Confessions of a skeptic

Abuse must have no hiding place

2012-01-28T12:25:00.000Z

The following is the text of an article I wrote that has been published in this week's edition of The Tablet.

================

One man's blog has highlighted complaints of abuse at St Benedict's School, Ealing, and what he believes are the monks' shortcomings in addressing them. But here the author of the blog identifies potential difficulties with protecting the vulnerable at all independent schools .

The abuse that happened at the schools run by the abbeys of Ealing, west London, and Downside in Somerset is unacceptable and the long coverup that occurred even more so. At Ealing, eight monks and teachers have had credible accusations of child abuse against them: one of these, Fr David Pearce, is in prison after abusing a pupil in 2007 and another - a former abbot, Fr Laurence Soper - has gone missing after failing to keep an appointment with police to discuss abuse allegations against him. At Downside, complaints against seven monks have been made public, among them Fr Richard White, a teacher who was jailed earlier this month for abusing two pupils in the 1980s.

To put it bluntly, successive abbots at both locations harboured criminals who they knew or should have known had committed sex crimes against the children in their care. It is a Catholic mess, and it is a Catholic responsibility to clear it up. It is urgent to learn the lessons of Ealing and Downside and apply those lessons to all Catholic schools.

Unfortunately, Lord Carlile’s report on how pupils of St Benedict's can be better protected in future is of little help. Apart from repeating recommendations already made by the Independent Schools Inspectorate (ISI) and a previous independent review, his only real proposal is for a change of governance so that the school is run by a separate trust with a larger board of trustees from a variety of backgrounds under a lay chairman.

At Ealing Abbey the senior monks are currently both trustees and beneficiaries of a charitable trust responsible for monastery, school and parish. The arrangements at Downside are similar. This is not a healthy state of affairs. Even with the best will in the world, the monks will tend to prioritise their own interests above those of the other beneficiaries.

Lord Carlile's proposal is a good idea on general principles, but it is not a magic bullet. It is not just schools run by monks or even just Catholic independent schools which can have trouble with sexual abuse. There have been cases of abuses covered up by independent secular schools as well.

Carlile assigned primary blame to the abusers themselves. This is true, but provides no guidance as to how to combat a career paedophile in an occupation where he gains trusted access to many potential victims. Outwardly, abusers cannot be distinguished from the many honest and hardworking priests, teachers and youth workers. It can take children a long time to report abuse, so by the time something is noticed there might already be a serious problem in the school.

At this point, school authorities (Catholic or otherwise) face a dilemma. Independent schools are, in effect, businesses. They compete with each other for pupils and the fee income they generate. An independent school's reputation is a key asset. The governors have arguably conflicting duties to protect the children and to maintain the reputation of the school.

It's easy for management to believe that these conflicting duties can be reconciled. This is where things can go horribly wrong. Management might delude itself into thinking that an allegation is mistaken, malicious or trivial, or assume that a member of staff has been so frightened by an allegation that he won't abuse again, and so decide that the children can be protected without reporting the incident to the authorities. Once one incident has been covered up, management is compromised and it's hard not to do the same next time, lest the previous bad decision also come to light. The cumulative effect of this can be decades of unhindered abuse.

Schools must prioritise child protection, and so must without exception make a commitment to report promptly in writing every allegation and incident of abuse to the Local Authority Designated Officer for Child Protection (LADO).

There is a major gap in the SI Benedict's policy which Lord Carlile apparently hasn't noticed. Paragraph 30(c) requires that the school "satisfy the wishes of the complainant's parents". This is dangerous because the wishes of the parents can be manipulated. It would be easy for a head teacher to say, ''Your child has had a bad experience. We don't want to make it worse by having lots of strangers ask him questions about it.” How many parents in such difficult circumstances would have the knowledge and force of personality to insist that the authorities be contacted against the recommendation of the head teacher?

The Downside policy also has a serious weakness. It promises (with exceptions) only to "consult" the LADO, not to report all allegations in writing.

