;
line-height:107%;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;
mso-fareast-language:EN-US;}
</style>
<![endif]--><p><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:OfficeDocumentSettings>
<o:AllowPNG/>
</o:OfficeDocumentSettings>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:WordDocument>
<w:View>Normal</w:View>
<w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>
<w:TrackMoves/>
<w:TrackFormatting/>
<w:PunctuationKerning/>
<w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/>
<w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>
<w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent>
<w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>
<w:DoNotPromoteQF/>
<w:LidThemeOther>EN-GB</w:LidThemeOther>
<w:LidThemeAsian>X-NONE</w:LidThemeAsian>
<w:LidThemeComplexScript>X-NONE</w:LidThemeComplexScript>
<w:Compatibility>
<w:BreakWrappedTables/>
<w:SnapToGridInCell/>
<w:WrapTextWithPunct/>
<w:UseAsianBreakRules/>
<w:DontGrowAutofit/>
<w:SplitPgBreakAndParaMark/>
<w:EnableOpenTypeKerning/>
<w:DontFlipMirrorIndents/>
<w:OverrideTableStyleHps/>
</w:Compatibility>
<m:mathPr>
<m:mathFont m:val="Cambria Math"/>
<m:brkBin m:val="before"/>
<m:brkBinSub m:val="--"/>
<m:smallFrac m:val="off"/>
<m:dispDef/>
<m:lMargin m:val="0"/>
<m:rMargin m:val="0"/>
<m:defJc m:val="centerGroup"/>
<m:wrapIndent m:val="1440"/>
<m:intLim m:val="subSup"/>
<m:naryLim m:val="undOvr"/>
</m:mathPr></w:WordDocument>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" DefUnhideWhenUsed="false"
DefSemiHidden="false" DefQFormat="false" DefPriority="99"
LatentStyleCount="376">
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="0" QFormat="true" Name="Normal"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" QFormat="true" Name="heading 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" QFormat="true" Name="heading 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" QFormat="true" Name="heading 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" QFormat="true" Name="heading 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" QFormat="true" Name="heading 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" QFormat="true" Name="heading 7"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" QFormat="true" Name="heading 8"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" QFormat="true" Name="heading 9"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="index 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="index 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="index 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="index 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="index 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="index 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="index 7"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="index 8"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="index 9"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name="toc 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name="toc 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name="toc 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name="toc 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name="toc 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name="toc 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name="toc 7"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name="toc 8"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name="toc 9"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Normal Indent"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="footnote text"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="annotation text"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="header"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="footer"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="index heading"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="35" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" QFormat="true" Name="caption"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="table of figures"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="envelope address"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="envelope return"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="footnote reference"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="annotation reference"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="line number"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="page number"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="endnote reference"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="endnote text"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="table of authorities"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="macro"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="toa heading"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List Bullet"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List Number"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List Bullet 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List Bullet 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List Bullet 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List Bullet 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List Number 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List Number 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List Number 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List Number 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="10" QFormat="true" Name="Title"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Closing"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Signature"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="1" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name="Default Paragraph Font"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Body Text"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Body Text Indent"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List Continue"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List Continue 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List Continue 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List Continue 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List Continue 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Message Header"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="11" QFormat="true" Name="Subtitle"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Salutation"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Date"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Body Text First Indent"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Body Text First Indent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Note Heading"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Body Text 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Body Text 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Body Text Indent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Body Text Indent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Block Text"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Hyperlink"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="FollowedHyperlink"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="22" QFormat="true" Name="Strong"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="20" QFormat="true" Name="Emphasis"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Document Map"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Plain Text"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="E-mail Signature"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="HTML Top of Form"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="HTML Bottom of Form"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Normal (Web)"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="HTML Acronym"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="HTML Address"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="HTML Cite"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="HTML Code"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="HTML Definition"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="HTML Keyboard"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="HTML Preformatted"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="HTML Sample"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="HTML Typewriter"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="HTML Variable"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Normal Table"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="annotation subject"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="No List"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Outline List 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Outline List 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Outline List 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Simple 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Simple 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Simple 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Classic 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Classic 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Classic 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Classic 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Colorful 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Colorful 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Colorful 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Columns 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Columns 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Columns 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Columns 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Columns 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Grid 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Grid 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Grid 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Grid 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Grid 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Grid 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Grid 7"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Grid 8"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table List 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table List 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table List 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table List 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table List 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table List 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table List 7"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table List 8"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table 3D effects 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table 3D effects 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table 3D effects 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Contemporary"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Elegant"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Professional"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Subtle 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Subtle 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Web 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Web 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Web 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Balloon Text"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="Table Grid"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Theme"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" Name="Placeholder Text"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="1" QFormat="true" Name="No Spacing"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" Name="Light Shading"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" Name="Light List"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" Name="Light Grid"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" Name="Medium Shading 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" Name="Medium Shading 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" Name="Medium List 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" Name="Medium List 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" Name="Medium Grid 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" Name="Medium Grid 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" Name="Medium Grid 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" Name="Dark List"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" Name="Colorful Shading"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" Name="Colorful List"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" Name="Colorful Grid"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" Name="Light Shading Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" Name="Light List Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" Name="Light Grid Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" Name="Revision"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="34" QFormat="true"
Name="List Paragraph"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="29" QFormat="true" Name="Quote"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="30" QFormat="true"
Name="Intense Quote"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" Name="Dark List Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" Name="Colorful List Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" Name="Light Shading Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" Name="Light List Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" Name="Light Grid Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" Name="Dark List Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" Name="Colorful List Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" Name="Light Shading Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" Name="Light List Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" Name="Light Grid Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" Name="Dark List Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" Name="Colorful List Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" Name="Light Shading Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" Name="Light List Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" Name="Light Grid Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" Name="Dark List Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" Name="Colorful List Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" Name="Light Shading Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" Name="Light List Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" Name="Light Grid Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" Name="Dark List Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" Name="Colorful List Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" Name="Light Shading Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" Name="Light List Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" Name="Light Grid Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" Name="Dark List Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" Name="Colorful List Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="19" QFormat="true"
Name="Subtle Emphasis"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="21" QFormat="true"
Name="Intense Emphasis"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="31" QFormat="true"
Name="Subtle Reference"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="32" QFormat="true"
Name="Intense Reference"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="33" QFormat="true" Name="Book Title"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="37" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name="Bibliography"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" QFormat="true" Name="TOC Heading"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="41" Name="Plain Table 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="42" Name="Plain Table 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="43" Name="Plain Table 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="44" Name="Plain Table 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="45" Name="Plain Table 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="40" Name="Grid Table Light"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="46" Name="Grid Table 1 Light"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="47" Name="Grid Table 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="48" Name="Grid Table 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="49" Name="Grid Table 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="50" Name="Grid Table 5 Dark"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="51" Name="Grid Table 6 Colorful"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="52" Name="Grid Table 7 Colorful"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="46"
Name="Grid Table 1 Light Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="47" Name="Grid Table 2 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="48" Name="Grid Table 3 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="49" Name="Grid Table 4 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="50" Name="Grid Table 5 Dark Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="51"
Name="Grid Table 6 Colorful Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="52"
Name="Grid Table 7 Colorful Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="46"
Name="Grid Table 1 Light Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="47" Name="Grid Table 2 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="48" Name="Grid Table 3 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="49" Name="Grid Table 4 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="50" Name="Grid Table 5 Dark Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="51"
Name="Grid Table 6 Colorful Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="52"
Name="Grid Table 7 Colorful Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="46"
Name="Grid Table 1 Light Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="47" Name="Grid Table 2 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="48" Name="Grid Table 3 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="49" Name="Grid Table 4 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="50" Name="Grid Table 5 Dark Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="51"
Name="Grid Table 6 Colorful Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="52"
Name="Grid Table 7 Colorful Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="46"
Name="Grid Table 1 Light Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="47" Name="Grid Table 2 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="48" Name="Grid Table 3 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="49" Name="Grid Table 4 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="50" Name="Grid Table 5 Dark Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="51"
Name="Grid Table 6 Colorful Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="52"
Name="Grid Table 7 Colorful Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="46"
Name="Grid Table 1 Light Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="47" Name="Grid Table 2 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="48" Name="Grid Table 3 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="49" Name="Grid Table 4 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="50" Name="Grid Table 5 Dark Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="51"
Name="Grid Table 6 Colorful Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="52"
Name="Grid Table 7 Colorful Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="46"
Name="Grid Table 1 Light Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="47" Name="Grid Table 2 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="48" Name="Grid Table 3 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="49" Name="Grid Table 4 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="50" Name="Grid Table 5 Dark Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="51"
Name="Grid Table 6 Colorful Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="52"
Name="Grid Table 7 Colorful Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="46" Name="List Table 1 Light"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="47" Name="List Table 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="48" Name="List Table 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="49" Name="List Table 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="50" Name="List Table 5 Dark"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="51" Name="List Table 6 Colorful"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="52" Name="List Table 7 Colorful"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="46"
Name="List Table 1 Light Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="47" Name="List Table 2 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="48" Name="List Table 3 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="49" Name="List Table 4 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="50" Name="List Table 5 Dark Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="51"
Name="List Table 6 Colorful Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="52"
Name="List Table 7 Colorful Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="46"
Name="List Table 1 Light Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="47" Name="List Table 2 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="48" Name="List Table 3 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="49" Name="List Table 4 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="50" Name="List Table 5 Dark Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="51"
Name="List Table 6 Colorful Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="52"
Name="List Table 7 Colorful Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="46"
Name="List Table 1 Light Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="47" Name="List Table 2 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="48" Name="List Table 3 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="49" Name="List Table 4 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="50" Name="List Table 5 Dark Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="51"
Name="List Table 6 Colorful Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="52"
Name="List Table 7 Colorful Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="46"
Name="List Table 1 Light Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="47" Name="List Table 2 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="48" Name="List Table 3 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="49" Name="List Table 4 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="50" Name="List Table 5 Dark Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="51"
Name="List Table 6 Colorful Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="52"
Name="List Table 7 Colorful Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="46"
Name="List Table 1 Light Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="47" Name="List Table 2 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="48" Name="List Table 3 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="49" Name="List Table 4 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="50" Name="List Table 5 Dark Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="51"
Name="List Table 6 Colorful Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="52"
Name="List Table 7 Colorful Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="46"
Name="List Table 1 Light Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="47" Name="List Table 2 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="48" Name="List Table 3 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="49" Name="List Table 4 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="50" Name="List Table 5 Dark Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="51"
Name="List Table 6 Colorful Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="52"
Name="List Table 7 Colorful Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Mention"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Smart Hyperlink"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Hashtag"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Unresolved Mention"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Smart Link"/>
</w:LatentStyles>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]>
<style>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin-top:0cm;
mso-para-margin-right:0cm;
mso-para-margin-bottom:8.0pt;
mso-para-margin-left:0cm;
line-height:107%;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;
mso-fareast-language:EN-US;}
</style>
<![endif]--></p>Jonathan Westhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00527063732905729010noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6518202135348193859.post-78164490225176966042021-05-03T16:29:00.000+01:002021-05-03T16:29:35.395+01:00Ampleforth's governance<p>A significant part of the March 23-25 Ofsted report looked at governance of the school. The report said:<br /></p><blockquote><p>The St Laurence Education Trust and the Ampleforth Abbey Trust remain linked closely.</p><p>The
corporate and sole trustee of the Ampleforth Abbey Trust, the
Ampleforth Abbey Trustees (a company limited by guarantee) is one of
eleven members of the St Laurence Education Trust. The Ampleforth Abbey
Trust met the financial losses of the St Laurence Education Trust in the
2017–18 and 2018–19 financial years. The Ampleforth Abbey Trust owns
the land the school’s buildings sit on.</p><p>The links between the
abbey and the school are evident in the everyday life of the school.
Some facilities, such as information technology, including telephony,
continue to be shared between the abbey and the school. Up until
mid-January, emails from the headteacher to all academic staff were also
sent to some members of the monastic community. A dean, who resides in
the monastery, is on the senior leadership team of the school. The dean
ensures that the school’s Benedictine ethos remains central to the
school’s leadership team.</p></blockquote><p>This is much more serious
than it looks at first sight. After all, who cares who runs the school
so long as it is run well? But this needs to be taken in the context of <a href="https://www.iicsa.org.uk/publications/investigation/ampleforth-downside/part-d-conclusions">the report on Ampleforth and its sister school Downside</a> by the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (IICSA), which contained the following conclusion.</p><blockquote><p>A
strict separation between the governance of these two abbeys and
schools will be required if safeguarding arrangements are to be free
from the often‑conflicting priorities of the abbeys. This took too long
to achieve at Ampleforth.<br /></p></blockquote><p>In his <a href="https://www.iicsa.org.uk/key-documents/3612/view/15-december-2017-roman-catholic-church-public-hearing-transcript.pdf">closing remarks to the hearing</a>, Ampleforth's legal representative claimed that this separation had already been achieved.</p><blockquote><p>The
evidence heard by the inquiry and in the documents submitted since show
that, since 1997, the college and the junior school at Ampleforth had
been run by a separate educational trust, the St Laurence Education
Trust. Since 2010, that trust has a majority of lay trustees, has always
been chaired by a deputy chair, who is a layperson, and, whenever
safeguarding issues were discussed, that deputy lay chair took the chair
of the trust. Since this year, 2017, the St Laurence Education Trust
not only has a majority of lay trustees, but it also has a lay chair,
Claire Smith.</p><p>It is the St Laurence Education Trust, not the
abbey, which runs the school. That is intended to be a permanent
arrangement. Ampleforth took the decision in 1997 to separate the school
effectively from the Abbey Trust and has been working ever since to
solidify that aim. That has continued to be the position, and will
continue to be the position as it is now embedded in its constitution.
The combined effects of the changes to the composition of the trust has
been its composition has altered from that of an entirely monastic
trusteeship to one which is now one-third monastic and two-thirds lay,
creating an open structure which is accountable to external lay people.</p></blockquote><p>So
complete separation was regarded as essential by IICSA. It was claimed by Ampleforth’s legal representative
that it had already been achieved in 2017, and this seems to have been accepted at face value by IICSA. Its report said "this took too long to achieve at Ampleforth" suggesting that IICSA believed that the separation was complete at the time of writing the report. And yet here is Ofsted saying
that this separation is a mirage – it doesn’t exist in practice.</p><p>As
recently as 29th December 2020, the head teacher Robin Dyer was robustly
extolling the virtues of the current senior leadership team (SLT) and governors
(including several newly-appointed) in an interview with Times Radio.</p><blockquote><p>“I
run the school. My SLT and the new Board of Trustees. We run the
school. We're not beholden to the monastery as was in the past.”</p></blockquote><p>In a document linked to an email sent by the school to parents and former pupils on 7th December 2020, the school stated.</p><blockquote><p>“Driven
by our failures in the past, over the past 18 months we have put in
place a robust safeguarding regime in consultation with the Charity
Commission; a new governance structure, including new Trustees, that has
effectively separated the Abbey from the College; and a new and
experienced senior leadership team. During this time, the Independent
Schools Inspectorate has endorsed our actions through two successful
inspections and the Charity Commission has discharged their Interim
Safeguarding Manager. Ofsted’s report and the DfE’s action does not
reflect the school we are today.”</p></blockquote><p>So that’s on at
least two separate
occasions that the school has claimed that a separation has been
implemented. The separation was claimed to be complete in 2017 when
Ampleforth's legal representative spoke at IICSA, and an entirely
separate separation was claimed by the headmaster to have occurred in
the 18 months up to December 2020. And yet Ofsted has found the
organisations "remain linked closely".</p><p>The linkages actually go deeper than even Ofsted mentioned in its report. <a href="http://mandatenow.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/Ampleforth-Slater-Gordon-180221.pdf">In a letter to the Secretary of State Gavin Williamson</a>,
Richard Scorer, a solicitor who represented many Ampleforth abuse
survivors at the IICSA hearings, described the extent of the dependency
of the school on the abbey and the the effect of this on the school's
ability to achieve good safeguarding practice.</p><p>Ofsted also had words to say about the composition of the governing body of the school.<br /></p><blockquote><p>All
but two trustees are connected to the school as past pupils, spouses of
past pupils or parents of pupils. The chair of trustees identified the
need for the inclusion of more trustees from an educational background
who have no previous or current connections with the school. He
identified rightly the benefits a more diverse board of trustees would
bring to the school.</p></blockquote><p>This realisation is very new to the school, since it appointed two new trustees in June 2019 and another six in September 2019, and even with these new appointees only two trustees had no previous or current connection with the school. As noted above headmaster Robin Dyer was extolling the current board of trustees as recently as December 2020.<br /></p><p>This is another area where what the school says and what is happening are somewhat at odds. Here is part of the Chair of Trustees' message to parents on 16 April 2021.</p><p></p><blockquote>Over the past 18 months, we have wanted to increase the diversity of our Trustees, something which has been hard to do under the current circumstances. To reinforce the independence of the College’s governance, we will ensure that half of our Board is made up of trustees without links to Ampleforth College or to the Abbey by this autumn. </blockquote>The "current circumstances" presumably means the Enforcement Notice. But that was only in place for the last five months, not eighteen. If it has really been serious about increasing diversity among the trustees for eighteen months, then it must have been attempting this without any tangible result almost ever since the last six (mostly non-diverse) trustees were appointed. But to the best of my knowledge there has been nothing in previous messages to parents about looking for new trustees from a more diverse background. On the contrary they said in December that over the last 18 months they had put in place "a new governance structure, including new Trustees" making no mention of the fact that they thought it still in need of radical change. <br /><p></p><p>I suspect that neither the school, nor Ofsted or even DfE had considered this until <a href="http://mandatenow.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/Ampleforth-Slater-Gordon-250221.pdf" target="_blank">Richard Scorer wrote to DfE on 25 February</a> pointing out his concern about the lack of diversity in the trustees.</p><p></p><blockquote>Of the eleven current trustees of St Laurence Education Trust shown on the Ampleforth College website, nine are former pupils or parents of former pupils. ... As you may be aware, a <b>lack of diversity of background within trustee boards </b>and governing bodies has been identified by the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse as <b>a risk factor for safeguarding failings </b>in schools.</blockquote><p></p><p>Of course, I'll stand corrected if the trustees decide to publish
minutes of trustee meetings over the past 18 months in which progress in
the search for diverse trustees is reported.</p><p>Ofsted hasn't said in its report what changes in governance would be needed in order to pass its next inspection. Whatever they are, given the number of times Ampleforth has claimed that a separation has been achieved when it wasn't, it is to be hoped that Ofsted examines the small print of any changes <i>very</i> carefully.<br /></p>Jonathan Westhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00527063732905729010noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6518202135348193859.post-30892265475217379822021-04-30T17:09:00.000+01:002021-04-30T17:09:29.262+01:00Ampleforth's Ofsted reports<div><div><p>Ampleforth made two applications to DfE to have the ban on new pupils lifted. In each case DfE commissioned Ofsted to conduct an inspection.</p><p>The first inspection took place on 6-8 February, and was <a href="https://files.ofsted.gov.uk/v1/file/50161309">a miserable failure for the school</a>. As compared to the emergency Ofsted inspection of 24-25 September 2020, which resulted in the ban on pupils being imposed, there was very little improvement. The Independent Schools Standards the school was inspected against and is supposed to meet come under a number of headings.</p><p><b>Part 3. Welfare, health and safety of pupils</b><br /></p><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>The school passed paragraph 7(b) when it had failed in September</li><li>The school continued to fail paragraphs 7, 7(a), 8, 8(a) and 8(b)</li><li>The school failed paragraphs 16, 16(a) and 16(b) which it had passed previously</li></ul></div><p><b>Part 5. Premises of and accommodation at schools</b></p><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>The school passed paragraphs 28(1) and 28(1)(d) when it had failed in September</li></ul><p> <b>Part 8. Quality of leadership in and management of schools</b></p><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>The school continued to fail paragraphs 34(1), 34(1)(a), 34(1)(b), 34(1)(c) and 34(2)</li></ul></div><p>In addition the school was assessed against various of the National Minimum Standards for residential provision in schools.</p><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>Standard 11.1 remained unmet </li><li>Standards 13.3 and 13.4 remained unmet.</li></ul><p>So the February inspection was not a marginal technical failure for Ampleforth, easily fixed by a tweak to a couple of processes and giving them a bit of time to "bed in". It was comprehensive, showing major weaknesses in most of what the school does about safeguarding. If the school was going to pass the next inspection, major changes would be needed.</p><p>This is not how the head teacher described it at the time. In a letter to parents on 9th March 2020 he said:</p><p></p><blockquote>We have heard from the Secretary of State tonight that he recognises and welcomes the progress we have made but still requires further evidence before he will lift the restriction. However, he explicitly encourages us to hold a further inspection with the College now fully reopened after lockdown. We understand that he felt he could not revoke based on an inspection which took place when only very few children were on site.<br /><br />Although disappointing, this remains in line with the messages we have been getting over the last few days, that one final push is required and that we are still on track for revocation before the end of term. We are formally writing to the Department for Education tomorrow to request that Ofsted return for a further visit. We have every confidence that this will deliver the outcome that we believe fairly represents Ampleforth College. <br /></blockquote>The school made that further application for the ban to be lifted and so DfE commissioned another inspection. Ofsted visited on 23-25th March. As you can see from the report, <a href="https://files.ofsted.gov.uk/v1/file/50162105">it was a disaster</a>. There was not one single paragraph of either the Independent School Standards or the National Minimum Standards for boarding which had been failed in February which were now passed. On the contrary, Ofsted failed them again on paragraph 7(b) of the Independent School Standards which they had failed in September 2020 but passed in February 2021. <p></p><p>Here are some of the inspectors' comments in the report.</p><p></p><blockquote>Leaders, including trustees, still do not know the full extent of poor recording and misreporting of safeguarding incidents over time. Five hundred and ninety-nine entries on the school’s online data storage tool, relating to 213 pupils who have already left the school, have not been checked yet.</blockquote><p>It is worth noting that the fact that many reportable safeguarding incidents came to light in January when an external consultancy was engaged to help. The latest Ofsted inspection was on 23-25 March so they have had about 2 months to look through this.</p><p>When the February Ofsted report was published which first raised these incidents, the school tried to pass this off in public as data lying
unsuspected in databases. That of course won't wash at all because the
data must have been typed into the database by members of staff, and a
decision made <i>at the time </i>not to report these incidents to the authorities. <br /></p><blockquote><p>Despite attending safeguarding training, the designated safeguarding lead and the deputy designated safeguarding leads, on occasion, do not recognise potential risks to pupils that require following up. Deputy designated leads triage cases when they occur. Some do not have the knowledge required to triage competently or confidently. Even after triaging cases, potentially serious risks are not identified and followed up consistently well. During the inspection, the deputy safeguarding leads found it difficult to navigate the school’s online data tool for recording and managing safeguarding concerns.</p></blockquote><p></p><p>This in as many words is saying that the Designated Safeguarding Lead and deputies don’t know how to do their jobs and can’t even operate the data system designed to record concerns. This is frighteningly bad. (The school has since advertised for a new Designated Safeguarding Lead.)<br /></p><blockquote><p>When pupils leave the school and transfer to another school in England, staff ensure they take up the place at their new school. Staff do not routinely check that pupils are admitted to overseas schools in a similar manner. As a result, these pupils are not safeguarded to the same extent as pupils transferring to schools in England.</p></blockquote><p>Its arguable that children transferring abroad are potentially more at risk than those transferring, within the UK, given possible concerns about FGM or forced marriage. That’s why the rules apply irrespective of what country the pupil is transferring to.</p><blockquote><p>Although some improvements have been made since the previous inspection in February 2021, weaknesses in the school’s safeguarding practice remain. A culture of safeguarding is still not embedded. These standards remain unmet.</p></blockquote><p>It’s worth remembering that the February inspection (the one before this one) was commissioned by DfE <i>at the school’s request</i> so that the ban on new pupils could be lifted. The emergency inspection which resulted in the ban on new pupils took place in September 2020. They’ve now had six months to improve things. They aren’t even close.</p><p></p><blockquote><p>Leaders have implemented a new safeguarding policy since the last inspection. The new policy refers to allegations against staff. The policy does not make explicit reference to the list of situations, as identified in paragraph 211 of ‘Keeping children safe in education’, when the allegations process should be followed.</p><p>The designated safeguarding lead made changes to the school’s new and published safeguarding policy during the inspection. However, some advice is incorrect, contradictory and unhelpful. For example, paragraph 10.2 states: ‘Anyone can make a referral. Any such referral must be made immediately and in any event within 24 hours of you becoming aware of the risk.’ Waiting 24 hours is not acceptable before making a referral to an appropriate body.</p><p>Similarly, in the ‘reporting a concern about a student’ flow chart on page 14, the policy states that the designated safeguarding lead and deputy safeguarding leads will ‘review the concern and make a decision no later than 24 hours about the next steps’. Concerns must be dealt with immediately.</p><p>The use of the words ‘should’ and ‘must’ is not consistent throughout the school’s new safeguarding policy. On occasion, the policy states how staff should respond to a safeguarding issue and, at other points, how staff must respond to the same issue.</p><p>Leaders did not know that they should inform the local authority when a pupil is removed from the school’s roll in-year, in accordance with paragraph 4.25 of the DfE’s ‘The Independent School Standards –Guidance for independent schools (2019)’.</p><p>This standard was met at the time of the last inspection but is now not met.</p></blockquote><p></p><p>Getting your written policy right is actually the easiest part of doing safeguarding. It can be hard to get people to get people to follow good practice, but it is just about impossible if you don’t have a clear and correct policy to work from. Nobody knows where they stand.</p><p></p><blockquote>There is an electronic system to record pupils’ attendance in lessons. Vulnerable pupils’ non-attendance is addressed within 15 minutes. Other pupils’ non-attendance is not addressed until they have missed an entire lesson and failed to turn up for the next lesson. This means that sometimes staff do not know where some pupils are or that they are safe.</blockquote><p></p><p>It does seem rather a basic matter that in order to ensure pupils in your care are protected you have to know where they are.</p><blockquote><p>There was a near-miss road traffic accident on site in early March 2021. The driver was a visitor to the school who was not accompanied by a member of the school’s staff. Just last week, a further serious safeguarding incident, relating to an unaccompanied visitor to the site, occurred. This second incident demonstrates that the school’s risk assessment policy and procedures are not applied consistently. Leaders’ actions to mitigate risks to pupils are not effective. A secure culture of safeguarding is not embedded in all aspects of the school’s work.</p></blockquote><p>This speaks for itself.</p><blockquote><p>Parents remain supportive of the school’s leadership. The statement ‘I can’t imagine that there is a safer school in the country at the moment’ is a typical response to Ofsted’s most recent survey of parents’ and carers’ views.</p></blockquote><p>Ampleforth in its public statements repeatedly relies on parental endorsement. But the fact is that this is a boarding school – most of the parents aren’t around to see what is going on. If 20% of them have even read the school’s safeguarding policy it would be surprising. But even if some have read it, for it to be understood it is essential to have a thorough understanding of safeguarding framework described by a former CEO of a large children’s charity as ‘a thicket.’</p><p></p><blockquote><p>An external agency continues to support leaders to fulfil their statutory safeguarding duties. The agency has completed a review of the school’s counselling records. The counselling chronologies on the school’s online data storage tool are incomplete. The chief executive officer of the agency told inspectors that the school’s expertise in keeping pupils safe is improving.</p><p>Many of the actions in the external agency’s rapid improvement plan have been addressed. The trustee with oversight of safeguarding, who is carrying out some operational tasks in addition to strategic responsibilities currently, understands the need to develop a strategic plan to improve safeguarding further. The trustee told the inspectors that the next step for leaders is to develop such a strategic plan.</p></blockquote><p></p><p>Ampleforth has in recent years been subject to devastating criticism from the Independent Inquiry into Child Sex Abuse (IICSA), has failed a number of Independent Schools Inspectorate inspections, been issued with a Warning Notice by DfE, failed an emergency Ofsted inspection and two follow-up inspections commissioned at the school’s request. And only now are they thinking that a strategic plan to improve safeguarding might be a good idea? That ship should have sailed years ago.</p><blockquote><p>In January 2021, in its first review of the school’s safeguarding records, the external agency identified a number of recent cases of very serious child-on-child abuse. Subsequent to this, and to make sure all necessary actions have been taken, the designated safeguarding lead and deputy designated safeguarding leads have reviewed the online safeguarding records for every pupil who attends the school currently. Leaders plan to review the remaining online records of 213 former pupils by 3 July 2021.Trustees are not confident that they have a full knowledge of all child-on-child abuse that has taken place since the current online data storage tool for recording and managing safeguarding concerns was set up.</p></blockquote><p>This is really quite deadly. IICSA’s primary criticism of Ampleforth was that it didn’t report safeguarding incidents to the authorities when it should have, and the school and abbey have been energetically claiming ever since that everything is different now, that the mistakes are all in the past. And yet, when an external body took a detailed look at the books, it turned out that a number of serious incidents still hadn’t been reported, and that the school even now isn’t sure whether all recent incidents that should have been reported actually have been, even though it appears to have a new "online data storage tool" that has been set up for that specific purpose. This is not "all in the past", these problems are very much in the present.<br /></p><p>While the reporting of incidents is part of the Independent School Standards, there’s no legal obligation on any member of staff to make a report of abuse. So if the school chooses not to report there is little in practice that Ofsted and DfE can do to insist. All DfE can do in the end is to close the school if it sees persistent failures. Is has no other sanction. In all the cover-ups of abuse that have happened at Ampleforth in the past and which were investigated by IICSA, no individual has ever been prosecuted for failing to report abuse, because it isn’t a crime.<br /></p><p></p><blockquote><p>Leaders uploaded a new safeguarding policy to the school’s website this month. The new policy, like its predecessor, contains contradictions. This new policy did not go out for consultation to, and scrutiny by, the whole staff. The online version of the policy was amended by the school during this inspection, but the version number remains the same, version 1.0.</p><p>Some staff are dissatisfied with the way that changes are managed. Comments in Ofsted’s survey of staff include: ‘there is not time in our busy days to read and embed the amount of new policies coming in’; ‘too many policies in a short time frame and no time to actually read and embed them’; ‘changes are made without consultation and often decisions are reactive rather than proactive’; and ‘the chaotic organisation is incredibly difficult to adhere to as a teacher/tutor who has to put these overwhelmingly complex protocols and procedures into practice’.</p></blockquote><p></p><p>There is a distinct sense in this comment from Ofsted of Corporal Jones of Dad’s Army running around in a complete funk shouting “Don’t panic! Don’t panic!”. The impression is that the senior management genuinely have little or no idea what they should be doing. It looks as if they don’t yet even realise how much of what they are doing is wrong, let alone how to put it right.</p><p>There is not a single area in which the school failed in February where Ofsted was able to say that “the standards are now met”. On the contrary, there was one area where the school had previously met the requirements where Ofsted said they were “now not met”. The most charitable thing the inspectors were able to say was that:</p><blockquote><p>Although some improvements have been made since the previous inspection in February 2021, weaknesses in the school’s safeguarding practice remain. A culture of safeguarding is still not embedded.”</p></blockquote><p>So the school failed the Ofsted inspection in March about as badly as it failed in February. The tone of the two reports is remarkably similar. There is little or no tangible progress towards meeting the standards that all other independent schools must meet.<br /></p>Jonathan Westhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00527063732905729010noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6518202135348193859.post-48144925891419882872021-04-25T13:53:00.002+01:002021-04-25T13:53:35.964+01:00Ampleforth's ban liftedThe DfE lifted Ampleforth College’s ban on new pupils on 19th April. The decision had been pre-announced to the school, which wrote to parents on 16 April saying.<br /><blockquote>I am pleased to let you know that the Secretary of State for Education has decided to remove the restriction order. This follows Ofsted finding many improvements to our safeguarding procedures during their recent visit and the DfE’s request for, and acceptance of, an action plan demonstrating our long-term commitment to safeguarding excellence.</blockquote>Curiously the first public mention of the ban being lifted came on 16 April, not from a statement by the DfE, but from <a href="https://www.kevinhollinrake.org.uk/news/restriction-order-lifted-ampleforth-college">the blog of the local MP Kevin Hollinrake</a>.<br /><blockquote>I am delighted that the imposition of a restriction order by the Department for Education prohibiting the recruitment of new pupils has been lifted at Ampleforth College. This is good news for the school and for the local economy.<br /><br />It was always my concern that the school should be given a fair hearing and a clear pathway to resolve outstanding issues. The school will be closely monitored and given a set of targets to meet to ensure that outstanding areas of concern are dealt with speedily and I wish the Head Teacher, the staff, pupils and parents well in the months ahead. </blockquote><p>The Daily Telegraph was also tipped off about the decision, and <a href="https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/04/16/exclusive-ampleforth-school-saved-closure-intervention-gavin/">published an exclusive</a> on 16 April saying:</p><p></p><blockquote><p> Ampleforth College has been saved from closure following an intervention from the Education Secretary, the Daily Telegraph has learned.<br /><br />The leading Benedictine school has had its ban on admitting new pupils overturned after officials at the Department of Education (DfE) said they were satisfied with its safeguarding arrangements.</p></blockquote><p>At this point, the Ofsted report on which the DfE decision was based had not been published, so the Telegraph wasn't actually in a position to say that DfE was "satisfied". in any case, this rather contradicted Kevin Hollinrake's statement that "the school will be closely monitored and given a set of targets to meet", which suggests that DfE is far from satisfied.<br /></p><p>The <a href="https://reports.ofsted.gov.uk/provider/27/121735">Ofsted report was published on 19 April</a>, the <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/enforcement-letters-to-independent-schools#history">same day that the restriction order was lifted</a>. DfE of course had an advance copy of the Ofsted report (they commissioned the inspection after all), so knew precisely what was in in it. Now it is published one can reasonably wonder what on earth Williamson
was thinking. The school has failed (again) to meet the required
standards for safeguarding and leadership.</p><p>On 19 April the news started to filter out and various papers covered it. They noticed that the ban had been lifted despite the school failing, but mostly seem not to have realised how <i>badly </i>the school was still failing.<br /></p><p>The Ofsted report will be analysed in the next article.<br /></p><p></p>Jonathan Westhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00527063732905729010noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6518202135348193859.post-32772654925149175112020-11-30T23:19:00.002+00:002020-11-30T23:19:53.264+00:00The ban at Ampleforth<p>Ampleforth College, St. Benedict's sister school in Yorkshire, has been served with an <a href="https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/939349/Ampleforth_enforcement_notice.pdf" target="_blank">Enforcement Notice</a> by the Department for Education, banning it from accepting any new pupils. The decision clearly has been made in person by the Secretary of State for Education, Gavin Williamson MP.</p><p>According to the letter published on the gov.uk website there was an Ofsted inspection on 24-25 September and as a result:</p><blockquote><p>the Secretary of State for Education (“the SoS”) is satisfied that one or more of the independent school standards (“the ISS”) are not being met in relation to the School.</p></blockquote><p>This isn't just one bad report. This has being going on for nearly five years. The letter goes on to say:</p><blockquote><p>In taking this decision, the SoS has principally had regard to Ofsted and ISI inspection reports from January 2016 to the present day, and the School’s response to regulatory action.</p></blockquote><p>And he makes it clear that the school has been warned.</p><blockquote><p>Further, following an inspection carried out by the Independent Schools Inspectorate (“the ISI”) on 7-8 March 2018, which also found that the ISS were not being met, a statutory notice was issued to the School pursuant to section 114 of the Act, requiring an action plan. An action plan was submitted in response to that notice on 11 June 2018 but was deemed to be unacceptable and was rejected by the SoS on 10 July 2018. The School was advised of this decision by a letter dated 10 July 2018.<br /></p></blockquote><p>Williamson acknowledges that the school has complained, and it cuts no ice with him.<br /></p><blockquote><p>It is acknowledged that the School has filed a complaint against Ofsted’s recent findings, and the SoS has carefully considered that complaint, as well as correspondence which sets out the School’s views on the contents of the report. However, having taken this into account, the SoS is satisfied that the standards are not being met.</p></blockquote><p>He describes the specific clauses of the Independent School Standards that are not being met. There are a number of clauses, but the school's failure to meet the first is the most important.</p><p><i></i></p><blockquote><p>7. The standard in this paragraph is met if the proprietor ensures that—</p><p style="margin-left: 40px; text-align: left;">(a) arrangements are made to safeguard and promote the welfare of pupils at the school; and</p><p style="margin-left: 40px; text-align: left;">(b) such arrangements have regard to any guidance issued by the Secretary of State.</p></blockquote><p style="margin-left: 40px; text-align: left;"><i></i></p><p style="text-align: left;">There's a similar clause specific to boarding provision and also a clause about leadership which are also listed as having been failed. But basically this is about inadequate safeguarding.</p><p style="text-align: left;">It's not just ISI and Ofsted inspection reports that have been critical of safeguarding at the school. Ampleforth (along with Downside School) was the subject <a href="https://www.iicsa.org.uk/publications/investigation/ampleforth-downside" target="_blank">of an excoriating report by IICSA</a> (the Independent Inquiry into Child Sex Abuse).</p><p style="text-align: left;">The ban on new pupils comes into effect in 28 days unless the school decides to appeal the notice, and it has announced it will do so. This was included in an article in <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/education/2020/nov/28/pupils-barred-ampleforth-college-catholic-school-abuse-scandal" target="_blank">The Guardian</a> about the notice.</p><p style="text-align: left;"></p><blockquote>A spokesperson for the college said it had noted the department’s intent to serve notice of an enforcement action.<br /><br />“We will be appealing this on the basis that we believe, and have been advised, that it is unjustified and based on incorrect information,” the spokesperson said.</blockquote><p></p><p style="text-align: left;">Governments (especially Conservative ones) don't like to close private schools - it means that they would have to educate the pupils at public expense instead. For the just under 500 pupils at Ampleforth, that means an extra £3m or so per year on the education budget. So Gavin Williamson will have needed some persuading that he had to act.</p><p style="text-align: left;">Enforcement Notices like this are pretty rare - there have only been eight in the last three years, mostly against small newly-established little local religious schools, usually with only 50 pupils or so. For an old public school like Ampleforth to get an enforcement notice is completely unprecedented.</p><p style="text-align: left;">A few people on Twitter have suggested that this is all an anti-Catholic or at least anti-religious move. This is a classic example.<br /></p><blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p dir="ltr" lang="en">I would like to express my deep anger at the Dept of Education doing its best to destroy a wonderful spiritual school. Ampleforth. It has completely revamped after the previous awful crimes. But nasty woke bastards want it closed. It will survive and thrive.</p>— Seb Leslie (@CllrSebLeslie) <a href="https://twitter.com/CllrSebLeslie/status/1332425372101709825?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 27, 2020</a></blockquote><div style="text-align: left;"><p style="text-align: left;">But this accusation is ridiculous with respect to this government. First the cabinet is stuffed to the roof with privately educated ministers, including several Old Etonians. William Rees-Mogg (Leader of the House of Commons) was married by the Abbot of Downside, and the public inquiry heard evidence to the effect that <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/mar/20/gove-faces-fresh-scrutiny-over-school-sexual-abuse-case-downside" target="_blank">Michael Gove intervened</a> when Secretary of State for Education in a local safeguarding investigation into Downside School. This government cannot remotely be described as "woke" and is clearly not disposed against private education and specifically not against Catholic private education.</p></div><div style="text-align: left;"><p style="text-align: left;">So we have to conclude that the Ofsted evidence is compelling enough to persuade a Conservative Secretary of State for Education, well-disposed towards private education and with prominent Catholics among his cabinet colleagues, to act against Ampleforth. </p><p style="text-align: left;">But we haven't seen the Ofsted report, so we can't tell. The school has seen it and has said it is complaining, and has objected to publication. This isn't the first time in my experience that a school has complained against an adverse inspection report. In 2011 St. Augustine's Priory School in Ealing in west London complained about an adverse inspection report from the Independent Schools Inspectorate, and even <a href="https://scepticalthoughts.blogspot.com/2011/03/st-augustines-complaint-against-isi.html" target="_blank">sought Judicial Review of the report</a>.</p><p style="text-align: left;">The history of this is interesting. The JR was put on hold while the school went through the Stage 1 complaints process with ISI. This did the school no good at all, the final report was even more damning than the original, because its conclusions were more clearly stated and more carefully evidenced. The report was published and the JR case abandoned. The head teacher resigned (actually being escorted off the premises) and several of the governors were replaced.<br /></p><p style="text-align: left;">As it happens, irrespective of the Stage 1 complaint, the JR would have stood almost no chance of success. To overturn a government administrative decision (which is what an inspection report is in effect) you need to demonstrate not only that a different decision could reasonably have been reached but also that nobody with two brain cells to rub together would ever have honestly come to the original decision. (Lawyers would put it differently, but that's the essence of it.) Very few cases reach that extremely high bar.</p><p style="text-align: left;">This is highly relevant to Ampleforth. They are in a much more precarious position than St. Augustine's Priory School were. They have already received an enforcement notice banning them from taking more pupils. As independent schools aren't financially viable unless they are full, this will lead to the closure of the school sooner rather than later.<br /></p><p style="text-align: left;">So the school has a choice to make. Do they fight or do they co-operate? If they genuinely believe the Ofsted report is a load of hogwash and think they can prove it, then they may well decide to fight, and the initial indication is that they will do so. They told the papers they would appeal and have asked parents and alumni to help with lots of supportive public testimonials on social media.<br /></p><p style="text-align: left;"></p><p style="text-align: left;">But very interestingly the <a href="https://www.ampleforth.org.uk/college/news/statement-ampleforth-college" target="_blank">statement on the school's own website</a> is subtly different from what they said to the papers when the story first broke.</p><blockquote>Ampleforth
College notes the Department for Education’s publication on Friday 26
November of the intent to serve notice of an Enforcement Action. <br /><br />We
strongly believe, and have been advised, that this is completely
unjustified and based on incorrect information. We will be pursuing a
number of different options to resolve the situation before the
restriction is enforced, including an appeal, and we are very confident
this can be achieved.</blockquote>Note the difference. Here they say
that they are "pursuing a number of different options ... including an
appeal". That is wording that signals that they might not fight, that an appeal may well not happen.<br /><p style="text-align: left;">They have a huge problem with an appeal if (privately) they conclude that the Ofsted report is sufficiently solid that they are not going to overturn it. To get into a legal fight you need a good case. St. Augustine's is a cautionary tale of how you can (metaphorically
speaking) get your head handed back to you on a plate if you try to
fight a legal battle without evidence. You can assert things without evidence in social media but you can't get your lawyers to do that in court. As President Trump has discovered, if you ask them
to, they drop you as a client. So all the social media in the world