It is vitally important that it be made unthinkable to hide abuse. A commitment to report all allegations was recommended in the 2001 Nolan report. It is hugely disappointing that two schools at the centre of sex-abuse scandals seem still not to have got this basic point right.

Parents should review the safeguarding policies of their children's schools. If there is no commitment on reporting, or if it looks like the school has given itself wriggle-room by allowing exceptions, or the policy is just hard to follow, then the school needs to make improvements.

It would be wrong to assume that Ofsted or ISI have checked a school's policy. ISI inspected St Benedict's in November 2009 (a month after Fr David Pearce was sentenced) and found nothing wrong, even though the policy did not meet regulations. In any case, they can only insist that the school meets statutory requirements, and unbelievably there isn't a statutory requirement on schools to report allegations or even a known crime of child abuse to the LADO.

A strong safeguarding policy deters abusers. By contrast, a weak policy which avoids committing to immediate reporting is an open invitation to abusers to try their luck. Once one abuser has been protected, others will know they also can operate with impunity.

This isn't just about the monks of Ealing and Downside. In my view, separating the governance of either school from its abbey won't magically remove the temptation to cover up abuse. What happened there might happen anywhere. It is up to us all to make sure it doesn't by checking the safeguarding policies of their local school and parishes. Safeguarding is everybody's business.

• Jonathan West is the parent of a former pupil at St Benedict's School and the author of a blog, Confessions of a Skeptic.

Reporting is important

2012-01-27T14:14:00.000Z

In The Times today

A paedophile primary school teacher was able to abuse children as young as six for years because his head teacher ignored concerns raised by colleagues.

Nigel Leat, who was jailed indefinitely last year, sexually abused dozens of pupils over a period of 15 years at the small village school near Weston-super-Mare in Somerset.

And how was he able to get away with it for so long? It is explained later in the article.

Before he was sentenced at Bristol Crown Court in June, detectives from Avon and Somerset Constabulary described Leat as “manipulative” and said he had been able to dupe colleagues who had no suspicion of what was going on. But yesterday an independent serious case review commissioned by the local education authority revealed that, far from being unaware, staff had repeatedly raised concerns with the head teacher but the warnings were ignored.

A total of 30 “inappropriate” incidents were witnessed by staff. Of these, 11 were officially reported to Chris Hood, the head teacher, but not one was passed on to the board of governors or the local education authority.

Tony Oliver, chair of the North Somerset Safeguarding Children Board, said there had been a “gross failure of responsibility” at the school. Mr Hood was suspended then sacked after Leat’s abuse came to light.

Mr Oliver said: “The fact that these incidents were reported within the school and not acted upon is incredible. It was grossly negligent that those incidents were not reported to the local authority. There was an endemic culture of neglect.”

This is why I keep going on here about how important it is that all allegations of abuse are immediately reported in writing to the Local Authority Designated Officer for Child protection (LADO).

Three Ofsted reports compiled during Leat’s time at the school raised no concerns and rated it as “good” and “academically successful”.

Three consecutive OFSTED reports didn't notice that the school's safeguarding arrangements simply weren't working. Parents, you are on your own. if you don't check the safeguarding policies of your children's schools, then nobody will.

Father Raphael Appleby

2012-01-24T02:31:00.001Z

This week's Tablet contains an article about how Abbot Aidan Bellenger dealt with the allegations of abuse of a vulnerable adult by Father Raphael Appleby. This is Bellenger's description of the matter.

I did not think that before 2010 there was a safeguarding issue, I regarded it as a pastoral issue. Now I think that was possibly not the correct judgement. I didn’t speak to the safeguarding people until 2010. If that was an error, I just don’t know. I accepted [the complainant’s] word, but Fr Raphael was a person whom many people idolised. He is not in denial of a relationship, but denies it was abusive.

In one short paragraph, this perfectly encapsulates why it is vital that all allegations should promptly be reported to the authorities. The Abbot has fallen into the classic trap of assuming that Fr Raphael was such a good person that he would never to anything like that. Fr Raphael after all was a senior monk and former headmaster of Downside School, and was "a person whom many people idolised".