won't help them if they have no evidence.</p><p style="text-align: left;">So if the Ofsted report is solid, and given the school's long history of failure to meet standards for child protection that almost every school in the country manages routinely to achieve, it is going to be extremely hard to persuade the Tribunal to which they have to appeal that the Secretary of State's decision is so precipitate and disproportionate that it should be overturned. Either that or they prove that DfE lacks the legal power to issue the notice. Basically, their chances are miniscule. It's just not going to happen. Gavin Williamson will have been advised by the government legal service (full of very good lawyers) before he made his decision.<br /></p><p style="text-align: left;">If the school and its lawyers reach that conclusion, then an appeal is ruled out - it would fail and that failure would only serve to further antagonize the DfE, whose mercy they will have to beg for. So at the end of this month the ban on new pupils would come into effect.</p><p style="text-align: left;">The school will then have to try and persuade Gavin Williamson at some point in the future that it really has changed and that it is safe for him to lift the ban. That means they will have to work extremely fast. A new action plan (better than past ones) will have to be drawn up. It will have to be far more robust than previous rejected plans. The school will need to demonstrate in this plan that sticking to it will effectively make a relapse into old habits impossible. That might require a more thorough separation, both physically and organisationally from the habits occupying the adjacent monastery. That is what St. Benedict's School did with respect to Ealing Abbey following <a href="https://scepticalthoughts.blogspot.com/2011/11/carlile-press-conference.html" target="_blank">Lord Carlile's report</a>.</p><p style="text-align: left;">They can then submit their plan to DfE, get on with implementing it and invite DfE to commission Ofsted to inspect again before the end of the academic year. A good report can lead to a request to DfE to lift the ban on new pupils in time for September. If an appeal is ruled out, this is the only way I can see for the school to survive.<br /></p><p style="text-align: left;">But this would involve a public admission that their safeguarding really hasn't been up to scratch all these years, even though they have been loudly telling parents otherwise. This risks a calamitous loss of confidence by parents in the school. Parents will find it very hard to understand if the school chooses not to appeal the notice given the extent to which they have been whipped up to participate in a PR campaign in the school's defense. Nobody likes to be taken for a sucker.</p><p style="text-align: left;">Not all parents will withdraw their children, but some will. More parents may hesitate to take up a place at the school. It's one thing to discount the risk of your child being sexually abused when the school gives you a strong assurance that the mistakes of the past are over and the risk is now minimal. It's quite another to discount that risk when the school admits to lying over its earlier assurances. In fact, the more solid the case against the school, the greater the risk of admitting it and trying to placate the DfE. The school may find itself financially unviable because not enough parents are prepared to send their children there. They may need to re-hire their old PR consultants <a href="https://chelgate.com/">Chelgate</a> run by former pupil <a href="https://twitter.com/TFaneS" target="_blank">Terence Fane-Saunders</a> to try and head off this eventuality.</p><p style="text-align: left;">I don't know what the school will do. They can fight the DfE or they can appease it. I don't see how they can do both at the same time, as any failed attempt at fighting will make appeasement much less likely to succeed. I also don't know what's in the Ofsted report that has caused DfE to take this action and how solid it is.</p><p style="text-align: left;">If the school is genuinely prepared to do a good job of protecting its pupils and be seen to do so to the satisfaction of a skeptical DfE, then fine. I have no wish to see a good safe school close. But if they haven't and either can't or won't put in that effort, then the school must and will close. Time will tell.<br /></p></div> <script async="" charset="utf-8" src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js"></script> Jonathan Westhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00527063732905729010noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6518202135348193859.post-16817462115337896642020-08-30T21:41:00.000+01:002020-08-30T21:41:31.734+01:00Departure from Downside <p>The monks of Downside have announced their intention to <a href="https://www.downsideabbey.co.uk/news-from-downside/" target="_blank">leave Downside Abbey and find a new home</a>. In some ways it is not a great surprise. There are only 12 monks left, the governance of Downside School was made independent last year and they are presumably rattling around in premises designed for several times as many people.</p><p>But we need also to consider the backdrop of the abuses so thoroughly documented by IICSA. The inquiry found that over decades there had been a refusal to cooperate with the statutory authorities over child sex abuse perpetrated by monks. Given that old attitudes die hard, removing the monks from the vicinity of the school is probably best all round, both for the safety of the pupils and to move the monks out of the reach of temptation.</p><p>There has been a little comment on Twitter expressing regret at the monks’ departure. Few of these have faced squarely the background of abuse. Where it has been referred to it has been described as a “period of evil” which has brought down the Abbey. I’m profoundly sceptical about that interpretation. Admittedly we only know about abuse victims from the last few decades. Any older victims are now dead and unable to tell their story. But there’s no reason to think the abuse only happened within living memory.</p><p>Some conservative Catholics put the blame on Vatican II and the changes that followed. But I know of Benedictine abuse which preceded Vatican II.</p><p>One of the great characteristics of the Catholic Church and Catholic faith is its attachment to continuity and stability. It deals in what it regards as unchanging eternal truths. So why would we not believe that the church’s attitude (and that of the Downside monks) towards covering up abuse has been similarly stable over a long period? Without access to historical records that I’m pretty sure have <a href="https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/downside-head-may-have-burnt-evidence-of-sexual-abuse-qm75khgm9" target="_blank">long since been destroyed</a> there is no means of ever of proving it. </p><p>But if it is true that abuse and cover up has been going on since the abbey and school were established in Somerset in 1814, then the monks’ departure from next door to the school is a matter for celebration, not sorrow.</p>Jonathan Westhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00527063732905729010noreply@blogger.com7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6518202135348193859.post-67236742702092275992019-10-29T21:12:00.002+00:002019-10-29T21:12:34.261+00:00IICSA report - The Abbey statementOh dear. The new Abbot Dominic Taylor has <a href="https://ealingabbeyparish.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/EALING-ABBEY-STATEMENT-OCTOBER-2019.pdf">made a statement on the Abbey website</a>, and unfortunately it is clear that they are back to their old minimising tricks.<br />
<br />
It doesn't start well. <br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
The Abbot of Ealing on behalf of the Monastic Community of Ealing apologies [sic] profusely for the events that have given rise to very serious criticisms outlined in the Inquiry of wrongs by past members of the Community.</blockquote>
<i>Past </i>members of the community? Some of the Inquiry's most trenchant criticism was directed towards Abbot Martin Shipperlee, who to the best of my knowledge (as demonstrated by <a href="https://ealingmonks.org.uk/community/abbot/">a page on the Ealing Abbey website devoted to him</a>) is still a member of the Community. I think I would have heard if he had been expelled or laicised. Not that it is likely to happen, at least not because of any of his failings as Abbot.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Any abuse of children is wicked and deeply sinful. We accept the Inquiry's findings that actions were not taken that could have reduced serious risk and harm to the children in our care.</blockquote>
Fine so far as it goes, which is no distance at all.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
The children affected are in our daily prayers and we recognise the shame brought upon us. We also accept this.</blockquote>
Prayers are all very well, but has it really not occurred to the Community that some rather more <i>active </i>response could conceivably have been considered?<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Since 2012 whilst continuing to support the Benedictine ethos, St Benedict's School is now an entirely separate institution and the Monastic Community exercises no control in either the governance or management of the school.</blockquote>
It is hard to work out precisely what to make of this. First of all, it isn't true. Yes, the Abbey and School are now two separate charitable trusts, each of whom has its own governance structure and provides its own accounts to the Charity Commission. But page 27 of the school's most recent (August 2018) <a href="http://apps.charitycommission.gov.uk/Accounts/Ends12/0001148512_AC_20180831_E_C.pdf">accounts lodged with the Charity Commission</a> lists the governors of the school, among whom are Dom Ambrose McCambridge, Abbot Martin Shipperlee and Dom Dominic Taylor. I presume Abbot Martin Shipperlee has since resigned and been replaced by another monk. Admittedly the monks do not form a majority on the board of governors, but this is still hardly a situation where the Abbot can justifiably claim that the Monastic Community "exercises no control" over the governance of the school.<br />
<br />
So this looks like another effort at minimisation - trying to distance the Monastic Community from the disgraceful events at the School. I can see why it is being done, but perhaps more effort might instead have been made to reform the Community do that such distancing isn't actually necessary?<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Terrible lessons have been learned about the causes and recognition of abuse and the actions that should have followed whenever any suspicions arose.<br /><br />We recognise that these events have had appalling consequences on the victims and we have used our very best endeavours to ensure that this can never be repeated.</blockquote>
I really wish I could be confident that this was true. Unfortanately I cannot. The reason is that the safeguarding page of the <a href="https://ealingabbeyparish.org.uk/safeguarding/">parish website</a> says "Ealing Abbey follows the NATIONAL SAFEGUARDING POLICIES AND PROCEDURES OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH OF ENGLAND & WALES".<br />
<br />
Unfortunately the capitalisation of the title (which is copied directly from the Parish website) does not improve the content. <a href="https://scepticalthoughts.blogspot.com/2019/10/iicsa-analysis-of-csas-and-ncsc.html">I have reviewed the content</a>. The church's national procedures contain shortcomings <a href="https://scepticalthoughts.blogspot.com/2009/11/open-letter-concerning-child-protection_27.html">I complained about 10 years ago</a> in respect of the school's safeguarding policies. If the Monastic Community were serious about employing its "very best endeavours" to improve safeguarding, they would have noticed this and tried to do something a bit better. I don't know whether they haven;t noticed, or whether they noticed and didn't bother. Neither reflects terribly well on them.<br />
<br />
But what strikes me most about this statement is how entirely free of content it is beyond general expressions of regret. There is no action underway or even proposed that would give substance to their "very best endeavours". In that respect it is massively tone-deaf, and quite frankly an insult to generations of pupils who suffered from the attentions of abusers (including monks) at the school.Jonathan Westhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00527063732905729010noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6518202135348193859.post-50692306822685677142019-10-28T21:38:00.001+00:002019-10-28T21:38:57.583+00:00IICSA Report - Outside agenciesThose running Ealing Abbey and St. Benedict's School, and those committing abuses there (sometimes but not always the same people) were able to get away with the abuse and the cover up for so long because of mistakes, systemic problems and plain incompetence on the part of outside agencies.<br />
<br />
First I'll raise a point not made in the report perhaps because the report is not making recommendations at this stage. The non-abusers in senior positions in the Roman Catholic Church are highly-educated, law-abiding people. Both hyphenated adjectives are important. They are law-abiding because they don't want to get into trouble with the law. After all, they see themselves as the good guys. They are highly-educated and therefore are able to judge with great precision how close to the edge of the law they dare encroach. <br />
<br />
They did not promptly report suspicions of abuse because legally they didn't have to. (During the Downside & Ampleforth hearing, Abbot Richard Yeo clearly stated that unreported incidents would have been reported had there been a law requiring it, and that he would have obeyed such a law.) But we have no "mandatory reporting" in the UK, and as a result clerical loyalty and maintaining the reputation of the church took priority over the welfare of the children in the church's care.<br />
<br />
Had a mandatory reporting law existed (as exists in about 80% of countries worldwide) requiring those with reasonable suspicions to report them, it would have been utterly impossible for Soper, Pearce and Maestri to have abused unhindered for so long. To give one characteristic example from the report:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Dr Dachs was the lay headmaster of St Benedict’s senior school between 1986 and 2002. During this time Pearce was head of the separate junior school. As such, Pearce was not under Dr Dachs authority, however like Abbot Rossiter and Soper, Dr Dachs was aware of the complaints about Pearce. For example, on 19 October 1998, the parents of RC-A631 complained by letter to him. Dr Dachs did not raise those concerns with any external authority.<br />
<br />
Harsha Mortemore, senior accounts assistant at St Benedict’s, stated that when she raised her concerns with Dr Dachs he warned her “If you know what’s good for you, keep your head down and do your job.” Dr Dachs has denied this.</blockquote>
Had there been a mandatory reporting law in place at the time these events occurred, it is most unlikely that Dr. Dachs would have dared to say what the inquiry clearly believes he did say to Ms. Mortemore. With a mandatory reporting law in place, and if he were foolish enough still to say it, it is quite possible that Ms. Mortemore, knowing she had the law on her side, would have been emboldened to call Ealing Children's Services directly. In doing so she would have had two things to report: her original concerns about Pearce and what would have been Dr. Dachs' potentially criminal action in telling her to keep quiet.<br />
<br />
This is how a mandatory reporting law would utterly change the landscape. It would empower those who wish to report but (like Ms. Mortemore) justifiably fear the consequences for themselves if they do. It would make suppressing reports a criminal act and therefore very dangerous.<br />
<br />
But we don't, and as a result those fragmentary reports that did reach external authorities were often missed, though inadequate correlation, or plain incompetence. As a result the inquiry has harshly criticised the Metropolitan Police, The Crown Prosecution Service, the Charity Commission, the Independent Schools Inspectorate, the Department for Education and Ealing Council Children's Services. If criticism of these bodies is less than that of the church, it is because their failure was down to incompetence rather than malice. They were not actively engaged in a cover-up of abuse that they knew had happened.<br />
<br />
<b>Metropolitan Police Service</b><br />
In 2001, the police did not adequately investigate complaints from four separate boys. Commander Jerome giving evidence said that this was unreasonable as there was evidence of sexual assault. There was a similar failure in 1992.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
There is no evidence that the 1992 case file relating to RC-A595 was properly considered. There is nothing in the police records to indicate that the allegation of RC-A418 was referred to social services. This was particularly striking as Pearce was still working and living at the Abbey, adjacent to the school. Given the concerted effort of a teacher, Katherine Ravenscroft, and a monk, Father Alban Nunn, to bring concerns about Pearce to the Metropolitan Police’s attention, it is regrettable that this investigation into RC-A418’s complaint should then have been handled and dismissed in such a manner.</blockquote>
The report details several other failures to investigate Pearce appropriately, some of these dated back to the early 1990s. Pearce was eventually convicted in 2009.<br />
<br />
Then there was Soper. He absconded in 2011 when supposedly on his way from Rome to the UK to attend a police bail appointment. It took five years to track him down.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
After Soper absconded in March 2011, the Metropolitan Police waited over four years before passing the task of reaching him to a specialist team with dedicated resources. Two officers who were then involved, DS Chris Sloan and DS Shaun Richardson, told us that:<br />
<br />
<i>“In hindsight the ‘manhunt’ for SOPER should not have been left with the original investigating Child Abuse Investigating Team (CAIT) overseen by a single investigating Officer. This task should have been passed to those with specialisms in this area of work, who have a wide range of resources at their disposal. Once this was done, in and around December 2015 and primacy was passed to an MPS Major Investigation Team (MIT), SOPER was detained in Kosovo within six months (May 2016).”</i></blockquote>
<b>Crown Prosecution Service</b><br />
A case concerning Pearce was passed to the CPS in 1992. Although arguably even by today's standards "this would still be a challenging case to prosecute" there were in the CPS advice not to prosecute, as the report notes:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Mr McCabe’s reasoning as set out in his written advice raises other questions:<br />
<br />
• He concluded that there was no corroborative evidence, whereas Gregor McGill, Director of Legal Services at the Crown Prosecution Service, agreed that there was some evidence that corroborated RC-A595’s account.<br />
• Mr McCabe noted that there was no medical evidence of a physical injury from the alleged indecent assault. However, it is unlikely that any injury would have resulted from an assault of the nature alleged. As Mr McGill told us:<br />
<br />
<i>“A prosecutor today would not expect there to be medical evidence arising from an indecent assault of the nature alleged by the complainant and would be aware that the absence of such evidence is not evidence of no assault having occurred.”</i><br />
• Mr McCabe stressed that there had been a delay in RC-A595 telling his sister, and some inconsistencies between the accounts he gave to his sister and mother. As Commander Jerome noted, neither delay nor inconsistency is unexpected in the context of a young boy having gone through a traumatic incident.<br />
<br />
Of themselves none of these considerations should have been seen as a bar to prosecution.</blockquote>
Again, there were errors handling Soper's case.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Soper was not convicted until 2017, although in 2004 the Crown Prosecution Service decided not to prosecute him in respect of the allegations made by RC-A622 of abuse and multiple rapes.<br />
<br />
Although these were grave allegations, Claudette Phillips, the Crown Prosecution Service reviewing lawyer, having advised orally, in writing justified her decision not to charge only very briefly, expressing the view that the allegation “is essentially the victim’s version of events against the suspects [sic]”. She also failed to consider whether other supporting evidence might be available or could be sought, and did not advise the Metropolitan Police on these points. The decision not to charge and the advice given were inadequate. Mr McGill accepts this, although he told us that “<i>we approach these cases in a completely different way in 2019 than we did in 2004</i>”.</blockquote>
<b>The Charity Commission</b><br />
The Charity Commission carried out two statutory inquiries into Ealing Abbey/St. Benedict's. The report states:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
The first inquiry (from 2006 to 2009) was opened following concerns of child sexual abuse being brought to its attention anonymously in June 2006 in respect of Pearce and RC‑F41. Its purpose was to establish whether the trustees had taken appropriate action and what further steps were required, if any.</blockquote>
The inquiry was not impressed with the approach taken.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
The Charity Commission’s conclusion that appropriate steps were being taken was based on little more than assurances given by Ealing Abbey that there were restrictions on Pearce, precluding access to children. The Commission did not seek to identify in any detail what those restrictions were, nor did it consider how they were being implemented or how compliance was being monitored. Michelle Russell, Head of Compliance at the Charity Commission between 2007 and 2011, told us that this reliance on the assurances of charity trustees “<i>was the approach that was taken by the Commission generally as a regulator at that time</i>”. The Charity Commission also found that the school’s child protection policies and procedures were adequate. This again appears to be in part based on the Trust’s assertion in correspondence that they were. Relying on assurances given by a body under investigation can never be a sufficient substitute for independent scrutiny.</blockquote>
One would have thought that last sentence was a classic statement of the bleeding obvious, but it didn't occur to the Charity Commission at the time.<br />
<br />
On learning that Pearce had abused another child despite the assurances given, the Charity Commission opened another investigation which resulted in a critical report. The strength of the criticism was, according to Ms. Russell when giving evidence “quite unusual language for us to say publicly”. Despite this criticism, no further regulatory action was taken.<br />
<br />
We then move to perhaps the most shocking aspect of the Charity Commission's actions at this time. The report states:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
A further point is that, during this second inquiry, Charity Commission correspondence risked suggesting that protecting the charity’s name required contesting allegations of abuse as a matter of course. For example, a senior compliance and support manager stated in a letter of May 2008:<br />
<br />
<i>“A charity’s reputation is one of its biggest assets. As such, we would expect the trustees to take measures to protect the reputation of the Charity in the future. As a minimum, we would expect the trustees to monitor carefully the outcome of any criminal investigation or prosecution or civil claim into Father Pearce or any other person involved with the Charity in a similar capacity and to take appropriate steps to protect the Charity’s name and reputation as necessary. We would also expect the Charity to take reasonable steps to defend its name and reputation if any charges or proceedings were initiated against the Charity. If such a situation were to arise, I would suggest that you contact the Commission for advice.”</i><br />
<br />
This letter, and the penultimate sentence in particular, could give the impression that defending reputation was more important than protecting children from abuse. While she said this was not the Commission’s intention, Ms Russell agreed that there was a risk that it might be read that way, and that it was something for the Commission to reflect on.</blockquote>
Given that Ealing Abbey was already inclined to cover up even well-founded allegations of abuse, this advice in my view could only have been taken by those in charge as an open invitation to redouble their efforts.<br />
<br />
The Charity Commission appears not to have even considered taking regulatory action when it was clear that the efforts of Ealing Abbey were inadaquate:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Beyond providing “regulatory advice and guidance”, the Charity Commission relied in its report upon the fact that Ealing Abbey was undertaking “an independent review”. It requested a copy of this review, and said it would “actively monitor the Charity to ensure that this happens”.<br />
<br />
The independent review referred to was that undertaken by Philip Wright and John Nixson in 2009. As discussed in Part D, that review was wholly inadequate. Its deficiencies were pointed out to the Charity Commission in 2010 by Mr Jonathan West, to whom the Commission responded in December 2010:<br />
<br />
<i>“The independent review that the trustees confirmed would be carried out is a matter for the Charity. The Commission cannot intervene in the administration of a charity.”</i><br />
However no reference was made in this letter to the possibility, in certain circumstances, of the Commission appointing an interim manager.</blockquote>
<b>Independent Schools Inspectorate</b><br />
The Inquiry concluded that the ISI made a right pig's ear of its 2009 inspection.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
The 2009 inspections were flawed in a number of ways.<br />
<br />
The inspectors did not obtain a full picture of child protection concerns in respect of St Benedict’s, including the extent of the offences for which Pearce was convicted and the fact of the Charity Commission inquiry. Whilst the deficiencies in the level of disclosure given by the school and Abbot Shipperlee as chair of governors was a contributory factor, this does not provide a sufficient excuse. The ISI itself should have undertaken further steps to obtain and check relevant information both prior to and during their inspection, especially when the inspectors discovered that David Pearce had recently been convicted of sexually abusing a pupil. As explained by Kate Richards, Chief Inspector since 2017, the ISI now makes specific inquiries of both the local authority and the school itself about allegations and safeguarding incidents, as well as searching for relevant information in the public domain.<br />
<br />
The ISI found, wrongly, that the school’s child protection policy was compliant, despite obvious defects, in particular with regard to external reporting. These were picked up in the 2010 inspection but should have been identified earlier. The failure is the more striking given the fact that the reporting inspector noted in his pre-inspection commentary:<br />
<br />
<i>“We shall need to be particularly alert and meticulous in checking all policies and procedures concerned with child protection.”</i><br />
<br />
The 2009 ISI reports confused the independent review into Pearce’s offending (which was undertaken by Mr Nixson and Mr Wright) and what the inspector was told about advice provided by the Diocesan child protection officer and another safeguarding professional in respect of RC-F41’s restrictions. The senior school report stated:<br />
<br />
<i>“A serious incident involving a member of the monastic community caused the trustees to request an independent review of the measures taken to minimise risk.”</i><br />
<br />
This plainly related to the review into Pearce’s re-offending, but it went on to state that the advice of that independent review had been implemented, which was an error. The advice of Mr Wright and Mr Nixson arising out of their review had not even been given at the time of the ISI inspection, still less implemented.</blockquote>
It took members of the public to inform them of the magnitude of their failure.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
On 11 February 2010, shortly after the publication of its reports, Mr Jonathan West contacted the ISI expressing concerns. He did not think that the independent review had yet happened, as the Charity Commission had reported that it had been promised but not received in December 2009. The next day another member of the public, Michael Grant, contacted the ISI because he was “appalled by the report with regards to the issue of child protection”. He referred to the fact that David Pearce was the former head of the junior school and had lost a civil action as well as being “jailed for eight years after thirty-five years of systematic abuse”.</blockquote>
The ISI, on the DfE's instructions, kept a much closer and more critical eye on St. Benedict's thereafter. The inquiry clearly thinks that these interventions made all the difference. They clearly think that the shortcomings of the 2009 inspection were probably not an anomaly but on the contrary were characteristic of the organisation.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
However, had it not been for the intervention of members of the public, the ISI might not have re-appraised the safeguarding arrangements at St Benedict’s in 2010 and thereafter. Its approach to the inspection of St Benedict’s in 2009 fell far short of what should be expected of an independent inspectorate.</blockquote>
<b>Department for Education</b><br />
The DfE doesn't fare well either. As the report says:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
The DfE’s involvement with Ealing Abbey and St Benedict’s was limited until significant problems were identified.<br />
<br />
In 2007, the DfE agreed to commission an ISI inspection of St Benedict’s in 2009. There is no evidence that the DfE relayed to the ISI before its 2009 inspections the fact that the Charity Commission had contacted the DfE in 2007 regarding allegations made against Pearce and RC-F41.<br />
<br />
In 2009, the ISI asked the DfE whether it should do anything in addition to that scheduled inspection, following an email from Ealing Children’s Services. That email arose from an anonymous letter which made reference to “<i>things being hushed up</i>”. The DfE contacted the local authority designated officer (LADO) at Ealing, and was told by the LADO that the Ealing Child Protection Strategy Group wanted to flag with the DfE the comments in the letter “<i>that indicated the school ethos was to cover up any problems</i>”, although no other information or explanation was given in the letter. The LADO said that the headmaster, Christopher Cleugh, had appeared to cooperate fully. The LADO did not relate the history of Pearce’s offending with RC-A621, nor the fact of his arrest and pending prosecution, or that RC-F41 had also been the subject of historic allegations. Ealing Council (through its LADO) should have been in a position to inform the DfE of such facts.<br />
<br />
It appears that it was only after concerns were raised with the ISI by Jonathan West and Michael Grant that the independent education and school governance division of the DfE became aware of the Charity Commission report of December 2009, and the scale of the problem at Ealing Abbey and St Benedict’s. This was despite exchanges in 2006/7 with the Charity Commission, the exchange in 2009 with the LADO and the DfE having a press cuttings service to alert it to safeguarding issues in independent schools.</blockquote>
<b>Ealing Council Children's Services</b><br />
We have another catalogue of error and incompetence here.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Despite the long-standing importance of its role, Ealing Council’s case records prior to 2009 were stored on one officer’s drive and were deleted when he left. As a result, it was unable to find any record in respect of the complaints of RC-A418 in 2001, RC-A6 and RC‑A419 in 2004, the imposition of restrictions upon David Pearce in 2005 or the civil judgment against him in 2006. Carolyn Fair, the Director of Children’s Services at Ealing Council, has explained that the council’s response to allegations “became systematic” in 2009. Records of referrals are now processed and stored on a computerised social care database.<br />
<br />
The inadequacy of historic record-keeping at Ealing Council is reflected in the insufficiency of the information provided by the LADO to the DfE in June 2009. The DfE contacted the LADO at Ealing, and was told by the LADO that the Ealing Child Protection Strategy Group wanted to alert the DfE to a concern “that indicated the school ethos was to cover up any problems”, although no other information or explanation was given. Most notably, there was no information given about the allegations against Pearce or his impending trial, nor was anything said about RC-F41 despite the Council having been informed in 2006 of historical allegations made against him. The DfE was entitled to expect more detail from the local authority, as in effect Ms Fair admitted. She stated that it was only around 2009 that the LADO role was created and a more consistent approach to record-keeping adopted at Ealing Council Children’s Services:<br />
<br />
<i>“If this LADO role and experience had been established in May 2009 I would expect the LADO to inform the then DCSF, now DfE, due to the number of specific allegations within one establishment.”</i></blockquote>
This however is extremely odd. The LADO role was defined in legislation long before 2009. What on earth was Ealing doing without one until then?<br />
<br />
<b>Afterword</b><br />
A journalist spoke to me the other day. One of her questions was about why I had put in all the effort I did over the years. This report gives one good reason why. It had to be done and hardly anyone else was doing very much.Jonathan Westhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00527063732905729010noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6518202135348193859.post-76165627430550590732019-10-28T14:12:00.001+00:002019-10-28T14:15:51.791+00:00IICSA - Analysis of CSAS and NCSC Safeguarding policiesThis is the text of the covering note of an analysis of CSAS and NCSC Safeguarding policies which I have submitted to the Inquiry.<br />
<br />
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:OfficeDocumentSettings>
<o:AllowPNG/>
</o:OfficeDocumentSettings>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:WordDocument>
<w:View>Normal</w:View>
<w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>
<w:TrackMoves/>
<w:TrackFormatting/>
<w:PunctuationKerning/>
<w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/>
<w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>
<w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent>
<w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>
<w:DoNotPromoteQF/>
<w:LidThemeOther>EN-GB</w:LidThemeOther>
<w:LidThemeAsian>X-NONE</w:LidThemeAsian>
<w:LidThemeComplexScript>X-NONE</w:LidThemeComplexScript>
<w:Compatibility>
<w:BreakWrappedTables/>
<w:SnapToGridInCell/>
<w:WrapTextWithPunct/>
<w:UseAsianBreakRules/>
<w:DontGrowAutofit/>
<w:SplitPgBreakAndParaMark/>
<w:EnableOpenTypeKerning/>
<w:DontFlipMirrorIndents/>
<w:OverrideTableStyleHps/>
</w:Compatibility>
<m:mathPr>
<m:mathFont m:val="Cambria Math"/>
<m:brkBin m:val="before"/>
<m:brkBinSub m:val="--"/>
<m:smallFrac m:val="off"/>
<m:dispDef/>
<m:lMargin m:val="0"/>
<m:rMargin m:val="0"/>
<m:defJc m:val="centerGroup"/>
<m:wrapIndent m:val="1440"/>
<m:intLim m:val="subSup"/>
<m:naryLim m:val="undOvr"/>
</m:mathPr></w:WordDocument>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" DefUnhideWhenUsed="false"
DefSemiHidden="false" DefQFormat="false" DefPriority="99"
LatentStyleCount="377">