And of course Fr Raphael would deny that he was an abuser. That is what abusers do, partly simply because they don't want to get caught, but also because they convince themselves that what they do is not abusive.

The Tablet's report goes on to say.

The victim maintains that from the first meeting with Abbot Aidan, a complaint of abuse was made against Fr Raphael. The victim also says that in 2009 a letter giving full details of the abuse was sent to the abbot. Abbot Aidan made no comment on reports that correspondence on the abuse was missing from Fr Raphael’s personal file when police officers from the Avon and Somerset force came to investigate the person’s claim. A force spokesman said they had to obtain duplicates from the victim.

Ah, the missing records malady! Ealing sneezes and Downside catches the cold. This unfortunately is by far from being the first I have heard about inconvenient records going astray. At the start of the Carlile inquiry, I learned that St. Benedict's School had no records of John' Maestri's employment. And during the trial of Stephen Skelton last autumn, it turned out that the school had kept no records of him either.

There are seven monks now know to have acted criminally or improperly. Two convicted, two cautioned, one given a police warning and two placed on restricted ministry because they are thought to pose a risk to children. Just imagine the strain it has been on successive abbots trying to keep all that quiet all these years.

And that is just the monks. At Ealing, only one monk has been convicted but also two lay teachers.As far as I know, there has been nothing looked into with regard to lay teachers at Downside. The abbot has passed over the records of the monks to the police and diocesan authorities, but not so far as I know those of the lay teachers. I wonder what nasties there might still be waiting to crawl out from under that particular rock.

Brother Anselm

2012-01-16T14:49:00.000Z

The Times has more on Michael Hurt, also known as Brother Anselm.

He taught at Downside during the 1960s but left the order because of “conflict” and worked in adult education in Liverpool before moving to Ireland. In 1996 he rejoined the Benedictines and was accepted at Glenstal as a novice.

He was cautioned by officers from Avon & Somerset Constabulary during an 18-month investigation into Downside. While a police caution does not amount to a conviction, by accepting it, a person acknowledges the offence.

Brother Martin Browne of Glenstal Abbey said: “The allegation for which Br Anselm was cautioned by UK police dates back more than forty years. It is a matter of public record (from many media appearances over the years) that Br Anselm left Downside Abbey in 1970, and was laicised. Many years later, having settled in Ireland, he began monastic life again, entering Glenstal as a novice in 1996.

It is understood that Hurt gave up his role in a chess club for young people after accepting the caution. Fr Bellenger did not name Hurt in his weekend letter to past pupils but referred to “a monk who left this country many years ago” receiving “a formal police caution for the abuse of a pupil during his time at Downside in the 1960s”.

Brother Anselm ran the Glenstal kitchens, feeding 40 monks and their guests with such panache that he published Brother Anselm’s Glenstal Cookbook to acclaim in 2009. The 65 recipes cover traditional dishes such as kedgeree, treacle tart and curries, with illustrations of monks at work and rest.

Brother Anselm and [his brother] John Hurt, star of the Elephant Man and the Harry Potter films, attracted a huge audience when they appeared together as guests on Irish television’s Late Late Show. British TV viewers saw them together on Who Do You Think You Are? when the pair, sons of an Anglican clergyman, investigated their possible Irish roots.

So, let me see if I understand this.

Michael Hurt rejoined the Benedictines in 1996, at Glenstal Abbey. Downside either wasn't asked about or didn't disclose his past abuses, and neither did Hurt himself.

Glenstal Abbey has a school attached. Until the police came calling Hurt had access to children. There was lots of publicity about Hurt's presence at Glenstal and still Downside kept schtumm, and didn't even slip a quiet warning to Glenstal about Hurt's past and suggest that he might be best kept away from children.

It seems to me that Downside has been wholly concerned about its own reputation, and wasn't even prepared to mention a problem to fellow-Benedictines.