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="0" QFormat="true" Name="Normal"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" QFormat="true" Name="heading 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" QFormat="true" Name="heading 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" QFormat="true" Name="heading 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" QFormat="true" Name="heading 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" QFormat="true" Name="heading 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" QFormat="true" Name="heading 7"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" QFormat="true" Name="heading 8"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" QFormat="true" Name="heading 9"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="index 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="index 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="index 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="index 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="index 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="index 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="index 7"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="index 8"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="index 9"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name="toc 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name="toc 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name="toc 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name="toc 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name="toc 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name="toc 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name="toc 7"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name="toc 8"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name="toc 9"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Normal Indent"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="footnote text"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="annotation text"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="header"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="footer"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="index heading"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="35" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" QFormat="true" Name="caption"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="table of figures"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="envelope address"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="envelope return"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="footnote reference"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="annotation reference"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="line number"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="page number"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="endnote reference"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="endnote text"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="table of authorities"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="macro"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="toa heading"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List Bullet"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List Number"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List Bullet 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List Bullet 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List Bullet 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List Bullet 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List Number 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List Number 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List Number 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List Number 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="10" QFormat="true" Name="Title"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Closing"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Signature"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="1" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name="Default Paragraph Font"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Body Text"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Body Text Indent"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List Continue"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List Continue 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List Continue 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List Continue 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List Continue 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Message Header"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="11" QFormat="true" Name="Subtitle"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Salutation"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Date"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Body Text First Indent"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Body Text First Indent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Note Heading"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Body Text 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Body Text 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Body Text Indent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Body Text Indent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Block Text"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Hyperlink"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="FollowedHyperlink"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="22" QFormat="true" Name="Strong"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="20" QFormat="true" Name="Emphasis"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Document Map"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Plain Text"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="E-mail Signature"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="HTML Top of Form"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="HTML Bottom of Form"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Normal (Web)"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="HTML Acronym"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="HTML Address"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="HTML Cite"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="HTML Code"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="HTML Definition"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="HTML Keyboard"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="HTML Preformatted"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="HTML Sample"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="HTML Typewriter"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="HTML Variable"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Normal Table"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="annotation subject"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="No List"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Outline List 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Outline List 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Outline List 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Simple 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Simple 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Simple 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Classic 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Classic 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Classic 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Classic 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Colorful 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Colorful 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Colorful 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Columns 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Columns 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Columns 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Columns 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Columns 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Grid 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Grid 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Grid 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Grid 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Grid 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Grid 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Grid 7"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Grid 8"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table List 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table List 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table List 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table List 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table List 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table List 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table List 7"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table List 8"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table 3D effects 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table 3D effects 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table 3D effects 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Contemporary"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Elegant"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Professional"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Subtle 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Subtle 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Web 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Web 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Web 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Balloon Text"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="Table Grid"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Theme"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" Name="Placeholder Text"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="1" QFormat="true" Name="No Spacing"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" Name="Light Shading"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" Name="Light List"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" Name="Light Grid"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" Name="Medium Shading 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" Name="Medium Shading 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" Name="Medium List 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" Name="Medium List 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" Name="Medium Grid 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" Name="Medium Grid 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" Name="Medium Grid 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" Name="Dark List"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" Name="Colorful Shading"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" Name="Colorful List"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" Name="Colorful Grid"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" Name="Light Shading Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" Name="Light List Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" Name="Light Grid Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" Name="Revision"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="34" QFormat="true"
Name="List Paragraph"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="29" QFormat="true" Name="Quote"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="30" QFormat="true"
Name="Intense Quote"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" Name="Dark List Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" Name="Colorful List Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" Name="Light Shading Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" Name="Light List Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" Name="Light Grid Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" Name="Dark List Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" Name="Colorful List Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" Name="Light Shading Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" Name="Light List Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" Name="Light Grid Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" Name="Dark List Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" Name="Colorful List Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" Name="Light Shading Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" Name="Light List Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" Name="Light Grid Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" Name="Dark List Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" Name="Colorful List Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" Name="Light Shading Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" Name="Light List Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" Name="Light Grid Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" Name="Dark List Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" Name="Colorful List Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" Name="Light Shading Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" Name="Light List Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" Name="Light Grid Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" Name="Dark List Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" Name="Colorful List Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="19" QFormat="true"
Name="Subtle Emphasis"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="21" QFormat="true"
Name="Intense Emphasis"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="31" QFormat="true"
Name="Subtle Reference"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="32" QFormat="true"
Name="Intense Reference"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="33" QFormat="true" Name="Book Title"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="37" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name="Bibliography"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" QFormat="true" Name="TOC Heading"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="41" Name="Plain Table 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="42" Name="Plain Table 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="43" Name="Plain Table 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="44" Name="Plain Table 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="45" Name="Plain Table 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="40" Name="Grid Table Light"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="46" Name="Grid Table 1 Light"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="47" Name="Grid Table 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="48" Name="Grid Table 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="49" Name="Grid Table 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="50" Name="Grid Table 5 Dark"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="51" Name="Grid Table 6 Colorful"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="52" Name="Grid Table 7 Colorful"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="46"
Name="Grid Table 1 Light Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="47" Name="Grid Table 2 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="48" Name="Grid Table 3 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="49" Name="Grid Table 4 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="50" Name="Grid Table 5 Dark Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="51"
Name="Grid Table 6 Colorful Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="52"
Name="Grid Table 7 Colorful Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="46"
Name="Grid Table 1 Light Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="47" Name="Grid Table 2 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="48" Name="Grid Table 3 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="49" Name="Grid Table 4 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="50" Name="Grid Table 5 Dark Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="51"
Name="Grid Table 6 Colorful Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="52"
Name="Grid Table 7 Colorful Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="46"
Name="Grid Table 1 Light Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="47" Name="Grid Table 2 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="48" Name="Grid Table 3 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="49" Name="Grid Table 4 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="50" Name="Grid Table 5 Dark Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="51"
Name="Grid Table 6 Colorful Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="52"
Name="Grid Table 7 Colorful Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="46"
Name="Grid Table 1 Light Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="47" Name="Grid Table 2 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="48" Name="Grid Table 3 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="49" Name="Grid Table 4 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="50" Name="Grid Table 5 Dark Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="51"
Name="Grid Table 6 Colorful Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="52"
Name="Grid Table 7 Colorful Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="46"
Name="Grid Table 1 Light Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="47" Name="Grid Table 2 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="48" Name="Grid Table 3 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="49" Name="Grid Table 4 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="50" Name="Grid Table 5 Dark Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="51"
Name="Grid Table 6 Colorful Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="52"
Name="Grid Table 7 Colorful Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="46"
Name="Grid Table 1 Light Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="47" Name="Grid Table 2 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="48" Name="Grid Table 3 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="49" Name="Grid Table 4 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="50" Name="Grid Table 5 Dark Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="51"
Name="Grid Table 6 Colorful Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="52"
Name="Grid Table 7 Colorful Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="46" Name="List Table 1 Light"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="47" Name="List Table 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="48" Name="List Table 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="49" Name="List Table 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="50" Name="List Table 5 Dark"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="51" Name="List Table 6 Colorful"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="52" Name="List Table 7 Colorful"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="46"
Name="List Table 1 Light Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="47" Name="List Table 2 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="48" Name="List Table 3 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="49" Name="List Table 4 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="50" Name="List Table 5 Dark Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="51"
Name="List Table 6 Colorful Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="52"
Name="List Table 7 Colorful Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="46"
Name="List Table 1 Light Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="47" Name="List Table 2 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="48" Name="List Table 3 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="49" Name="List Table 4 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="50" Name="List Table 5 Dark Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="51"
Name="List Table 6 Colorful Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="52"
Name="List Table 7 Colorful Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="46"
Name="List Table 1 Light Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="47" Name="List Table 2 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="48" Name="List Table 3 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="49" Name="List Table 4 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="50" Name="List Table 5 Dark Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="51"
Name="List Table 6 Colorful Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="52"
Name="List Table 7 Colorful Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="46"
Name="List Table 1 Light Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="47" Name="List Table 2 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="48" Name="List Table 3 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="49" Name="List Table 4 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="50" Name="List Table 5 Dark Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="51"
Name="List Table 6 Colorful Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="52"
Name="List Table 7 Colorful Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="46"
Name="List Table 1 Light Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="47" Name="List Table 2 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="48" Name="List Table 3 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="49" Name="List Table 4 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="50" Name="List Table 5 Dark Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="51"
Name="List Table 6 Colorful Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="52"
Name="List Table 7 Colorful Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="46"
Name="List Table 1 Light Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="47" Name="List Table 2 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="48" Name="List Table 3 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="49" Name="List Table 4 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="50" Name="List Table 5 Dark Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="51"
Name="List Table 6 Colorful Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="52"
Name="List Table 7 Colorful Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Mention"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Smart Hyperlink"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Hashtag"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Unresolved Mention"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Smart Link"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Smart Link Error"/>
</w:LatentStyles>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]>
<style>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin-top:0cm;
mso-para-margin-right:0cm;
mso-para-margin-bottom:8.0pt;
mso-para-margin-left:0cm;
line-height:107%;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;
mso-fareast-language:EN-US;}
</style>
<![endif]-->
<br />
<div class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left: 17.85pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -17.85pt;">
<span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">1.<span style="font: 7.0pt "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></span>I
have carried out an analysis of the NCSC/CSAS Safeguarding policy, similar in
nature to the Mandate Now analysis of the Anglican church safeguarding policy
submitted to the Inquiry, to which I contributed.</div>
<div class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left: 17.85pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -17.85pt;">
<span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">2.<span style="font: 7.0pt "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></span>The
version I have analysed was provided by CSAS to Mr Tom Perry of Mandate Now.
The correspondence between Mr Perry and CSAS is separately submitted. There was
a significant delay in doing so, and when it arrived it was split into 130
separate PDF files.</div>
<div class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left: 17.85pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -17.85pt;">
<span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">3.<span style="font: 7.0pt "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></span>Given
the many past safeguarding failures within the Roman Catholic Church and most
specifically failures to report known or suspected abuse to the statutory
authorities, and given the absence of a statutory duty to report (a “mandatory
reporting” law) I have considered what would persuade me that the Roman
Catholic Church is truly intent on improving its safeguarding and avoid
slipping back into past habits of concealment.</div>
<div class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left: 17.85pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -17.85pt;">
<span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">4.<span style="font: 7.0pt "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></span>The
test I have applied is a simple one: in the absence of a statutory duty, I have
considered whether it is plain that a failure to report known abuse or
reasonable suspicions thereof would unequivocally breach the church’s own
policies.</div>
<div class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left: 17.85pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -17.85pt;">
<span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">5.<span style="font: 7.0pt "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></span>For
a failure to report suspicions of abuse to be a clear and unambiguous breach of
the policy, the policy would need to meet the following more detailed criteria:</div>
<div class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left: 2.0cm; mso-list: l0 level2 lfo1; text-indent: -1.0cm;">
<span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">5.1.<span style="font: 7.0pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span>The reporting arrangements are clearly stated,
and use wording that does not allow for discretion as to whether a report is
made</div>
<div class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left: 2.0cm; mso-list: l0 level2 lfo1; text-indent: -1.0cm;">
<span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">5.2.<span style="font: 7.0pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span>The policy does not allow varying
interpretations of its meaning and intent.</div>
<div class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left: 2.0cm; mso-list: l0 level2 lfo1; text-indent: -1.0cm;">
<span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">5.3.<span style="font: 7.0pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span>The policy is clear, accessible, and easy to
read and understand.</div>
<div class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left: 2.0cm; mso-list: l0 level2 lfo1; text-indent: -1.0cm;">
<span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">5.4.<span style="font: 7.0pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span>It is clear who within the church is given various
responsibilities to act.</div>
<div class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left: 1.0cm; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -1.0cm;">
<span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">6.<span style="font: 7.0pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span>In my analysis I have concentrated on the files
in “Chapter 2 - Responding to allegations and concerns” and “Chapter 3 -
Information Sharing and Data Protection” on the basis that these areas are key
to ensuring that abuse is properly reported and information about it is shared
with the statutory authorities.</div>
<div class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left: 1.0cm; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -1.0cm;">
<span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">7.<span style="font: 7.0pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span>Within Chapter 2, the key document is “Children
management of allegations and concerns”. By the criteria defined above, this is
a dreadfully poor document. Specifically:</div>
<div class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left: 2.0cm; mso-list: l0 level2 lfo1; text-indent: -1.0cm;">
<span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">7.1.<span style="font: 7.0pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span>Procedures are frequently defined using the word
“should” which offers a degree of discretion about how or even whether a
procedure is followed (as opposed to “must” which removes that discretion).
Even though the policy does not have the backing of a mandatory reporting law,
it would be perfectly proper to use “must” in procedures, to make it clear that
failure to act as indicated is a breach of Church policies.</div>
<div class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left: 2.0cm; mso-list: l0 level2 lfo1; text-indent: -1.0cm;">
<span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">7.2.<span style="font: 7.0pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span>There is frequent use of passive voice, so it is
not clear who has responsibility to carry out an action. Without the
responsibility being assigned to some specific person or role, there is no
accountability and no means of taking disciplinary action against anybody for
failing to act.</div>
<div class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left: 2.0cm; mso-list: l0 level2 lfo1; text-indent: -1.0cm;">
<span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">7.3.<span style="font: 7.0pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span>The same procedure is defined a number of times
in different places within the document, each with a slightly different form of
words and with no statement as to which is the authoritative version of the
procedure.</div>
<div class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left: 2.0cm; mso-list: l0 level2 lfo1; text-indent: -1.0cm;">
<span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">7.4.<span style="font: 7.0pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span>Where immediate danger to a child is identified,
the procedures tend to use “should”, whereas where there is judged to be no
immediate danger, “must” is used, but solely in the context of internal
communication within the church, not to informing external authorities.</div>
<div class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left: 2.0cm; mso-list: l0 level2 lfo1; text-indent: -1.0cm;">
<span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">7.5.<span style="font: 7.0pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span>Paragraph 2.2 incorrectly makes reference to “a
legal responsibility to pass on” information. This is legally incorrect, there
is (unfortunately) no such legal obligation, and this gives rise to concern for
the knowledge and competence of the document’s authors.</div>
<div class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left: 2.0cm; mso-list: l0 level2 lfo1; text-indent: -1.0cm;">
<span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">7.6.<span style="font: 7.0pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span>In the same paragraph 2.2 the strongest wording
yet used in the document: “it is vital” refers to the need for confidentiality
because “allegations can affect livelihoods and reputations”. This seems to
indicate that the true priority of the church remains the protection of its own
reputation.</div>
<div class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left: 2.0cm; mso-list: l0 level2 lfo1; text-indent: -1.0cm;">
<span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">7.7.<span style="font: 7.0pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span>Section 3 of the document indicates that parental
consent will normally be sought to make a referral to LA Children’s Services.
This is exceedingly unsound safeguarding practice and is one of the concerns I
expressed 10 years ago about the version of the safeguarding policy of St
Benedict’s School at the time. There are two reasons why this is unsound.
First, it is all too easy to manipulate parents into withholding consent. The
authority of the church can be used to persuade parents that it is not in their
child’s best interest to have strangers from children’s services asking
questions, or someone might even falsely suggest that suspicion is likely to
fall upon the parents. Second, other children may be at risk now or in the
future from the same offender, and it is important that the matter is put in
the hands of those with the training and authority to investigate effectively.</div>
<div class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left: 2.0cm; mso-list: l0 level2 lfo1; text-indent: -1.0cm;">
<span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">7.8.<span style="font: 7.0pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span>Section 4.1 defines circumstances in which the LADO
“must” be contacted, but uses passive voice so leaved it unstated as to who
must act.</div>
<div class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left: 2.0cm; mso-list: l0 level2 lfo1; text-indent: -1.0cm;">
<span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">7.9.<span style="font: 7.0pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span>Section 4.2 covers much the same ground but uses
the word “should” instead of “must”. It is not clear which paragraph takes
precedence,</div>
<div class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left: 2.0cm; mso-list: l0 level2 lfo1; text-indent: -1.0cm;">
<span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">7.10.<span style="font: 7.0pt "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></span>Section
9 of the document, describing “Temporary removal from Ministry, Ecclesiastical
Office or other Post” talks of the need to “prevent scandal”, and this is
placed on equal footing with other reasons for temporary removal. I find it
troubling that the church even now considers its reputation, and the prevention
of scandal, to be a valid consideration when defining its policies for the
safeguarding of the children in its care.</div>
<div class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left: 1.0cm; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -1.0cm;">
<span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">8.<span style="font: 7.0pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span>The items above are by no means an exhaustive
list of the shortcomings of this document, but provide a reasonable summary of
the key issues.</div>
<div class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left: 1.0cm; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -1.0cm;">
<span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">9.<span style="font: 7.0pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span>In Chapter 3, the key document is “26.11.18
National Safeguarding Information Sharing Protocol”. It manages to get through
several pages of introductory text before coming to any specific procedures.
The following are some specific matters of concern:</div>
<div class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left: 2.0cm; mso-list: l0 level2 lfo1; text-indent: -1.0cm;">
<span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">9.1.<span style="font: 7.0pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span>Within Section 2, there is a paragraph titled Is
there a clear and legitimate purpose for sharing the information?” No specific
criteria are given for when a lawful purpose might be applicable. A list of
lawful bases is included in a Schedule to an appendix in the document, this
schedule is nowhere referred to within the main body of the document and so
could easily be missed.</div>
<div class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left: 2.0cm; mso-list: l0 level2 lfo1; text-indent: -1.0cm;">
<span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">9.2.<span style="font: 7.0pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span>A little later there is a section “Is the
information subject to a duty of confidence?” This is far more specific. The
contrast between the wording which encourages sharing and wording which
discourages is quite notable. The contrast is repeated further into the
document.</div>
<div class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left: 2.0cm; mso-list: l0 level2 lfo1; text-indent: -1.0cm;">
<span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">9.3.<span style="font: 7.0pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span>Towards the end of the document is a series of
Case Examples. The first paragraph of the first case example is worth quoting
in full.<br />
<br />
“Where you have reasonable cause to believe that a child or young person has
suffered, or is likely to suffer significant harm, <b>you must always consider
referring your concerns</b> to Children's Services or Police in line with
national policy and your Local Safeguarding Children's Board procedures.” (my
emphasis)<br />
<br />
The emphasised wording is far short of an unequivocal direction to refer
concerns, it is merely an instruction to consider referring, and after
consideration the person is free to decide not to refer.</div>
<div class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left: 2.0cm; mso-list: l0 level2 lfo1; text-indent: -1.0cm;">
<span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">9.4.<span style="font: 7.0pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span>The case examples are full of discretionary
wording – the word “should” is used all over the place. It is unclear how the
case examples link to the body of the text. The examples don’t for instance say
something to the effect “section x of this document is applicable and therefore
the person with this information must do y”.</div>
<div class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left: 2.0cm; mso-list: l0 level2 lfo1; text-indent: -1.0cm;">
<span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">9.5.<span style="font: 7.0pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span>The case examples are preceded by this
introductory paragraph.<br />
<br />
“The examples set out below indicate the likely application of relevant rules
and good practice etc but should not be taken as definitive guidance and you
should take independent legal advice in relation to your specific situation as
required.”<br />
<br />
So these case studies are not “definitive guidance” and are merely “likely
application of relevant rules”, which bring into question whether the “relevant
rules” are even contained within this document.</div>
<div class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left: 1.0cm; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -1.0cm;">
<span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">10.<span style="font: 7.0pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span>I attach detailed analyses of several documents
within the CSAS-NCSC set. Lack of time has not permitted all the documents to
be looked at in the same level of detail. Those that I have analysed are all in
the same form, placed into landscape page layout with the original text on the
left and my detailed comments on the right.</div>
<div class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left: 1.0cm; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -1.0cm;">
<span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">11.<span style="font: 7.0pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span>As should by now be plain, if anybody within the
Roman Catholic Church wished to conceal suspected abuse from the statutory
authorities, they would find ample wriggle room within these documents
permitting them to do so while still plausibly being able to claim that they
conform to the NCSC/CSAS policies. As a result, I do not consider that the
Roman Catholic Church in England and Wales has yet come to terms with the need
for rigour in its safeguarding policies, and that continued poor safeguarding
practice and even downright concealment of abuse is by no means ruled out by
the existence and even enforcement of these policies.</div>
<div class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left: 1.0cm; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -1.0cm;">
<span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">12.<span style="font: 7.0pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span>It took me four years of campaigning from 2009
to 2013 to have such wriggle room removed from the safeguarding policy of St.
Benedict’s School. Analysing these documents has been a profoundly dispiriting experience,
to discover that all the weaknesses that I worked so hard to remove in the St.
Benedict’s safeguarding policy remain in the church’s national policies. I had
hoped that I would have found something better, but on examining these
documents it appears to me that the Roman Catholic Church nationally has
learned absolutely nothing from the scandals of Ealing and elsewhere.</div>
<div class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left: 1.0cm; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -1.0cm;">
<span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">13.<span style="font: 7.0pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span>If the Inquiry reaches the similar conclusions
based on the evidence before it, then it is inevitable that questions must
arise as to the willingness and ability of the Church voluntarily to reform its
procedures. The Church has had 25 years since publication of Bishop Budd’s
report, and if this policy is the pinnacle of the progress that has been
achieved so far, then on present rates of improvement I doubt that properly
robust policies will be written and implemented before the end of this century.</div>
<div class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left: 1.0cm; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -1.0cm;">
<span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">14.<span style="font: 7.0pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span>Since it is clear that the Church is either
unwilling or unable (it doesn’t really matter which) voluntarily to ensure that
child protection concerns are reliably reported to the statutory authorities,
consideration needs to be given as to methods of compulsion that might be
applied.</div>
<div class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left: 1.0cm; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -1.0cm;">
<span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">15.<span style="font: 7.0pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span>The most obvious remedy is a “mandatory
reporting law” along the lines proposed by Mandate Now in its various
submissions to the Inquiry. It is my belief that individuals in the church will
be far more willing to report concerns if they risk prosecution for a
deliberate failure to do so.</div>
<div class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left: 1.0cm; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -1.0cm;">
<span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">16.<span style="font: 7.0pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span>A second remedy, dependent on the existence of a
mandatory reporting law, would be an inspection body independent of the church
which could review policies and even case notes, and bring anything to the
attention of the authorities that should have been disclosed. Given the past
culture and practices of the Roman Catholic Church, the deterrent effect of a
mandatory reporting law can only be assumed to operate fully where those subject
to it are given reason to believe that there is a high risk of wrongdoing being
detected and punished. Hence the need for regular outside scrutiny of its
safeguarding practices.</div>
Jonathan Westhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00527063732905729010noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6518202135348193859.post-37525133153344489812019-10-26T19:05:00.000+01:002019-10-26T19:05:43.379+01:00IICSA - Wider Catholic ChurchThere's plenty of blame to go round in this sorry tale. This article covers next two candidates: the Diocese of Westminster and its safeguarding office, and the Holy See.<br />
<br />
<b>Diocese of Westminster</b><br />
<br />
The Archbishop of Westminster, Cardinal Vincent Nichols, has been so detached from the safeguarding scandal going on in his diocese that he doesn't even get mentioned in the report. He achieved precisely nothing, which is about as much as it appears he achieved when IICSA ran an investigation into his previous patch, the Diocese of Birmingham.<br />
<br />
Peter Turner ran the safeguarding office during much of the period in question. He does come off a little better than Yeo, Shipperlee and Cleugh, For instance, the report records that allegations by RC-A622 (in 2004) and RC-A421 (in 2005) were promptly forwarded to the police. The Inquiry notes that for much of the time the office was under-resourced, which wasn't is fault. But there are still serious shortcomings reported.<br />
<br />
In April 2005, in response to a number of allegations against Pearce, Turner wrote to Shipperlee recommending that 5 restrictions be placed on Pearce.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>1. That Fr. David has no public ministry with the Parish setting.<br />2. That Fr. David is only allowed to say mass in private or within the monastery, and with no members of the public present.<br />3. That Fr. David is allowed to continue in a non-executive role within the Monastery as long as that does not bring him into contact with Children and Young Persons;<br />4. That Fr. David continues to serve as Chaplain to other Religious Communities as long as this does not bring him into contact with Children and Young Persons, and provided that the person in charge of such Communities is made aware of these conditions;<br />5. That if Fr. David visits families within the Parish, he does so only on condition that he does not wear clerical dress and that the families are bonafide families/friends.</i></blockquote>
Turner asked that “<i>the recommendations be formally recognised in a formal letter to me</i>” but this was never done and he never followed the matter up. The report states:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Mr Turner’s letter was insufficient. It did not give any guidance to Abbot Shipperlee as to how compliance with these restrictions should be enforced and monitored.</blockquote>
<br />
Following the civil action in 2006, the restrictions on Pearce were not reviewed. The report says:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Following the civil judgment against Pearce, the Diocese child protection team should have advised strongly that Pearce be required to leave Ealing Abbey. Abbot Shipperlee should have insisted that Pearce live elsewhere, rather than remain at Ealing Abbey, where he could and did use his position to abuse another child. While there may have been countervailing considerations as Shipperlee noted, such as difficulties in finding a suitable and safe place for Pearce to live, it should not have been insurmountable because it had previously been possible to make arrangements for him to leave the monastery during the civil trial.</blockquote>
The inquiry found that Turner did act correctly in insisting (against Shipperlee's entreaty) that the similar restrictions on RC-F41 should be maintained.<br />
<br />
However there were major failures of record-keeping in the safeguarding
office, some of which admittedly predated Turner's time there <br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<br />
For example, Peter Turner failed to record:<br /><br />• the complaint made by RC-A418 in 2001 that he had been sexually abused by Father David Pearce in 1992;<br /><br />• his recommendation in 2002 that Pearce should not come into any contact with children (which he had assured the police that he would make); and<br /><br />• RC-A419’s complaint of sexual abuse by Pearce committed in the 1970s.<br /><br />Mr Turner also failed to obtain and keep full records of the restrictions upon Pearce.<br />Some failures in record-keeping predated Mr Turner. For example, in 2004, he told the police that there were no previous allegations in respect of Soper, who was then being investigated in respect of RC-A622’s complaints. In fact, the Diocese of Westminster child protection team was aware of RC-A420’s claim in 2001 (before Mr Turner’s time) but no records of this were kept.<br /><br />The significance of such failures is obvious: it means that an accurate picture of allegations was not maintained or available in the event of subsequent concerns.</blockquote>
He also failed to ensure that his advice was sufficient and also and enforced <br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
The advice given to Abbot Shipperlee in respect of imposing restrictions upon Pearce and others was deficient. First, in identifying the restrictions upon Pearce, Mr Turner and the Diocese of Westminster child protection team overlooked that RC-A419’s account was of abuse by Pearce during a visit as a family friend. Pearce was allowed to continue to visit families within the parish; the only condition was “<i>that he does not wear clerical dress and that the families are bona fide families/friends</i>”. The conditions should also have stipulated that friends and families be made aware of the restrictions upon him, as Mr Turner admitted in his evidence to us. Similarly, Mr Turner did not ask whether any young people worked in the monastery:<br /><br /><i>“I just assumed that they had kitchen staff working at a weekend like they did during the week.<br />Q: Was that a safe assumption to make?<br />A: With hindsight, no.”</i><br /><br />
Mr Turner also failed to advise Abbot Shipperlee as to how the restrictions should be implemented and monitored. Mr Turner had more experience of child protection matters than Abbot Shipperlee, including the difficulties there may be in monitoring compliance with restrictions. As he told the Inquiry:<br /><br /><i>“in my experience, especially with sex offenders, they will do anything to get around any restrictions that are placed upon them”.</i></blockquote>
The inquiry criticises him for assuming all was well when he had no knowledge of whether his restrictions were actually in force.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Despite this lack of proper consideration of the risk posed by Pearce or of what action the Diocese of Westminster child protection team should take, Mr Turner informed the Deputy Child Protection Manager at the London Borough of Ealing in July 2006 that:<br /><br /><i>“I am certain that [Pearce has] been removed from all Ministry, and [does] not have any contact with Children or Young Persons, and that no further action is required at this stage.”</i><br /><br />This assertion was made solely on the basis of the fact that restrictions had been put upon Pearce, rather than on how they had been implemented and monitored. To suggest ‘certainty’ was misleading.<br /><br />This same lack of proper consideration is evident in the Diocese of Westminster child protection team’s failure to review or reflect on its approach after it was discovered that Pearce had abused RC-A621 while under restrictions.</blockquote>
<b>The Holy See</b><br />
<br />
The Holy See has been determinedly uncooperative with the inquiry.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
We have sought evidence from the Holy See, initially through a formal request made to the Apostolic Nuncio, its diplomatic representative in London, and subsequently to the Holy See directly. The Holy See has provided some documentation in response to the Inquiry’s request but aspects remain outstanding. As a result we are unable to fully assess the role that the Holy See may have played in events concerning the EBC. It is likely therefore that the position of the Holy See will be considered further in the Inquiry’s investigation into the response of the Catholic Church as a whole, by which point we expect to have some answers.</blockquote>
The main action of the Holy See has been to conduct an Apostolic Visitation of Ealing.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
The primary response of the Holy See in respect of events at Ealing Abbey was the request for an Apostolic Visitation in 2011. This would appear to have been authorised in response to a lengthy letter of 18 June 2011, sent by Jonathan West, a member of the public and campaigner, to the Apostolic Nuncio:<br /><br /><i>“I request that there be an intervention from the highest levels within the Church. It seems to me that an Apostolic Visitation might be an appropriate response to the situation, to ensure the safety of the children of the schools and of the parish.”</i><br /><br />The Apostolic Visitation was undertaken by Bishop Arnold and, initially, Abbot President Yeo. The recommendations of the final report in 2012 were that:<br /><br />• Abbot Shipperlee should not be removed from office;<br />• the CDF should accept the relevant recommendations made in the Carlile report;<br />• the EBC should make a further canonical visitation of Ealing Abbey; and<br />• the healing of those who have been abused was of paramount importance.</blockquote>
Note that if the intent of the visitation was (as I had requested) "<i>to ensure the safety of the children of the schools and of the parish" </i>then the Visitation was complete failure as the report did not address that question at all. Presumably the scope defined by the Holy See was somewhat different and more minimal. In this, the Holy See was clearly following Abbot Shipperlee's previous example when commissioning the Wright-Nixson report.<br />
<br />
The Holy See's response to this report was to insist that Lord Carlile's report must not be endorsed. The reasons for this are unclear and have not been explained by the Holy See.<br />
<br />
Concerning the hunt for Soper, the report states<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
In November 2015, Detective Sergeant (DS) Chris Sloan of the Metropolitan Police was tasked to assist with undertaking financial enquiries in relation to Soper.526 In November and December 2015, DS Sloan asked for two intelligence requests to be made of the Holy See through the National Crime Agency (NCA), which was the gateway for such international enquiries. According to Commander Neil Jerome, it appears that although DS Sloan did not himself receive any response, the NCA was provided with information originating from the Holy See that led to Soper’s eventual arrest in Kosovo in May 2016.<br /><br />We do not know what the Holy See knew, whether any steps were taken after Soper’s disappearance to discover whether he had an account at the Vatican Bank, or whether they had any information that might have assisted in locating him earlier.<br /><br />Prior to the hearing we sought a witness statement from the Holy See in relation to these, and other, matters. The Chair’s powers to compel evidence are limited to the United Kingdom and as a result the request to the Holy See has been to provide information on a voluntary basis. The request was initially made to the Apostolic Nuncio to the United Kingdom, the Holy See’s diplomatic representative in the UK. He is covered by diplomatic immunity and therefore cannot be compelled to give evidence.<br /><br />Our request asked a number of questions in respect of a series of factual issues. The Holy See has confirmed that it does not intend to provide a witness statement. As a result, the Inquiry is unable to fully understand and assess the role that the Holy See may have played.</blockquote>
It would appear that the Catholic Church's unwillingness to engage with civil authorities is the result of an example set by the very top of the church.Jonathan Westhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00527063732905729010noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6518202135348193859.post-44988073063850432252019-10-26T16:20:00.000+01:002019-10-26T16:20:23.895+01:00IICSA Report - Abbot President Richard YeoOne of the reasons Shipperlee and Cleugh did what they did was that they could. There was no effective support or supervision from elsewhere in the church that would prevent them from going off the rails. In fact it can be argued that they were in fact not doing anything out of the ordinary by church standards but faithfully reflecting the culture and practices of the church as a whole.<br />
<br />
The most obvious place from which supervision could and should have come was from the Abbot President of the English Benedictine Congregation. But the report states:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
The Abbot President of the English Benedictine Congregation in the period from 2001 to 2017, Dom Richard Yeo, did not significantly contribute to the response of Ealing Abbey to the allegations of child sexual abuse made in that period. During his 2007 Visitation he did not inquire into the restrictions upon Pearce and gave no consideration to issues of risk management. In his report to the monastic community, there was no express recognition of the fact that the judge in the civil proceedings in 2006 had found Pearce to be an unconvincing witness. He conceded that, in retrospect:<br /><br /><i>“I should probably have suggested at the 2007 Visitation that it was too serious a risk to allow ... Pearce to continue to live in the monastery”</i>.</blockquote>
The report has specific examples of Yeo's failure. for instance:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
At some point Abbot Ortiger learned of allegations of child abuse against Pearce, and he passed on this information to Dom Richard Yeo when Yeo became Abbot President in 2001.491 However, Abbot President Yeo did nothing about Pearce at this point.</blockquote>
Of Yeo's first Visitation to Ealing in 2003 the report says<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
In 2003, when Abbot President Yeo conducted his first visitation on
Ealing Abbey, several monks told him of their concern about Pearce. They
complained that he was “<i>not being reined in as he should have been</i>” and gave examples of how Pearce would pass through the school “<i>in order to reach some offices</i>”. The concern presumably being that Pearce could engineer access to children under this pretext. ... He spoke to Abbot Shipperlee about it, and said that Pearce should not be going through the school. However, Abbot President Yeo did not record the details of that advice, nor did he address it in his report to the monks as a whole. It does not appear that he was treating the issue with due seriousness. In his evidence to us, Dom Yeo criticised Abbot Shipperlee, saying “<i>that it all seemed to be rather casual</i>”, however his own approach was no less so.</blockquote>
The next visitation was in 2007. By then Ealing Abbey had lost the civil action brought by RC-A6 (given the cipher 'C' in the judgement at the time) against Pearce and the Abbey and RC-F41 had been tried and acquitted on abuse charges and had admitted another incident of abuse which could not be prosecuted in the UK because it took place abroad. The report says:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
The 2007 visitation took place after several further serious allegations had been made against Pearce and the civil court had given judgment against him in 2006. Abbot President Yeo did not read that judgment; although he knew of the trial, he told us “<i>I don’t think I knew then about the judge’s comments</i>”. He did not inquire into the restrictions upon Pearce and gave no consideration to the details of managing the risk that Pearce posed to children. In his report to the monastic community, there was no express recognition of the fact that the judge in the civil proceedings had found that Pearce had abused RC-A6 and others. Rather, in that report he referred to the impact on Pearce himself, and thereby the community:<br /><br /><i>“all of you have been bruised by what has taken place – not only [RC-F41] and Father David but also the rest of you, because you are their brothers and when they are hurt, you are hurt.”</i></blockquote>
This is really quite amazing. Yeo is offering sympathy to the community because of the effects on them of two of their number having been subject to well-founded allegations of abuse, and included Pearce and RC-F41 in that sympathy as if they had done nothing wrong.<br />
<br />
The report goes on to events in 2009.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
In August 2009, Abbot President Yeo wrote a general report for the Holy See, following the EBC’s General Chapter. By that time, Pearce had been charged with the abuse of RC‑A621, a current pupil at St Benedict’s, committed while he was under restrictions. However, Abbot President Yeo’s report said only that:<br /><br />“<i>there is a court case pending which could cause serious damage to Ealing Abbey. It needs to be stressed that the problems arise as a result of abuse that is revealed to have taken place many years ago … </i>”<br /><br />There were two mistakes here. First, Abbot President Yeo’s assumption that the abuse was entirely historic. Second, his representation of it as such without checking the facts. These illustrate a failure to obtain a proper understanding of the problem.</blockquote>
I would suggest that a further issue is that as expressed in his report to the Holy See Yeo's primary concern is the possibility of "<i>serious damage to Ealing Abbey". </i>It illustrates his priorities<i>.</i><br />
<br />
It wasn't until his 2010 Extraordinary Visitation that he took any action concerning the protection of children.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
In 2010, Abbot President Yeo undertook an Extraordinary Visitation between 30 August and 7 September, in part as a result of Abbot Shipperlee asking for help. As he told us, “<i>I think we both realised that something needed to be done.</i>” In his report, Abbot President Yeo stated that he would enact two Acts of Visitation (ie decrees requiring compliance):<br /><br /><i>“I want to state in unequivocal terms, and this will be the subject of an Act of Visitation, that any member of the community who is under such restrictions is bound, in virtue of the vow of obedience, to observe those restrictions in full, and failure to observe them could lead to serious disciplinary action being taken against that person.”<br /><br />“it is very important to be absolutely clear: there is never any excuse for the sexual abuse of children, young people and vulnerable adults. No member of the community may say or imply, either inside the community or when speaking to outsiders, that any victim who pressed charges against Father David has done wrong. This is so important that it will be the subject of an Act of Visitation, which means that it binds in virtue of the vow of obedience.”</i></blockquote>
This was in the context of two issues that had arisen: that RC-F41 had complained about the restrictions against him, and that there had been suggestions circulating within the parish that Pearce had been the victim of a miscarriage of justice.<br /><i></i><br />
<i><br /></i>
The inquiry's overall conclusions about Yeo are quite scathing.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Between 2001 and 2017, Dom Richard Yeo, who was then the Abbot President of the English Benedictine Congregation (EBC), failed to treat allegations of child sexual abuse made against monks still resident next to the school with the necessary urgency and care. At his 2007 visitation of Ealing Abbey, he did not inquire into the restrictions upon Pearce, nor give due importance to the fact that a judge in the civil proceedings in 2006 had found Pearce to have abused RC-A6 and others.</blockquote>
<br />
The EBC as a whole does not come off any better.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
The EBC, the abbeys and the schools associated with them were often slow to take action on safeguarding matters, frequently believing they knew better than those with specialist knowledge about child protection. There were repeated failures in making, and then keeping, appropriate records of safeguarding issues. Deficiencies in record-keeping were symptomatic of the generally casual approach of these institutions to issues of child protection, which in turn reflects an underlying failure to take such issues sufficiently seriously.<br /><br />The EBC has not satisfied the Inquiry that in the past it had the institutional capability to ensure proper safeguarding of children, including those attending its schools. For example, during his tenure, Abbot President Yeo showed too little commitment to addressing safeguarding in the EBC with sufficient urgency. While visitations were undertaken, they had little if any practical effect on safeguarding and the protection of children from sexual abuse. The recent extension of the role of the Abbot President of the EBC to have a supervisory role independent of visitations should provide some counterbalance to the authority of the abbot. Much now will depend on the leadership of the Abbot President.</blockquote>
<br />
From this, it is abundantly clear that the Inquiry presently has very little or no trust in the ability of the EBC to reform itself unaided. The Church overall has after all conducted 4 separate reviews of its safeguarding over a period of 13 years, from Bishop Budd's report in 1994 through Nolan 1 and 2 to Cumberlege in 2007, and many of the shortcomings described above postdate Cumberlege.<br />
<br />
An important thing to to remember about Fr Richard Yeo is that he was a member of the <a href="https://www.csas.uk.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Safeguarding-with-Confidence-The-cumberlege-Commission-Report.pdf">Cumberlege Commission</a>.