I'm not sure what is the word to describe such behaviour, but I don't think "Christian" comes anywhere near it.

The second cautioned monk

2012-01-15T11:16:00.000Z

Abbot Aidan Bellenger only named one of the two monks who has recently been given a caution. The other who has gone to live in Ireland, was left unnamed. The Belfast Telegraph has named him. He is Richard Hurt, also known as Brother Anselm.

He is presently living at Glenstal Abbey in Co Limerick, a Benedictine monastery in the Republic of Ireland. The Abbey has a school attached. It appears they did not know of his past, and Downside did not tell them.

The current headmaster at Glenstal, Brother Martin Browne, said last night that Glenstal operated totally independently of Downside and had not become aware until last February that an allegation had been made against Brother Anselm.

He pointed out that Brother Anselm had no teaching role there and that his only contact with pupils had been through a chess club. That contact was immediately terminated when Glenstal became aware of the allegation, he added.

Baroness Scotland quits the NCSC

2012-01-15T00:09:00.000Z

The Times reported on Saturday that Baroness Scotland has resigned from her role as chair of the National Catholic Safeguarding Commission. The Times says

Lady Scotland’s office at the House of Lords issued a statement saying: “Increasing pressures in other areas of her work have resulted in this decision. The baroness is encouraged by the continuing commitment of the Catholic Church and the members of the commission in their work to improve the safeguarding of children and adults at risk, and also the work with survivor organisations. She wishes the new chair every success.”

Given the recent scandals at Ealing and Downside, I can't help wondering whether this is merely a convenient pretext, and that the real reason is that she is fed up with the way that the Catholic Church is all talk and no action when it comes to safeguarding.

Truths and half-truths - the abbot's letter analysed.

2012-01-14T22:06:00.000Z

Let's start at the beginning of the Abbot's letter.

We have received our Ofsted progress report, which is on our website and which is attached to this letter. It is very short and I hope you will read it in its entirety. It concludes that ‘robust risk-assessments are in place to ensure the safety of pupils from adults who should not have unsupervised access to children’, and highlights improved security, a greater culture of awareness among staff of safeguarding through extensive training and found, overall, that Downside meets all the required standards of safeguarding."

Lots of issues here. The first thing is that the Abbot is being a trifle economical with the truth. He's not actually lying, but he is giving a misleading impression.

The inspection arrangements for Downside are a little bit peculiar, because it is both a member of the Independent Schools Council and a boarding school. So OFSTED is responsible for inspecting welfare and safeguarding aspects of the boarding school provision, while the Independent Schools Inspectorate (ISI) is responsible for inspecting educational matters across the whole school, and safeguarding and welfare matters as they apply to the day pupils.

OFSTED and ISI normally arrange for a joint inspection visit, and then they each issue their own reports for their own areas of responsibility. There was a routine joint inspection of the school in December 2010. The OSTED report can be found here, and the ISI report is here. The ISI report is prefaced by the report of a further follow-up inspection in June 2011. OFSTED has not produced a report of the follow-up inspection. All three reports are unremittingly awful concerning safeguarding, detailing multiple and serious failures to meet statutory requirements

There was a further joint follow-up inspection at the end of November 2011, and OFSTED has just produced its report of it. This is the report the Abbot has included in his email and posted on the school website. The report concludes that "The school has made good progress and now meets all the national minimum standards for boarding schools."

Having met national minimum standards following a year of effort after shortcomings were first uncovered is hardly something to crow about. Furthermore, only the OFSTED report of the latest follow-up inspection has been published. We are still awaiting the ISI report. We might be waiting a while yet. The Times said yesterday that the DfE is taking an urgent interest in the school. According to the Times:

Inspection reports on Downside, which is run by the Benedictine order and charges boarders fees of £26,000 per year, refer specifically to seven monks who have worked at the school at different times and whose behaviour has been “a cause for concern”.