Yeo can therefore reasonably be considered one of the
Catholic Church's most experienced and authoritative voices on the
subject of safeguarding. If he is the best, one can only wonder at the quality of safeguarding in the rest of the church. <br />
<br />
This is likely to inform the final report of the Inquiry's investigation into the Roman Catholic Church, in which it is expected that recommendations will be made. (No recommendations have been included in this interim report.) If the Inquiry concludes that the EBC (and possibly the church in general) is incapable of reforming itself and ensuring that it cannot possibly slip back into its old bad habits, then it is inevitable that the Inquiry will recommend some form of outside compulsion and supervision.Jonathan Westhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00527063732905729010noreply@blogger.com24tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6518202135348193859.post-399906841004324892019-10-25T19:51:00.000+01:002019-10-25T19:51:07.173+01:00The IICSA report - Headmaster CleughNext in line for the Inquiry's criticism is Mr. Christopher Cleugh.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Christopher Cleugh, during his time as headmaster of the school between 2002 and 2016, repeatedly minimised questions of child sexual abuse to teachers and to external institutions and parents, to the point of materially misrepresenting significant facts. Although he told the Independent Schools Inspectorate that one of the monks had been charged with an assault on a pupil doing work experience in the monastery, he did not tell them that Pearce had been under restrictions at the time, nor did he tell them about the successful civil action against Pearce. He did not address safeguarding issues openly and proactively; when answers were given, he was defensive. One former teacher, Peter Halsall, said the previous culture of cover-up and denial at the school was “<i>followed … by passing the buck</i>”</blockquote>
Later the report goes on to say.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
As headmaster, he set the tone for staff, pupils and parents in terms of how child protection concerns were dealt with. Mr Cleugh also had a principal role in addressing, from the school’s perspective, the danger posed by monks identified as risks and placed under restrictions. He was responsible for the school’s interaction with external institutions and its child protection policy. Mr Cleugh’s leadership in all of these areas was inadequate.</blockquote>
The report mentions his "misrepresentations".<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
For example, in a draft letter he wrote to parents in late August 2010 to respond to the publication of the ISI’s follow-up inspection that month, he emphasised that the school had been deemed fully compliant by the ISI in its earlier November 2009 report. This was despite the fact that the ISI’s latest report found it not to be so. He also wrote that the ISI had advised him that the child protection policy was “an exemplar of excellence” when it had not.</blockquote>
Cleugh did not welcome safeguarding concerns being raised.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Mr Halsall said that “<i>When Cleugh became head, I attempted to make him aware of past issues with Pearce and others. He did not welcome this</i>.”<br /><br />Ms Ravenscroft said that after she had raised the allegation of abuse of RC-A418, “<i>the new headmaster, Mr Cleugh, was obviously unhappy</i>” and said he treated her like a traitor.<br /><br />Ms Mortemore said that when Pearce was being investigated, Mr Cleugh “<i>called a meeting and told us not to talk to anybody outside the school</i>”. Mr Cleugh admitted this, although suggested that it was “advice”.</blockquote>
And he was similarly defensive towards the outside world.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
The same defensive approach, painting Ealing Abbey and St Benedict’s as the victim, was apparent in a prize-giving address Mr Cleugh gave in 2010. He disparaged media coverage and a blog run by the campaigner Jonathan West:<br /><i><br />“Recent media and blog coverage seem hell-bent on trying to discredit the School and, at the same time, destroy the excellent relationship between School and Monastery. Is this part of an anti-Catholic movement linked to the papal visit? I do not know, but it feels very much as if we are being targeted."</i></blockquote>
About Pearce and RC-F41 the report says<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Mr Cleugh also did not give due thought to the risks posed by Pearce and RC-F41, despite knowing of the allegations made in respect of them and that they resided next to the school. He raised no concerns about their proximity internally or externally, including to the Charity Commission.<br /><br />Mr Cleugh showed a lack of concern in respect of RC-F41 when allegations were made in 2005 and restrictions were imposed. He said he had never seen the Tregaskis report and was not aware that RC-F41 had accepted that there might be a sexual motivation to his having inserted his finger into RC-A421’s anus. He told us:<br /><br /><i>“Q: Do you feel at all that you were kept in the dark about some salient information [about RC-F41] that you should have known?<br />A: Well, I think – I’ve admitted that I actually knew the information. I hadn’t properly thought about it in that particular sense."</i></blockquote>
The inquiry found that he was less than entirely open towards external institutions.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
For example, he told ISI inspectors at a preliminary visit in July 2009 that one of the monks had been charged with an assault on a pupil doing work experience in the monastery, but omitted that this had occurred while Pearce was under restrictions. He also did not inform them that there had been a civil action in 2006 when substantial damages had been awarded to RC-A6 and abuse found proven in respect of two others, nor about the abuse of four other boys dating back to the 1970s which had resulted in Pearce being convicted. In his evidence, Mr Cleugh referred repeatedly to the information being “<i>all in the letter</i>” to parents dated 2 October 2009, which was also provided to the ISI. He told us that the letter “<i>actually cite[d] the number of cases that he was accused of going back 25/30 years</i>”. However, that letter, written by Abbot Shipperlee, does not provide the detail suggested; it merely refers to there being more than one victim:<br /><br /><i>“Fr David Pearce, who taught at St Benedict’s from 1976–1992, pleaded guilty on 10th August to serious criminal offences against children and has now been sentenced to 8 years imprisonment.”</i></blockquote>
And they found that the school safeguarding policy for which he was responsible was deficient.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
We have not seen any of St Benedict’s child protection policies prior to 2009. However, there are significant defects in the September 2009 version. Most seriously, paragraph 23 provided that allegations of child sexual abuse would not always be referred to the local authority designated officer (LADO) at Ealing social services, or the police, when they should have been:<br /><i><br />“A referral to the [Ealing LADO] or police will not normally be made where:<br />– the complaint does not involve a serious criminal offence; and<br />– a referral would be contrary to the wishes of a pupil complainant who is of sufficient maturity and understanding and properly informed, and contrary also to the wishes of the complainant’s parents; and<br />– the case is one that can be satisfactorily investigated and dealt with under the School’s internal procedures, the parents being kept fully informed, as appropriate."</i></blockquote>
This specific paragraph is among those that <a href="https://scepticalthoughts.blogspot.com/2009/11/open-letter-concerning-child-protection_27.html">I raised with Cleugh in 2009</a>, and I received a brush-off from him. he claimed at the time it was compliant, and Cleugh in evidence said that "he had been satisfied that it was compliant". However it wasn't, as the report states.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
The statutory guidance, however, explicitly stated that the LADO must be informed whenever there is an allegation that a teacher or member of staff has “<i>behaved in a way that has harmed a child, or may have harmed a child; possibly committed a criminal offence against or related to a child; or behaved towards a child, or children, in a way that indicates she or he is unsuitable to work with children</i>”.<br /><br />There was no requirement that the allegation involve “a serious criminal offence” (which was itself undefined in St Benedict’s policy).<br /><br />The discretion afforded to St Benedict’s under its own policy not to report an allegation, and to conduct an internal investigation, contradicted the statutory guidance. As a result, the threshold for external reporting was too high and wrongly subject to discretion.<br /><br />St Benedict’s definition of sexual abuse was also unsatisfactory in the light of statutory guidance.</blockquote>
The inquiry's overall conclusion was.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Christopher Cleugh, headmaster of the school between January 2002 and August2016, repeatedly minimised questions of child sexual abuse to the point of materially misrepresenting significant facts. He did not address safeguarding issues openly and proactively, and when questioned by external bodies was defensive.</blockquote>
"Materially misrepresenting significant facts" can be expressed more concisely. He lied. The inquiry has not been able to find any justifiable reason for those lies.Jonathan Westhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00527063732905729010noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6518202135348193859.post-33937218215780530142019-10-24T22:20:00.001+01:002019-10-24T22:20:21.614+01:00The IICSA ReportWell, <a href="https://www.iicsa.org.uk/publications/investigation/english-benedictine-congregation-ealing-abbey">it has been published</a> at last.<br />
<br />
And it is utterly damning of Ealing Abbey, St Benedict's School, the English Benedictine Congregation, the Diocese of Westminster and the Holy See. It is easy to conclude that they should be considered damned in the classical meaning of the word "<span>condemned by God to suffer eternal punishment in hell".</span><br />
<br />
The report is not much kinder to the police, Ealing Children's Services, the Charities Commission, the Independent Schools Inspectorate, or the Department for Education.<br />
<br />
The report is 123 pages of exceedingly grim reading. With the exception of a small number of heroic but mostly ineffectual (through no fault of their own) whistleblowing teachers, nobody with a professional duty of care towards the children of St Benedict's School comes out of this well.<br />
<br />
The inquiry sets out the overall culture of the place early on. Concerning Pearce the report says:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
It appears that many in the school and Abbey – teachers and monks alike – were aware of Pearce’s behaviour but were seemingly powerless to do anything about it. Gossip amongst the boys and staff was rife and complaints, including from parents, failed to trigger any action by the school or, in the rare event that information was communicated externally, by the statutory authorities. Staff were afraid that by speaking up they would lose their jobs. Pearce may well have been emboldened by this inertia as his abuse became less secretive, filming the boys at the swimming pool, lining them up naked and committing sexual assaults with apparent impunity. Unsurprisingly, Pearce was protected by Soper, but other Abbots and headmasters throughout this period also failed to act to protect children under their care.</blockquote>
And about Soper it says<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Soper is known to have abused at least 10 children at St Benedict’s between 1972 and 1983, including multiple rapes. Many of the assaults were committed during acts of corporal punishment apparently inflicted on the slightest of pretexts. Soper’s predilection for caning boys was well known amongst the boys and staff at the school. He was told to stop by a previous headmaster at some point in the late 1970s or early 1980s. This had no effect, and he continued to cane and sexually assault boys on many occasions.<br />His campaign of sexual abuse was allowed to continue because of the inaction of those who had the power to do something to stop it or bring him to justice.</blockquote>
The report is in a number of parts. it starts with an Executive summary (from which the quotes above are drawn). It then has<br />
<ul>
<li>some pen portraits of survivors, </li>
<li>an introduction describing who the investigation was conducted, </li>
<li>a description of the school and abbey and their history,</li>
<li>a description of the nature and extent of the abuse</li>
</ul>
These occupy the first 44 pages of the report. they set the scene as it were. Next we have "Response of Ealing Abbey and St. Benedict's School to allegations of abuse. This is where we get into the core of the Inquiry's task, to examine the response of individuals and organisations to abuse. I'm going to start with what is said about Abbot Martin Shipperlee.<br />
<br />
<b>Abbot Martin Shipperlee</b><br />
<br />
The report first makes it clear that abuses by Pearce were common knowledge among staff, pupils and monks. For instance Father Timothy Gorham, a monk who taught at the school, recalled pupils talking in 1995 about Pearce saying things like “<i>Sit on my lap little boy</i>”. Gorham said “<i>these things were already mentioned amongst the monks at the abbey. I think everybody knew about it</i>.”<br />
<br />
Of Shipperlee's inaction concerning Pearce, the report goes on to say<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Father Shipperlee replaced Pearce as headmaster of the junior school in 1992 and was a member of the Abbot’s Council, before becoming Abbot. He admitted that he had been aware of ongoing concerns in respect of Pearce, including the fact that as bursar Pearce continued to have contact with children at the school, but he did nothing. He gave us two answers to why he did not complain. First he said “<i>Now, obviously, I can/could have complained. But at this stage, I’m aware of a lot of stories about him … </i>”, the suggestion being that “stories” were not enough. Later in his evidence to us, Abbot Shipperlee said that he did not raise concerns when he was head of the junior school “<i>Because by that stage [Pearce] is now out of – well, he is out of the school.</i>”</blockquote>
Once he was elected Abbot, Shipperlee had the opportunity to place restrictions on Pearce. Complaints from other monks about Pearce's behaviour came almost immediately and at regular intervals over the years. After a complaint was referred to the police in 2001 Shipperlee "to<i>ld the police that Pearce was in no position to have any contact with children but he did not consider putting him under any restrictions</i>". Shipperlee also allowed pearce to remain a trustee of th Trust of St Benedict’s Abbey Ealing, which oversaw both the school and the abbey.<br />
<br />
It wasn't until 2005 that the then diocesan safeguarding advisor Peter Turner wrote to Shipperlee recommending that Pearce be placed under restrictions.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
1. That Fr. David has no public ministry with the Parish setting.<br />2. That Fr. David is only allowed to say mass in private or within the monastery, and with no members of the public present.<br />3. That Fr. David is allowed to continue in a non-executive role within the Monastery as long as that does not bring him into contact with Children and Young Persons;<br />4. That Fr. David continues to serve as Chaplain to other Religious Communities as long as this does not bring him into contact with Children and Young Persons, and provided that the person in charge of such Communities is made aware of these conditions;<br />5. That if Fr. David visits families within the Parish, he does so only on condition that he does not wear clerical dress and that the families are bonafide families/friends.</blockquote>
According to the report "<i>Abbot Shipperlee accepted that he failed to do this, and had also failed to keep any record over and above Mr Turner’s letter</i>" and also "<i>failed to ensure that action was taken</i>". instead he relied on the fact that he was living alongside Pearce and believed he could therefore monitor his activities, he relied on Pearce's promises of compliance, and he relied on other monks telling him of breaches. The report states that Shipperlee was wrong in all three cases <br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Pearce living alongside him: <i>"He should have recognised that this had been the case since the 1980s and had not prevented Pearce abusing children in the care of St Benedict’s."</i><br />Compliance by Pearce: <i>"This repeats the mistaken assumption that because Pearce <b>should </b>not have contact, he would not have contact. ... It was not appropriate to deal with a significant risk to children by relying on the word of the person accused of abusing them."</i><br />Other monks would tell the abbot if there were breaches: <i>"There is no documentary evidence of what monks at Ealing Abbey were told about Pearce’s restrictions. The later review carried out by Philip Wright and John Nixson observed that the extent of knowledge within the community was unclear. If the monks did not know what the restrictions were, they could not help to police them."</i></blockquote>
Shipperlee did no better in his response to allegations of abuse by Soper. The report states.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
In December 2001, the Diocesan child protection coordinator, James Curry, advised Abbot Shipperlee that RC-A420’s claim should be reported to the police. Abbot Shipperlee “undertook” to Mr Curry that he would act on this but it seems that he in fact decided not to do so, favouring his own judgment of the facts over an independent review of the evidence.<br /><i>“Q. Did you bring the A420 matter to the police’s attention?<br />A. I did not.<br />Q. Why not?<br />A. Because I simply did not believe that this was possible. In fact, I was outraged that such an accusation could be made against someone of whom I – well, it did not occur to me that it was possible that this sort of thing could happen.<br />Q. Do you agree that that decision was wrong?<br />A. Oh, yes, absolutely wrong." </i></blockquote>
The report goes on to say<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Shortly after this, in 2002, Soper went to Rome to become the general treasurer to the International Benedictine Confederation at Sant’Anselmo. Abbot Shipperlee did not inform the Abbot Primate, Notker Wolf, of the allegation of RC-A420 against Soper. As a result, the Abbot Primate was unaware of the potential risk Soper represented.</blockquote>
There were further allegations against Soper in 2004 and 2008, but "<i>it was not until May 2010, after another allegation from RC-A591, that Abbot Shipperlee finally travelled to Rome to place him under formal restrictions.</i>"<br />
<br />
And Shipperlee also was on the wrong side of things with respect to the monk given the cipher RC-F41 in the report.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
In April 2005, RC-A421 disclosed to Mr Turner that he had been abused by RC-F41 while on a school trip to Italy in 1984. RC-F41 admitted to Mr Turner that he had inserted his finger into the anus of the boy, supposedly to relieve his constipation, although “<i>he realised immediately what he had done was wrong and sinful, and he has worried about it ever since</i>”.</blockquote>
The report goes on to say<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
RC-F41 could not be prosecuted in respect of RC-A421’s allegation, as the incident had occurred in Italy and so could not at that time (prior to the Sex Offenders Act 1997) be prosecuted in the UK. RC-A421 later made further allegations, for which RC-F41 stood trial in 2007 but was acquitted.<br /><br />Despite RC-F41’s admissions in respect of the incident in Italy, Abbot Shipperlee’s response to his acquittal in June 2007 was to question the restrictions upon him. He wrote to Mr Turner that:<br /><br /><i>“Parishioners do not understand why he continues to be under restrictions and, to be honest, I’m not sure I do either … At the moment, it is far from obvious that RC-F41 has ever posed a risk to children.”</i><br />Mr Turner replied that the restrictions had to continue. </blockquote>
Shipperlee commissioned the Wright-Nixson report in 2009. <br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"Despite child protection concerns at the Abbey extending beyond Pearce to allegations against both Soper and RC-F41, the review was limited to the offending of Pearce and to two days’ work. ... The main basis of the report was a document produced by Abbot Shipperlee giving the background to allegations against Pearce. However, this omitted a number of allegations, mentioning just RC-A418, RC-A6 and RC-A621. There was no consideration of the underlying documentary material. Mr Nixson, in his written evidence to the Inquiry, stated:<br /><br /><i>“With the benefit of further reflection, it is now evident to me that Abbot Martin presented the existing concerns and findings about individual members of the religious community in a minimal manner. At the time this was one aspect of the situation that led me to feel that the review was, to some extent, a mechanical exercise intended to enable Ealing Abbey to satisfy CSAS that it was procedurally compliant rather than fully embracing safeguarding as an essential element of the abbey’s culture for the future.”</i></blockquote>
In 2010, following increasing public criticism, Shipperlee commissioned Lord Carlile tp conduct a further review. Carlile's main recommendation was the separation of the school and abbey into two independent charitable trusts. However Carlile also endorsed an earlier recommendation made by the Independent Schools Inspectorate <i>“Ensure that any staff or members of the religious community live away from the school, if they are subject to allegations of misconduct related to safeguarding or convicted of wrongdoing”</i>.<br />
<br />
According to the report<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
This recommendation plainly encompassed RC-F41, nonetheless Abbot Shipperlee did not immediately relocate RC-F41. ... On 12 October 2010, the Minister of State for Schools, Nick Gibb MP, wrote to the Charity Commission expressing concern that the DfE did not have the jurisdiction to enforce RC-F41 living away from the monastery. Shortly after, on 15 October 2010, Mr Nelson [the school solicitor] informed the DfE that Abbot Shipperlee would ensure that RC-F41 would move from Ealing Abbey by early January 2011. However, when RC-F41 was moved that month, Abbot Shipperlee failed to inform the Diocese of Brentwood (in breach of the CSAS cross-boundary placement policy). The Bishop of Brentwood subsequently asked that RC-F41 be moved because the diocesan safeguarding commission felt that the premises were unsuitable. Thereafter another location for him was found.</blockquote>
And Shipperlee did little better with the monk RC-F46.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
There was insufficient monitoring of the restrictions upon RC-F46. The restrictions were first imposed following the allegations of RC-A423 in April 2010. These were subsequently found to be “<i>unsubstantiated, but not unfounded</i>”. Taken together with allegations made against him by RC-A422 at St Augustine’s Priory, a local girls’ school, the multi-agency strategy meeting determined that the restrictions were to be maintained. Yet members of the monastic community were not informed of the terms of the covenant of care. Further, for a significant period into 2011, RC-F46 not only refused to agree to his covenant but also sought to evade the restrictions, which came to include that he should “<i>only access Ealing Abbey Church during the monastic office and with other members of the monastic community and at other times only with the explicit permission of the abbot</i>”.<br />RC-F46’s restrictions were not reviewed annually, as they should have been.</blockquote>
Let's summarise.<br />
<ul>
<li>There was hardly a single occasion, either as Junior School headmaster or later as Abbot on which Shipperlee voluntarily took appropriate action.</li>
<li>He was extremely secretive, failing to give necessary information to the statutory authorities, the Wright-Nixson review, the diocoesan safeguarding team, the diocese of Brentwood and even his fellow monks.</li>
<li>He relied (so he claims) on his belief that Pearce would voluntarily comply with restrictions</li>
<li>He flatly disbelieved (so he claims) that the first allegations against Soper could possibly be true.</li>
</ul>
This will be written into textbooks as a perfect case study on how not to handle an abuse crisis.<br />
<br />
In further articles over the next day or two I will describe what the report says about others.Jonathan Westhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00527063732905729010noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6518202135348193859.post-25570113631583361782019-05-20T21:53:00.003+01:002019-05-20T22:08:09.473+01:00The Ealing IICSA hearing - commentsI've taken some time off concerning the IICSA and the Ealing hearings. I needed to take a bit of time away from what is an unpleasant subject, and the day job has required some attention.<br />
<br />
However, some people have asked questions in response to my previous articlesm and I now have the energy to offer a belated answer or two.<br />
<br />
Peter Agius said "I'd be interested to read your comments on all that Jamison had to say." That's a good and interesting question, and was covered in the closing submissions from the lawyers representing me and various of the Ealing survivors. This would have gone into the oral closing sumbission but had to be cut for lack of time. it went subsequently into the written submission following the end of the hearing.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
The evidence given at the end of this case study by current Abbot President Christopher Jamison was on any view clear, seemingly forward thinking and filled with media-friendly soundbites. <br />
<br />
Yet the Panel should note that Jamison was giving evidence from a distinctly fortunate position: the Inquiry has been unable to investigate in detail Worth Abbey and School, for which Christopher Jamison was responsible for 8 years. Given the unremittingly grim state of safeguarding at all of the Benedictine settings the Inquiry has examined in detail to date, there is every reason to think that the history of child sexual abuse at Worth is just as appalling as that of Ampleforth and Downside and Ealing and St Benedict’s.<br />
<br />
Indeed, had the Inquiry chosen to examine Worth rather than Ealing and St Benedict’s in detail, it is entirely possible that we would by now have heard of Abbot Jamison’s resignation and Abbot Martin Shipperlee’s elevation to the role of Abbot President.</blockquote>