The figure includes two former employees who despite worries about their past conduct, continued to live in Downside Abbey which shares the school grounds. The practice of allowing senior school pupils to have overnight stays in the abbey recently ended because of child protection concerns.

It is thought to be the presence of the former employees, in apparent breach of child protection policies, that has alarmed the DfE. Nick Gibb, the Schools Minister, previously expressed concern over the handling of a similar situation at St Benedict’s School in Ealing, West London, which has also been at the centre of an abuse scandal.

(As it happens, it is probably six monks and a layman, but that is a relatively minor detail.)

It is four years since Father David Pearce was arrested at Ealing Abbey having committed a sexual assault on a pupil while living at Ealing Abbey on restricted ministry. It was reported on BBC Points West earlier this week that two monks are still living at Downside Abbey on restricted ministry. When the OFSTED report says that "robust risk-assessments are in place to ensure the safety of pupils from adults who should not have unsupervised access to children" it appears to mean these two monks. I suspect that the DfE had a fit when they found out about the monks still there on restricted ministry, and that somebody in OFSTED is going deeply to regret putting that phrase in a report which states that the school has met national minimum requirements.

Media interest has greatly increased since the conviction and subsequent sentencing of Richard White (known at Downside as Fr Nicholas White) last week for child abuse committed when he was working at the school in the late 1980s. This raises questions about what was done during the period between the abuse and Fr Nicholas’s eventual conviction. He received counselling and therapy and conformed entirely with all the restrictions that were imposed on him. However, the standards of supervision and communication with the relevant outside agencies have changed over the years and his case would not be handled in the same way today as it was in the past.

Abbot Martin Shipperlee thought that Father David Pearce had "conformed entirely with all the restrictions that were imposed on him" until the day the police came along and arrested Pearce for abusing somebody while on restrictions. Abbot Aidan has left something of a hostage to fortune here, if it subsequently turns out that White was able to gain access to pupils, for instance during their overnight retreats in the monastery. The ISI and OFSTED reports show that Abbot Aidan is in no position to know whether White was obeying his restrictions and in no position to claim credit for it if he was, because the monitoring of him was chaotic bordering on nonexistent.

And that last quoted sentence is really quite nauseating. He is saying in effect that back in the 1980s, it was considered normal and acceptable for the Abbey to harbour a criminal who had committed a sex crime against one of the children in the Abbey's care, and to allow that criminal to continue teaching in the school. Ponder that.

There is a piece in today’s Times, on which we were not asked to comment, which takes no account of the recent positive Ofsted report. I am writing to The Times to correct the misleading impressions given in the article.

In saying that they were not asked to comment on the Times article, he is implying that The Times is behaving unjustly/unprofessionally or is guilty of biased reporting. This is guff. Today's story is not about Downside, it is about the activities of the DfE and the Charity Commission, so there would have been no reason to contact the school. The Abbot knows this perfectly well.

As part of our response to safeguarding concerns, I made all the monks’ records, stretching back for half a century, available to the police and the diocesan safeguarding office in 2010 as part of a wider review of historic cases and to help ensure that nothing remained unknown and undealt with.

At Ealing Abbey, one monk has been convicted and two lay teachers. Child sex abuse is not the sole preserve of monks. Moreover, child sex abuse committed by lay teachers is just as devastating to the victims. Ealing Abbey has been found to have destroyed the employment records of teachers who departed because of complaints of child abuse, specifically the records of John Maestri and Stephen Skelton. If Abbot Aidan has only made available the records of the monks, he has a lot more records that still need to be looked through, if of course Downside hasn't followed the example of Ealing Abbey and destroyed the more inconvenient pieces of paper.

Two other monks have been subject to investigation and, whilst the allegations against them, dating from the early 1990s, were founded, no prosecutions were brought. Both have had restrictions imposed on their ministry in order to protect children and are living in the monastery under supervision approved by the outside agencies. This situation is kept under constant review.

This is confirmation of the statement in the BBC Points West bulletin from earlier this week. We have two monks (unnamed), both with credible allegations against them concerning child abuse, who have been living in the monastery under restriction for the past 20 years. And in that time, successive Abbots have known this, and until they were stopped by the ISI they continued a policy of inviting pupils into the monastery for overnight retreats, even after they heard the news of Father David Pearce's arrest at Ealing. Reckless doesn't even begin to describe it.

We are truly sorry that children and young people have been abused by those whom they should have been able to trust. We are committed to doing everything possible to ensure that such things do not happen again.

This commitment seems to be a very recent one. The section of the June 2011 ISI report titled "Safeguarding matters generally (raising concern)" starts by saying:

The school is aware that its procedures and practices have not been, and are still not, up to the standard required in all respects, despite the steps taken since the inspection and the safeguarding audit. Given that 6 months have passed since the inspection, the expected sense of urgency was not particularly apparent, and such progress that has been made has generally been slow and, in some cases, still not compliant.

The summary of the report emphasises this by saying

... overall progress to implement the steps outlined by the school in its action plan have generally been slow at best and, in some areas, it is hard to identify specific improvements that have been achieved in six months.

The situation is very simple. He's been found out, and eventually was presented with an ultimatum. He had to promise that it won't ever happen again and get moving on the necessary changes in procedure, or probably have the DfE insist that the school be closed. They have that power, though they haven't ever used it. He's chosen under duress to make the promise.

But changing the culture and attitudes of an organisation is much harder than writing down a few new procedures. The Summary section of the ISI follow-up report mentions that "Certainly the Head is keen to get things right and achieve full regulatory compliance", but most conspicuously it does not say the same of the Abbot.

If the school is to become and remain safe for current and future generations of pupils, more than a few changes to written procedures will be needed. A whole new attitude and culture will need to be fostered, so that the very idea of hiding abuses and abusers in future becomes unthinkable.

Given what Abbot Aidan Bellenger has written, I have to question whether he has the will and determination to lead the Abbey and the school into this new era, or whether once the journalists have lost interest, the school will gradually slip back into its old ways and endanger the pupils all over again. If he lacks the will to make the necessary changes in attitudes, in himself as well as others, then in the interest of the Abbey, the school and most particularly the pupils, he should stand aside and allow the task to be taken up by somebody who does have that will.

It is up to everybody - monks, staff, parents, pupils and OGs, to work together to see that attitudes change at Downside. Safeguarding is everybody's business.

The abbot's new letter

2012-01-14T21:51:00.000Z

Today, the Abbot of Downside sent the following email to the Old Gregorians mailing list. I'm going to reproduce it in full and then comment on it in my next article, so that nobody can claim that I'm quoting him out of context.

Dear OG,

The letter that follows is about historic safeguarding issues and the present condition of Downside School.

We have received our Ofsted progress report, which is on our website and which is attached to this letter. It is very short and I hope you will read it in its entirety. It concludes that ‘robust risk-assessments are in place to ensure the safety of pupils from adults who should not have unsupervised access to children’, and highlights improved security, a greater culture of awareness among staff of safeguarding through extensive training and found, overall, that Downside meets all the required standards of safeguarding. We can be confident that the children with us are safe and able to flourish. We have the right structures in place, but we have to remain constantly vigilant and I recognise that you will help us to do that.

We are also in contact with the Charity Commission, who are advising us on our governance structures. Writing of St Benedict’s, Ealing, Lord Carlile has concluded in his report that a ‘more modern form of governance would have rendered it more likely that abuse would have been suspected, detected, rejected and the future secured.’ I want to thank our Governors for what they have done; we owe them an immeasurable debt. We are continuing to develop our governance structures and bringing in new governors to ensure that we are fully accountable to the world outside the monastery and school and that there is no room for accusations of cover-ups.