Anonymous (11 Feb at 11:55) said 'The key question remains the killer question is “why has St Benedicts
School and the Abbey harvested so many convicted child abusers, who
continued their abuse for years, in positions of senior authority ? What
does it say about the culture supported and encouraged by the governing
bodies ?"'<br />
<br />
Ultimately we will never wholly know the answer, but it is pretty clear from the evidence given by Shipperlee and Yeo during the hearing that the loyalty of successive abbots was to the institution and to the monks therein - and not to those whom the institutions and monks had taken into their care. Those of the monks who abused children rapidly learned they would be protected by their peers. There were A number of moments in the evidence which particularly struck me.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Q. Since David Pearce's release in 2011, did Ealing Abbey, or does Ealing Abbey or the English Benedictine Congregation provide him with housing?<br />
A. He lives in a --<br />
Q. You don't have to tell us exactly where he lives.<br />
A. He lives in a flat for which we pay the rent. A small flat.<br />
Q. Do you provide him with a pension?<br />
A.. We don't provide him with a pension, no.<br />
Q. Do you provide him with any other financial assistance?<br />
A. No.<br />
Q. So he just has the flat?<br />
A. Yes.<br />
Q. No other financial assistance at all?<br />
A. No.<br />
Q. Where does the money come from to pay for the flat?<br />
A. From our funds, charitable funds.<br />
Q. Do you have approval from the Charity Commission for that? Do you write to the Charity Commission asking whether it is a valid use of charitable funds?<br />
A. I haven't. I don't know if the bursar did. It doesn't seem to be up in the record.</blockquote>
Let's just be clear about this. Pearce was convicted & sentenced to 5 years for abuses of 5 separate boys. And the Abbot of Ealing authorised that Ealing pay the rent on his flat out of charitable funds. If this degree of support is offered to a convicted abuser who is no longer a monk, how much more do you think monks will be supported when they are merely accused and not (yet) convicted?<br />
<br />
Well, you don't need to think, because we have witness statements which tell you. The following is from the witness statement of Kate Ravenscroft, a drama teacher at the school.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"At the time, the school felt a bit like the Mafia, if anybody complained or said anything about Pearce, Laurence Soper would protect him and to complain meant putting your job on the line. I didn't know what to say to the boy. There had been a number of complaints against Pearce; he had been moved from the junior school to the upper school, to the bursar's office." </blockquote>
Another teacher, Mr Halsall, said<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"I made complaints about both Pearce and Maestri but they didn't go anywhere and it definitely harmed my career. At times, it felt like the Mafia, like ramming your head against a brick wall. I believe they all knew how I felt about the various activities and so were very careful around me."</blockquote>
And it wasn't just Shipperlee who was taking this attitude. Richard Yeo, for several years the Abbot President, as also questioned. Here is a portion of the transcript<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Q. BNT006837, again, a handwritten note. It may be we don't need to pull many up. If we can go to page 2. There are a number of references made by monks that you interviewed at the Extraordinary Visitation about longstanding knowledge or suspicion of David Pearce. At the bottom of page 2, two lines below "name redacted":<br />
"When arrived -- 25 years ago -- rumours, and denied; but disappointed RC-F307 says never knew anything about it ... Don't know who to ask, don't know how to talk about it."<br />
Another note -- I won't take you to it -- is: "Abbot felt very angry at David when arrested, felt betrayed by one he had tried to help."<br />
Another says: "Still an abusive mentality in the community."<br />
Another says: "Mid 1970s. Knew David engaged in dubious activities."<br />
Another says: "Since I knew I was junior school head, there was something wrong. Something said about graffiti that said "Father David is bent".<br />
So there were a lot of concerns raised with you 1 during this Visitation?<br />
A. There were, and I go back to what I said before: the concerns weren't exclusively about safeguarding, or, to put it another way, resolving the malaise, if I can put it like that, in the community wasn't just a matter of improving safeguarding procedures; it was a matter of improving the community's human formation, to use a modern term.<br />
Q. What was your reaction to this extensive knowledge of Pearce that appears to have gone back decades?<br />
A. A certain amount of amazement. When I first heard about it in 2001, I was extremely surprised.<br />
Q. Did you think that -- sorry?<br />
A. Sorry, if I can go on. And I challenged Abbot Martin about this.<br />
Q. You did?<br />
A. Towards the end of the Visitation, I saw him and asked him very specifically what he'd known about Father David and he answered --<br />
Q. What did he say?<br />
A. Much the same as what he said to the inquiry, that is to say, he knew that he was -- in the school, he was unfair, that he was harsh, and he was guilty of favouritism. He --<br />
Q. Did you -- I'm so sorry, I keep cutting -- I should look at you and see when you have stopped.<br />
A. He knew that a nickname had been given him, but he said that he felt that this was just boys talking and didn't take it as an allegation.</blockquote>
<blockquote>
Q. Did you think that the community was at fault or that Abbot Martin may have been at fault for not reporting David Pearce to the civil authorities when rumours first surfaced -- well, in the 1970s, that the community had not dealt with it. Should it have been dealt with?<br />
A. I don't know whether you can report on the basis -- report rumours. I would have thought that --<br />
Q. You can investigate on the basis of rumours, can't you, and if something is reported, enquiries can be made?<br />
A. Fine. My concern was, above all, how is the community going to get out of this mess? Those are the questions I was looking at.</blockquote>
So let's just summarise this. Yeo conducted a Visitation, and in the course of the visitation interviewed the monks, several of whom told him of some degree of knowledge spanning decades of abuses by Pearce. And Yeo's concern, above all, was "how is the community going to get out of this mess?"<br />
<br />
On 27 February Elly asked this question "I agree with all you say. . . What I genuinely don't understand is why, when it is clear that various adults knew abuse was going on and chose not to go to the police, those adults are not being prosecuted. Isn't there already a law about being an accessory during and/or after the fact? "<br />
<br />
Unfortunately, to be an accessory after the fact, it is necessary to be far more active in assisting an offender than merely not reporting abuse. In English law it is not a crime to fail to report a crime. If the police come calling and ask you questions, then you're not allowed to give untruthful answers. But if you know of questions the police ought to be asking but haven't asked, you're under no legal obligation to put them right on this.<br />
<br />
I agree with Elly when she went on to comment that "Prosecution is probably the only language such morally devoid people are going to understand." The UK is one of relatively few countries in the world that does not have a "mandatory reporting" law requiring that suspicions of child sex abuse be reported to the authorities. Mr O'Donnell (representing me and several Ealing survivors), in his closing statement to the inquiry said this about mandatory reporting.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Modern society requires that the first concern should be the safeguarding of children and we say that the English Benedictine Congregation can't be trusted to do this. The answer as to how to do this, we say, is, of course, mandatory reporting. You have heard relatively little evidence from external agencies. There was no time to hear from the Independent Schools Inspectorate or the Department for Education, for example. But what you have heard suggests they're effectively powerless to get into these institutions and make real change. You will know the only really detailed, specific proposal for mandatory reporting is that that has been prepared by Mandate Now. It has already been submitted to the inquiry.<br />I have not mentioned Jonathan West. I will mention this lastly. He summarises the importance of mandatory reporting in the context of this case study very, very well in his blog. He says: "Mandatory reporting would make it almost impossible for a long-running situation, such as occurred at St Benedict's, to happen. First, there will inevitably be a greater climate of awareness, making reporting more likely, and, second, no head teacher is going to risk being prosecuted for suppressing a report of somebody else abusing. These two factors would make it extremely dangerous for abusers to operate in schools. They won't dare. Abuse will be prevented as a result."<br />To conclude: A8, in his evidence on Monday, said the reason he'd come to give evidence to the inquiry, was out of a sense of duty to the boys who can't be here today. I say that since World War II we reckon hundreds of boys were molested at St Benedict's. Just at St Benedict's. He went on to say: "If this country had had mandatory reporting like the mandatory reporting legislation currently in draft, hundreds of those boys wouldn't have been abused."</blockquote>
Jonathan Westhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00527063732905729010noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6518202135348193859.post-27083090312195585132019-03-07T22:37:00.001+00:002019-03-07T22:37:42.181+00:00Mr Cleugh's mysterierious memoryMy lawyers have been having an exchange of emails with the Ealing Abbey/St. Benedict's lawyers over Cleugh's comments in IICSA hearing. Richard Scorer wrote to Tony Nelson the same day<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
From: Richard Scorer<br />
Sent: 08 February 2019 11:44<br />
To: Anthony Nelson<br />
Subject: IICSA Catholic - Cleugh evidence urgent<br />
<br />
Dear Anthony<br />
<br />
I understand you represent Mr Cleugh.<br />
<br />
This morning Mr Cleugh said in evidence in relation to our client Mr West: "I was very concerned at the content of not what he was trying to do in terms of the blog, I understand subsequently -- I do -- that the voice of the abuser must be heard and that was a useful channel for doing it. But I did strongly object to the personal and often libellous statements that were written on it. Now, in fairness to him, he eventually put something on the website which said if anything was posted that he considered -- he would remove it."<br />
<br />
Can you clarify:<br />
<br />
(1) Whether Mr Cleugh is alleging that Mr West made libellous statements on his blog;<br />
(2) If so, what those allegedly libellous statements were<br />
(3) If not, whether the allegation is that the libellous statements were made by other individuals posting on Mr West’s blog<br />
<br />
Given this is the last day of the hearing I would be obliged if you would respond promptly<br />
<br />
regards <br />
Richard Scorer</blockquote>
And he also wrote urgently to Ruth Henke, the barrister representing Ealing Abbey/St Benedict's, who gave the closing submission on their behalf. He attached the Nelson email to thhis.<br />
<blockquote>
From: Richard Scorer <richard .scorer="" slatergordon.co.uk=""><br />
Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2019 at 12:28<br />
Subject: FW: IICSA Catholic - Cleugh evidence urgent<br />
To: Ruth Henke<br />
<br />
Dear Ruth<br />
<br />
See below.<br />
<br />
If it is not being alleged that Mr West has made a libellous statement on his blog, can you make this clear in your closing submission please<br />
<br />
Richard Scorer </richard></blockquote>
There was no reply that day from either of them, And Ruth Henke's closing submission made no reference to Cleugh's comments. So Richard wrote again to Nelson on 12 February.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
From: Richard Scorer<br />
Sent: 12 February 2019 08:57<br />
To: Anthony Nelson<br />
Subject: RE: IICSA Catholic - Cleugh evidence urgent<br />
<br />
Dear Mr Nelson<br />
<br />
I refer to my email below and would be obliged to receive a response as soon as possible please.<br />
<br />
Kind regards<br />
Richard Scorer </blockquote>
Still no reply. Several attempts were made to contact nelson by phone. Richard Scorer had the definite impression that Nelson was avoiding him. Eventually they spoke on 19th February, and this is Scorer's note of the conversation.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
19.02.2019<br />
<br />
RS reaching Tony Nelson (TN) by phone. I said we needed a written response to our questions.<br />
<br />
He said that this is difficult for him as he “doesn’t want to become the target for blogging”.<br />
<br />
I said there is no reason why anyone would target him for blogging in respect of the questions we have put to him. The questions are directed at Mr Cleugh. We have sent them to him because we understand him to be representing Mr Cleugh. So as far we are concerned he is the messenger for Mr Cleugh, and we are asking him to obtain Mr Cleugh’s instructions and respond.<br />
<br />
He said he thought Ruth Hencke had already responded to me. I said I hadn’t received anything from her. I spoke to her on the day, and she said that she had “more immediate priorities” than responding to me. This was presumably a reference to preparing her closing statement. I have not received anything from her since.<br />
<br />
TN said he understood otherwise. I assured him I had not received anything.<br />
<br />
He said he would speak to Ruth but that I would receive a full reply to my email by close of play tomorrow. </blockquote>
It had so far taken eleven days just to get a promise of a response the following day. To nobody's surprise, the promised response did not appear on time. on 22nd February, Nelson finally replied as follows.<br />
<blockquote>
From: Anthony Nelson<br />
Sent: 22 February 2019 09:15<br />
To: Richard Scorer <br />
Subject: Re: IICSA Catholic - Ealing Abbey and St Benedict's<br />
<br />
Dear Richard,<br />
<br />
I thank you for your recent communications.<br />
<br />
I regret to say that I am unable to assist you in this matter.<br />
<br />
I was however pleased to receive your suggestion for lunch together and would welcome hearing from you so that we can make arrangements.<br />
<br />
With kind regards,<br />
Anthony J. Nelson </blockquote>
I don't imagine for a moment that he thought he would get away with such a non-response.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
From: Richard Scorer<br />
Sent: 22 February 2019 09:36<br />
To: Anthony Nelson<br />
Subject: Re: IICSA Catholic - Ealing Abbey and St Benedict's<br />
<br />
Dear Tony<br />
<br />
When we spoke earlier this week you assured me that I would receive a “full response” to the questions put. You also informed me that Ruth Hencke had responded to me, which she hadn’t. <br />
<br />
Can you therefore please clarify your email below. <br />
<br />
Are you saying that you are not instructed to respond to us (in which case we will direct our questions to Mr Cleugh directly), or that you are instructed to refuse to answer the questions we have put to you? <br />
<br />
I look forward to hearing from you. <br />
<br />
Regards <br />
Richard Scorer</blockquote>
A further deafening silence. Scorer wrote again.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
From: Richard Scorer <richard .scorer="" slatergordon.co.uk=""><br />
Sent: 25 February 2019 11:30<br />
To: Tony Nelson<br />
Subject: RE: IICSA Catholic - Ealing Abbey and St Benedict's<br />
<br />
Dear Tony<br />
<br />
I haven’t heard further from you, so I’m just emailing to make our position clear in the light of the various exchanges.<br />
<br />
I asked you below to state whether you are not instructed to respond to us (in which case we will direct our questions to Mr Cleugh directly), or whether you are instructed to refuse to answer the questions we have put to you. No response has yet been forthcoming.<br />
<br />
In the absence of a response from you on this by 4pm today, given that you have never suggested in correspondence that you are not instructed by Mr Cleugh, we will proceed on the basis that you are instructed on his behalf and that of the school, but that your instructions are not to respond to our questions, and our clients will comment publicly on that basis.<br />
<br />
I hope that makes our position clear.<br />
<br />
Regards<br />
Richard Scorer </richard></blockquote>
Finally we get a reply of sorts that makes some passing attempt to address the subject.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
From: Tony Nelson<br />
Sent: 25 February 2019 12:19<br />
To: Richard Scorer<br />
Subject: RE: IICSA Catholic - Ealing Abbey and St Benedict's<br />
<br />
Dear Richard,<br />
<br />
Thank you for your email.<br />
<br />
I believe that Mr Cleugh was referring to the comments on the Blog, made by unknown individuals and not attributable to your client. Mr Cleugh was not criticising your client nor the existence of his blog, but simply an anonymous entry that was distressing.<br />
<br />
Please acknowledge safe receipt.<br />
<br />
Yours sincerely,<br />
Anthony J. Nelson </blockquote>
Scorer wrote back.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
From: Richard Scorer<br />
Sent: 25 February 2019 12:25<br />
To: Tony Nelson<br />
Subject: RE: IICSA Catholic - Ealing Abbey and St Benedict's<br />
<br />
Dear Tony<br />
<br />
Can you clarify which entry this was please.<br />
<br />
Regards <br />
Richard Scorer </blockquote>
And for once Nelson replied reasonably promptly.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
From: Tony Nelson<br />
Sent: 25 February 2019 12:41<br />
To: Richard Scorer <br />
Subject: RE: IICSA Catholic - Ealing Abbey and St Benedict's<br />
<br />
Dear Richard,<br />
<br />
My understanding is that the entry was an anonymous entry which was subsequently deleted.<br />
<br />
Kind regards,<br />
Anthony J. Nelson</blockquote>
Scorer acknowledged.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
From: Richard Scorer<br />
Sent: 25 February 2019 13:02<br />
To: Tony Nelson<br />
Subject: RE: IICSA Catholic - Ealing Abbey and St Benedict's<br />
<br />
Dear Tony<br />
<br />
I note the position and the confirmation that Mr Cleugh’s reference to “personal and often libellous statements on Mr West’s blog” relates to a single anonymous entry which was subsequently deleted.<br />
<br />
I will let you know if we have any further questions<br />
<br />
Regards <br />
Richard Scorer </blockquote>
We had a bit of a think about this and decided it really wasn't good enough. Cleugh had said of the blog in evidence under oath "I did strongly object to the personal and often libellous statements that were written on it." Note "statements" in plural, and there was no suggestion in his evidence that the statements he was objecting to weren't written by me.<br />
<br />
So Scorer wrote again.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
From: Richard Scorer<br />
Sent: 27 February 2019 10:17<br />
To: Tony Nelson<br />
Subject: RE: IICSA Catholic - Ealing Abbey and St Benedict's<br />
<br />
Dear Tony<br />
<br />
I write further on this matter, having obtained further instructions from my client Mr West.<br />
<br />
You will be aware that Mr Cleugh gave evidence on oath, and therefore any false statement given in evidence, inadvertently or otherwise, will needed to be corrected without delay.<br />
<br />
Mr West has undertaken an extensive search of both the published and unpublished/deleted comments, and can find no record of anything along the lines described by Mr Cleugh.<br />
<br />
If the comment was as upsetting at the time as Mr Cleugh stated in evidence, then it would have been reasonable to have made a copy, and also to have complained about it to Mr West.<br />
<br />
Therefore, please clarify:<br />
<br />
1. Did Mr Cleugh make a copy (e.g. a screenshot)? If so please provide it to us and to IICSA.<br />
2. Why did he not complain at the time?<br />
<br />
If Mr Cleugh provides clear evidence that the alleged comment was at some point posted on the blog, then Mr West would be glad to apologise in public for any distress this caused him. However it is Mr West’s position that no such comment was ever published on the blog. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, a public apology is due to Mr West for making a false statement about him, and it would be appropriate for you to write to IICSA with a copy to us stating that Mr Cleugh was mistaken and wishes to withdraw that part of his evidence.<br />
<br />
We look forward to hearing from you.<br />
<br />
Regards <br />
Richard Scorer</blockquote>
The final reply came from Nelson the following day.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
From: Tony Nelson<br />
Sent: 28 February 2019 15:44<br />
To: Richard Scorer<br />
Subject: IICSA Catholic - Ealing Abbey and St Benedict's<br />
<br />
Dear Richard<br />
<br />
Thank you for your email of yesterday. Mr Cleugh has a clear recollection of that about which he gave evidence at the Inquiry.<br />
<br />
There is no direct nor intended criticism of Mr West and we have made it clear that the subject matter was from an anonymous source. Mr Cleugh has not retained material and we trust that this can now be the end of the matter.<br />
<br />
Regards.<br />
Anthony J. Nelson</blockquote>
The most interesting thing about this last email was the statement that "Mr Cleugh has a clear recollection of that about which he gave evidence at the Inquiry."<br />
<br />
The thing is, if you study <a href="https://www.iicsa.org.uk/key-documents/9212/view/transcript-7-february.pdf">the 7th February transcript</a>, his memory of several key events seems not at all clear. For instance this:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Q. Just looking at what some of the other staff in the school said, can we look at MPS002946_003. This is Mr Halsall's witness statement. You will have read it. About a third of the way through the big paragraph in the middle, he says: "When Cleugh became head, I attempted to make him aware of past issues with Pearce and others. He did not welcome this."<br />
A. Well, I can honestly say I do not remember that. That gentleman was a member of my senior team, so he would have had access to the discussions that were going on but <b>I have no recollection of that</b>.</blockquote>
Or this concerning the restrictions on Pearce.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Q. What did you know about restrictions on Pearce and how he was monitored?<br />
A. Well, I was -- once the restrictions were put on him, I was fully aware that he was not allowed into the school and I conveyed that to the staff. <br />
Q. How were you aware of that?<br />
A. I would have been informed by the abbot.<br />
Q. Did you see what the restrictions were?<br />
A. <b>I can't remember that.</b><br />
Q. So it was through a conversation?<br />
A. Yes. I mean, <b>I'm not saying I didn't see it, but I have no recollection of it.</b></blockquote>
Or this, concerning the discussions with ISI prior to the November 2009 inspection.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Q. There are certainly two things that you say, aren't there: you tell Fox that Pearce has been accused and convicted of an offence which took place off the school premises, in the monastery; and you say that the abbot has commissioned a review. But what you don't say is that he's been under a restrictive covenant since 2005 because of previous behaviour; you don't refer to the fact that there's been a High Court judgment against Pearce and the Trust in 2006 when substantial damages were awarded to the victim? <br />
A. Well --<br />
Q. Do you agree with that?<br />
A. No, I don't.<br />
Q. You did say those things, did you?<br />
A. Sorry?<br />
Q. You did say those things?<br />
A. <b>I can't actually remember an interview that I had with the reporting inspector that actually happened 10 years ago</b>, but in actual fact, from the word go, I tried to be open and honest with Rodney Fox about David Pearce and about [redacted] -- sorry, David Pearce and RC41.</blockquote>
And also this about conversations with ISI in 2009<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Q. The point is that on that page that we have just looked at, where do you say that there was a restrictive covenant in place?<br />
A. Oh, I'm sorry. Well, it doesn't say, but, in actual fact -- <b>I can't remember the exact conversation I had</b>, but inspectors do not write down everything that's said between two people.<br />
Q. So perhaps he failed to write that down?<br />
A. Well, I don't know.<br />
Q. What about the scale of the offending of which Pearce was convicted: four boys plus A621 over a 30-year period?<br />
A. Well, he was told of all those in his October visit.<br />
Q. Was he told on this visit?<br />
A. <b>I honestly can't remember</b>, but it wasn't a deliberate act on my part.<br />
Q. And you're not suggesting, are you, that he has deliberately left it out of his notes?<br />
A. I am not suggesting he deliberately left it out of his notes, because I -- and <b>I can't remember the exact conversation</b>, but there was nothing for me to be gained by trying to infer it was one offence.<br />
Q. Well, you didn't mention that all victims had been pupils of the school, did you?<br />
A. Well, once again, after the case had come to court, yes, I did. It was all in the letter.<br />
Q. You did not mention that David Pearce had been head of the junior school and that some of his offending had been committed whilst he'd held that position?<br />
A. <b>I honestly can't remember</b>. But, I mean, I -- if that's what the notes are saying, maybe we didn't. But it's not something I ever tried to hide.</blockquote>
The interesting thing about the passage above is that his memory of events is distinctly ropey but his memory of his intentions (which of course nobody can cross-check) is crystal-clear. His memory of comments on the blog appears to be completely clear, much clearer than the events involving his responsibility as headmaster of the school.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Q. On prize giving day, in 2010, you gave a speech?<br />
A. I did.<br />
Q. It is INQ002991_005. It was in the News letter?<br />
A. No, it's the Priory magazine.<br />
Q. In that speech -- on the left-hand side of the page - you said:<br />
"I absolutely refute that anyone associated with the Benedictine school has misled the inspectors or protected offenders -- such allegations are, at best, misguided and, at worst, deliberately malicious. Recent media and blog coverage seem hell-bent on trying to discredit the school and at the same time destroy the excellent relationship between the school and the monastery. Is this part of an anti-Catholic movement linked to the papal visit? I do not know, but it feels very much as if we are being targeted."<br />
A. I mean, I would stress that before I said that, I actually had said, "There is no excuse for abuse of anyone, and particularly children. There have been failures here in the past and, quite rightly, those involved have been or are being exposed and punished". That was the surmise to it. Now, to put it into context, if I -- should I have said those words?<br />
Probably not. <b>But you have to understand that the -- at the time, there was -- particularly on the blog, there was very sort of personal and offensive comments being made, both about the school and my personal -- and me personally, which caused great distress, and it really did feel as if we were being targeted</b>.<br />
I felt, in terms -- of course everything that came out subsequently, everything to do with -- that came out as a consequence of the Carlile Report showed there was a really major issue in St Benedict's in the '70s, '80s and '90s -- into the '90s.</blockquote>
But in the correspondence between Nelson and Scorer this now appears to be just one distressing comment subsequently deleted which I can find no trace of.<br />
<br />
Cleugh's memory of events for which he was responsible didn't seem to improve <a href="https://www.iicsa.org.uk/key-documents/9281/view/transcript-8-february.pdf">the following day</a>. Here he is on the subject of my attempt to get the governors to improve the safeguarding policy in 2013.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Q. Jonathan West has made a statement, and you have seen that statement? <br />
A. I have.<br />
Q. It's at INQ003040, and I am going to ask us to turn to this section. Just by way of background, we have paragraph 197 there. The paragraph before establishes that Jonathan West, in 2013, after the new board of governors for St Benedict's had been appointed, decided to make a further attempt at persuading the governors to reform the school's child protection policy.<br />
In paragraph 197, he says:<br />
"I received no reply to this letter for some months, so on 4 September I sent copies of the letter and enclosures by recorded delivery to the home addresses of all the governors", and so on.<br />
At 198, he says:<br />
"I received a reply from one of the other governors saying that he would be taking up the matter at the next meeting of the governors."<br />
Was the child protection policy subsequently amended in 2013 in response to, and as a result of, Mr West's concerns?<br />
A. <b>I honestly can't remember, </b>but I repeat what I said yesterday, that we were continually reviewing and updating our safeguarding policy, and that we were engaged with lots of different people helping us in that.<br />
But, I mean, this has moved on three years from your previous question, and of course by then we were into a new board of governors. But the new governors did take safeguarding extremely seriously.</blockquote>
I'll leave you to decide what to make of all this. I've provided links to the full transcript for both days of Cleugh's evidence, so you're welcome to take a look in case you think I might have quoted him out of context.Jonathan Westhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00527063732905729010noreply@blogger.com7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6518202135348193859.post-11319329653926055622019-02-27T14:09:00.000+00:002019-02-27T14:09:38.944+00:00Why didn't they have to report?In a comment on the <a href="https://scepticalthoughts.blogspot.com/2019/02/who-knew-everyone.html">Who knew? Everyone!</a> article, <b>Elly </b>has made a very pertinent and important point.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
What I genuinely don't understand is why, when it is clear that various adults knew abuse was going on and chose not to go to the police, those adults are not being prosecuted. Isn't there already a law about being an accessory during and/or after the fact? </blockquote>
That's a very good question and deserves a full answer.<br />
<br />
As a general principle of English law, it's not a crime to fail to report a crime. The exceptions are few and narrowly drawn. One exception is that under the Proceeds Of Crime Act 2002, financial institutions and their lawyers have a statutory obligation to report suspicions of money laundering or bribery to the authorities.<br /><br />But there is no equivalent legal duty to report child abuse. That means that you could be the headmaster of a school, actually witness one of your staff raping one of your pupils in the school changing rooms, but you will have no legal duty to report anything about it to anyone.<br /><br />To be an accessory, you need to do more than just not report it. You would need to do something more active, such as giving misleading answers to the police if they ask. But if the police don't ask, you have no obligation to tell them that there are questions they <i>ought </i>to be asking.<br />
<br />
Elly goes on to say:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
The numerous cases at St benedict's, plus the numerous cases in many other Catholic schools and institutions, makes one thing abundantly clear: many Catholics are willing to stand by while children are abused. Prosecution is probably the only language such morally devoid people are going to understand.</blockquote>
And I agree entirely. About 80% of countries worldwide have a "mandatory reporting" law applicable to child abuse. Britain is unusual in not having such a law. These last few years I have spent a fair bit of time campaigning for mandatory reporting in support of the organisation <a href="http://mandatenow.org.uk/">Mandate Now</a>. They have produced detailed proposals for such a law in England and Wales and have provided those proposals to <a href="https://www.iicsa.org.uk/">IICSA</a> for their consideration.<br />
<br />
Elly, I hope you (and others) will lend your vocal support to the introduction of mandatory reporting of reasonable suspicions of child abuse in Britain.Jonathan Westhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00527063732905729010noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6518202135348193859.post-27487239370402388102019-02-18T21:01:00.003+00:002019-02-18T21:01:53.948+00:00Who knew? Everyone!Yesterday's Sunday Times carried a powerful piece by Stephen Bleach.<br />
<br />
<a href="https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/who-knew-about-the-abuse-at-st-benedicts-the-entire-catholic-church-cmxfv2qm7">Who knew about the abuse at St Benedict’s? The entire Catholic Church</a><br />
<br />
(The article is behind a paywall but you can register for free and view a couple of articles a week.)<br />
<br />
A key point of the article is that the cover-up was widespread and not restricted to Ealing, and continues to the present. As the article describes:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
2011, with accusations against him mounting, Soper — the rapist who groped me and abused so many other boys — skipped police bail and went into hiding. Scotland Yard launched a hunt and asked the church for help.<br /><br />The Archdiocese of Westminster (which was responsible for safeguarding at the abbey) provided a file on Soper in which, police said, there was “extensive, some might say excessive, redaction . . . one page was completely blanked out”.<br /><br />Police also asked the Vatican if it knew where Soper was. The Vatican did not reply. In fact the Vatican — or at least some people within it — had a very good idea where he was. As was revealed at the IICSA, Soper had more than €400,000 stashed away in the Vatican bank, and during the five years he was in hiding he periodically contacted the Vatican, requesting transfers to an account he had set up with a bank in Kosovo. Despite repeated requests, the Vatican did not pass this information on to the police.</blockquote>
Stephen Bleach contacted the school, the Abbey and the Papal Nuncio's office requesting an interview. All refused. This is what happened when he tried to contact the Nuncio.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
The man who picked up the phone at his official residence in Wimbledon actually laughed at me. When he’d recovered, he said: “No, no, no, absolutely not. The nuncio does not give interviews to anyone.”</blockquote>
The school refused an interview request, providing only a statement concerning all the changes that have been made. Key among them was that “There is now no physical access between the monastery and the school.”. This very much struck Bleach. As he says:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
That sentence is the most telling. It could well be that St Benedict’s
has, finally, changed. I hope so. But if it has, it has done it not by
embracing the church, but by escaping from it: by reducing the influence
of the clergy, and indeed physically keeping them out. It says
something when, in evidence designed to reassure a judicial inquiry it
can keep children safe, a Catholic school solemnly assures the hearing
that it has put up a fence to ward off monks.</blockquote>
More than 100 senior Roman Catholic bishops from around the world will gather in Rome this week for a summit Pope Francis has called to address clerical sexual abuse. The Guardian headline reads <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/feb/18/credibility-of-catholic-church-at-stake-sexual-abuse-summit#img-1">Credibility of Catholic church at stake in sexual abuse summit</a>. Quite frankly, I wonder what credibility the author of that headline imagines the Catholic Church might still have. There's very little of it that I can perceive.Jonathan Westhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00527063732905729010noreply@blogger.com11tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6518202135348193859.post-53661886650161129152019-02-13T22:48:00.001+00:002019-02-13T22:48:26.975+00:00Cleugh's inquiry evidence about meCleugh, in giving evidence to the inquiry, was asked at one point "Did you consider that Mr West's interventions were malicious?"<br />
<br />
I'm not going to repeat his reply here, but you can read it <a href="https://www.iicsa.org.uk/key-documents/9281/view/transcript-8-february.pdf">in the transcript</a>. (Each page of the PDF is divided into 4 separate numbered pages. Cleugh's reply starts at line 3 of page 12 of these numbered pages. The specific point I want to address is on lines 16-20, his description of a blog comment he claims was made here.<br />
<br />
Now, when I saw this, I was very surprised. I didn't remember any such comment. But I thought OK, there are a quarter of a million words in the blog and it has been running for nearly 10 years. I might have forgotten it. So I did a websearch of the blog, using a variety of search terms to see if I could find it. No sign of it.<br />
<br />
I keep a separate record of all the comments, whether or not they are published. As those of you who have commented here know, I have a moderation system here for comments, they don't appear on the blog immediately. When a comment is made, I get an email notification containing the comment and I then decide if it can be published. Maybe it might have been briefly published and then deleted? So I searched through the comments. Nothing there either. No comment even remotely resembling the one Cleugh describes has ever been submitted to the blog, much less published.<br />
<br />
It might be that the comment was made elsewhere (perhaps on Facebook?) on a part of the web over which I have no control rather than on the blog and Cleugh has got it mixed up in his memory. But then I'd expect a wider websearch to find it. But I still come up with nothing.<br />
<br />
Had such a comment been published it would have been ample justification to take a screenshot, pass it to the school solicitors and get a stiffly-worded solicitor's letter to me. But interestingly Cleugh has made no reference to upsetting comments on my blog in his written statement to the Inquiry, and he hasn't provided a screenshot of the comment in any of the exhibits to his statement. In fact his statement makes no reference to me at all.<br />
<br />
If I had received an email requesting that a comment of that kind be taken down, then I would have readily agreed to do so. In fact when an issue arose about comments about Mrs Gumley Mason at St Augustine's Priory School, I wrote to the chair of Trustees offering to remove on request any offensive comment that was brought to my attention. No such request was ever made.<br />
<br />
Anyway, I provided the Inquiry last year with a complete copy of all the blog articles about St Benedict's (including comments) as an exhibit to my own statement. They can easily conduct their own searches on it and decide the truth of the matter.<br />
<br />
(Note: if you read the comment on the IICSA website and then quote the words of it in a comment here, I won't publish it. The comment has not appeared here and that's how it is going to stay.)Jonathan Westhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00527063732905729010noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6518202135348193859.post-82788510339522834892019-02-10T20:55:00.001+00:002019-02-10T20:55:35.300+00:00Abbot Martin Shipperlee resignsIt was bound to happen. Once the inquiry's lawyers had dug through the documentation they demanded from the school, the abbey, the police, the DfE, ISI and Charity Commission, the cover-up could no longer be maintained and the extent of it could no longer be denied.<br />
<br />
I have no means of knowing what was on Abbot Martin's mind when he wrote his letter of resignation, but the two failings that struck me the most were his admission that he had failed to pass to the police in 2001 a serious allegation about his predecessor Abbot Laurence Soper, and that the Abbey lawyers had in effect threatened another complainant against Soper into silence in 2004.<br />
<br />
<br />
Anyway, whatever the detailed reasons, he's done the right thing and resigned. I have some degree of respect for him for that. However the respect would be greater if he had done the right thing without exhausting every other possible option first. For almost his entire time in office he has been engaged in what looks from the outside to be an increasingly desperate search for measures to prevent this all coming to light.<br />
<br />
There was the Wright/Nixson report commissioned in 2009. This was commissioned by the Abbot, it had a very narrow remit covering the abbey and monastery but not the school. Wright and Nixson spent a total of 2 days in the monastery, and did not undertake a detailed document review. Nonetheless a summary of the report was published on the <i>school </i>website as fulfillment of Shipperlee's promise to parents of a review of school safeguarding.<br />
<br />
Then there was Lord Carlile's report. Ruth Henke, the barrister representing Ealing Abbey and St Benedict's School at the inquiry made a valiant effort in her closing remarks to suggest that a major turning point had been made by commissioning and accepting the Carlile report. She said:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
As I said in opening, we have learnt from our past mistakes as institutions, and the institutions I represent today in my closing address before you are the institutions as they are today. We say that you can learn not simply from the mistakes, but it is also good practice to learn from the positives and from good practice itself. What was the significant positive? We say it was the commissioning of the Carlile Report in July 2010 when, when you look at the evidence, you may think we were between a rock and a hard place, but when we did the right thing. And that should be acknowledged. Because that results in a report that brings about fundamental and significant change.<br /><br />On behalf of those I represent, I know that the independence of the report is put into question. So, in closing, may I say this: firstly, the report is by an expert. It is commissioned by the abbey. But I ask: how is that different from any singly instructed expert in any family or civil court throughout this land? We say no different whatsoever. Where does the integrity of the expert come from? From their professionalism, from their independence and from how they exercise it without fear and favour.</blockquote>
I would expect from somebody in her position to emphasise such positives as can be found from what I'm sure she will have been saying in private was a right car-crash of a case. And she said it very well. All credit.<br />
<br />
But the claim that Carlile was a turning point really doesn't stand up to any kind of scrutiny. First, the culture of coverup was the primary problem. And it looks very much as if things were covered up from Carlile as much as from everybody else. In his position as a barrister and QC, I find it very hard to believe that had the 2001 and 2004 allegations been known to him that he would not have included them in the report. It follows that he was lied to, even if the lie was one of omission. The only alternative explanation is to suppose that Carlile and Shipperlee conspired to produce a misleading report. I really don't believe Carlile to have been unwise enough to embark on such a course. I do believe Shipperlee capable of not informing Carlile, just as he didn't inform the police of the 2001 allegation.<br />
<br />
And this is not the only thing that Carlile was not told. When Abbot President Richard Yeo conducted his Extraordinary Visitation in 2010, he conducted interviews with all the monks. Several of them disclosed that they had known something about Pearce's activities for decades. One monk is recorded as saying "mid '70s, knew David engaged in dubious activities". Another "Knew since I was junior school head that there was something wrong. Graffiti: Father David is bent." Another monk spoke of rumours existing when he arrived 25 years ago and expressed disbelief that a previous Abbot claimed that he "never knew anything about it".<br />
<br />
So it is clear that knowledge of Pearce's abuses at least were commonplace among the monks for 30 years or so before he was convicted. In the light of this, Shipperlee's own professions of ignorance when giving evidence aren't all that credible. Knowledge of wrongdoing doesn't magically evaporate when you reach high office. Shipperlee's serial inactions were put to him, and in giving evidence about them, individually and collectively they had no explanation he could offer. That was a very careful formulation. That doesn't mean they have no explanation, or even that he doesn't himself have an explanation. It is just that he can't offer it. The explanation could simply be that he was covering things up, and this is what I believe to be the case. I've believed it ever since my one and only meeting with him in September 2009. That impression was put to him by counsel to the inquiry.<br />
<br />
Carlile's recommendations were solely to do with reform of governance,
definitely a subject that needed attention, but no governance reform
will of itself prevent abuse. Secular schools have safeguarding scandals
as well, and to guard against that you need an excellent and
unambiguous safeguarding policy, and Shipperlee and Cleugh just couldn't
bring themselves to implement that at the time. The version of the
safeguarding policy published with Carlile's report still had gaping
holes in the reporting arrangements, suggesting that making reports
depended to a degree on the permission of the complainant or his/her
parents. Where the safety of <i>other</i> children may be at risk from
an abuser this is irresponsible. Carlile was not as expert as all that,
since he didn't realise this and warmly endorsed the policy.<br />
<br />
At the same time as Carlile was conducting his inquiry, a documentation review was carried out by Kevin McCoy. This in fact uncovered much more than Carlile's report about allegations against various monks and other staff, but was <i>not </i>published.<br />
<br />
If the culture of coverup had been dispelled at the time of Carlile, then it would not have taken a public inquiry wielding statutory powers enabling it to force the disclosure of documents from the abbey and school and enabling it to compel witnesses to give evidence under oath to uncover all that has seen the light in the past week.<br />
<br />
So I don't accept the suggestion that the Carlile report represents an attempt at fundamental change, that in commissioning it Shipperlee "did the right thing".<br />
<br />
There also seems to be an element of "taking one for the team" in Shipperlee's resignation statement. He has apologised for his personal failures, but on the other hand has said he has "confidence in the present structures and procedures". I don't see how his confidence can be justified. Either those procedures are in place as a result of his actions in which case (given his admitted failings) nobody should have any confidence in them at all, or they have been implemented without and despite his views, in which case he ought to have resigned long ago.<br />
<br />
However, there is plenty of blame to spread around and not all of it should be dumped on the shoulders of a hapless ex-Abbot. Earlier I described knowledge among the monks going back decades concerning the abuses. From the evidence given to the inquiry, it appears that few attempted to do anything with their knowledge.<br />
<br />
Fr Alban Nunn made an attempt to bring abuse allegations to the notice of the police. Fr Peter Burns complained about Pearce taking confession in the Junior school when he was supposed to be under some kind of informal restriction, and Fr Edmund Flood came to the defence of "RC-A8" (the cipher given to a former pupil who gave evidence at the hearing) when Pearce and Soper were holding a kangaroo court over the supposed theft of a raincoat. With these honourable exceptions, I have to say that it seems that almost the entire monastic community appears to have had some degree of knowledge of the abuse, and chose to put the welfare of the abusers and the reputation of the community ahead of safety of the children in their care.<br />
<br />
I suspect that those who had knowledge and did nothing are functionally atheists. At least, it would appear that they do not believe in the existence of divine justice. They knowingly and over an extended period allowed serious harm to come to a large number of children when it was in their power to act to prevent it. How do they expect to account to God for this?<br />
<br />
But the blame doesn't stop there. Abbot President Richard Yeo, on learning in 2010 of the extent and duration of the knowledge the monks had, sought to support the community and not to disclose this knowledge to the statutory authorities. He doesn't even have the excuse of the knowledge having come to him during Confession, his notes were not taken during confession. Yeo was a member of the Cumberlege Commission, he is supposedly therefore one of the Catholic Church's foremost experts on safeguarding. If Yeo cannot be trusted to follow Cumberlege recommendations on reporting knoweldge or suspicions of abuse, then public confidence that anybody else in the church will do so will inevitably be close to non-existent.<br />
<br />
Then there is the grubby situation of Soper's flight to Kosovo. He had opened an account at the Vatican Bank and and placed into it the money he inherited on the death of his parents. By Benedictine rules this money should have been handed over to the order, but Shipperlee did not demand it. The inheritance was of the order of €400,000. The Vatican Bank knew of Soper's address in Kosovo. He made repeated requests for transfers of funds and wrote to them with his address. The Bank ignored all requests from the British police for information as to Soper's whereabouts.<br />
<br />
And if that wasn't enough, we have the repeated refusal of the Papal Nuncio to cooperate with the inquiry in providing a voluntary statement. Apparently the Nuncio (who is of course an accredited diplomat of a foreign power) is awaiting instructions from the Holy See, and in the meantime is relying on his diplomatic immunity to refuse to provide any kind of statement. An explanation from the Nuncio as to the reasons for the Vatican Bank's uncooperativeness would be welcome, but I don't ever expect to see it.<br />
<br />
A few staff at St Benedict's School also deserve honourable mention for their part in trying to bring matters to light. Among those, there is Kate Ravenscroft who made a report to the police about Pearce. Then there is Harsha Mortemore, a former member of the non-teaching staff who made an attempt to raise concerns, only to be told "If you know what's good for you, keep your head down and do your job." Mr Halsall also attempted to raise concerns about Pearce with Cleugh on the latter's arrival, but this went nowhere. And Dr Carlo Ferrario, the deputy head and designated safeguarding lead at the time immediately passed on the concerns brought to him in 2008 that resulted in Pearce's arrest. I have great respect for all of them. All of them made statements to the police and/or the inquiry. They actually did something, no small feat in what has been described during the hearing as a "mafia-like" and intimidatory culture.<br />
<br />
As for the future of the monastic community at Ealing, I have no idea what will happen. Fortunately it's not my problem. They will need to elect a new Abbot, but it is hard to imagine who that might be. Nobody who participated in the cover up would be a fit person for the job, but would anyone not tainted by the cover-up actually <i>want </i>the job?Jonathan Westhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00527063732905729010noreply@blogger.com14tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6518202135348193859.post-84628862212920571972019-02-06T19:53:00.000+00:002019-02-06T19:53:42.345+00:00IICSA Ealing hearing day 3The transcript for today's hearing <a href="https://www.iicsa.org.uk/key-documents/9159/view/transcript-6-february-.pdf">is here.</a><br />
<br />
Today, the inquiry heard from former diocesan safeguarding adviser Peter Turner and from Abbot Martin Shipperlee.<br />
<br />
The inquiry is already running seriously behind time, Shipperlee's evidence should have been completed this morning and evidence from former Abbot President Richard Yeo should have been heard this afternoon.<br />
<br />
The delay is no surprise, the inquiry was warned months ago that a week would be insufficient for this hearing. It is not yet clear how all the necessary evidence will be fitted in.<br />
<br />
If you want just a brief sense of what was covered today, have a look at the <a href="https://twitter.com/InquiryCSA">inquiry's Twitter feed</a> for the day.<br />
<br />
Shipperlee's evidence continues tomorrow.Jonathan Westhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00527063732905729010noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6518202135348193859.post-82240298687651792742019-02-05T23:06:00.003+00:002019-02-05T23:06:45.212+00:00IICSA Ealing hearing day 2Here the <a href="https://www.iicsa.org.uk/key-documents/9146/view/transcript-5-february-2019.pdf">day 2 transcript</a>. They are already falling behind schedule, Peter Turner's evidence will need to be completed tomorrow.Jonathan Westhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00527063732905729010noreply@blogger.com0