Media interest has greatly increased since the conviction and subsequent sentencing of Richard White (known at Downside as Fr Nicholas White) last week for child abuse committed when he was working at the school in the late 1980s. This raises questions about what was done during the period between the abuse and Fr Nicholas’s eventual conviction. He received counselling and therapy and conformed entirely with all the restrictions that were imposed on him. However, the standards of supervision and communication with the relevant outside agencies have changed over the years and his case would not be handled in the same way today as it was in the past.
You may have read the articles in The Times on Monday January 9 or in the Daily Telegraph on January 11. Local families may have seen the Points West interview with one of Fr Nicholas’s victims. There is a piece in today’s Times, on which we were not asked to comment, which takes no account of the recent positive Ofsted report. I am writing to The Times to correct the misleading impressions given in the article. There is an article in the Tablet and in the next issue of the Sunday Times on the Catholic Church and safeguarding in a more general context, though we have not been approached directly by the Sunday Times. In these circumstances it is very important that you should feel that Downside is keeping you properly informed.

As part of our response to safeguarding concerns, I made all the monks’ records, stretching back for half a century, available to the police and the diocesan safeguarding office in 2010 as part of a wider review of historic cases and to help ensure that nothing remained unknown and undealt with.

Those investigations are now complete and this letter is to inform the whole Gregorian family of the outcomes. It is not appropriate to name the parties in all cases because that information is not in the public domain and naming them could lead to the identification of victims. However, in a spirit of openness and transparency it is important that what has been investigated is not hidden.

Fr Raphael Appleby has accepted a caution for abuse of a vulnerable person, not a pupil in the school, over a long period in the 1980s. He has expressed profound sorrow for what he has done and has left the Abbey. He will not return.

Father Antony Sutch was subject to a police investigation that concluded without any action being taken. He was subject to an independent investigation and risk assessment which gave no reason why he should not return to ministry from his voluntary suspension.

A monk who left this country many years ago received a formal police caution for the abuse of a pupil during his time at Downside in the 1960s.

Another monk was issued with a police warning. This case does not involve a vulnerable adult or a pupil in the school.

Two other monks have been subject to investigation and, whilst the allegations against them, dating from the early 1990s, were founded, no prosecutions were brought. Both have had restrictions imposed on their ministry in order to protect children and are living in the monastery under supervision approved by the outside agencies. This situation is kept under constant review.

Although not mentioned in recent media reports, there was also the case of Fr Dunstan O’Keeffe who was convicted of possessing indecent images and was subsequently imprisoned and who is no longer a priest or a monk.

We are truly sorry that children and young people have been abused by those whom they should have been able to trust. We are committed to doing everything possible to ensure that such things do not happen again.

Downside Abbey and School have changed from a policy of dealing with safeguarding in house and now have the Clifton Diocese safeguarding office co-ordinating all matters. Any allegations that might arise now will, without exception, be referred to the diocesan safeguarding officers, the LADO (Local Authority Designated Officer for allegations) and to the statutory authorities in line with national safeguarding procedures. Through this approach, along with the major restructuring of school governance, safeguarding decisions will always be made independently of the monastic community.

We must never underestimate the great damage suffered by the victims of abuse. Their bravery in telling their stories has resulted in radical changes in the way safeguarding is approached. Victims of abuse are in our prayers and the sadness we feel for what they have suffered will be with us always.

These unhappy events inevitably cast a long shadow, but your chief concern will of course be the welfare, security and happiness of children currently at Downside. Many steps have been taken to ensure that the Downside portrayed in some parts of the media is a thing of the past.

By any measure it is now a safe, happy and thriving school whose many recent achievements will be built on in 2012 and beyond.

Yours sincerely,

Dom Aidan Bellenger
Abbot of Downside

Now there are seven

2012-01-13T10:55:00.001Z

From today's Times

Inspection reports on Downside, which is run by the Benedictine order and charges boarders fees of £26,000 per year, refer specifically to seven monks who have worked at the school at different times and whose behaviour has been “a cause for concern”.

The figure includes two former employees who despite worries about their past conduct, continued to live in Downside Abbey which shares the school grounds. The practice of allowing senior school pupils to have overnight stays in the abbey recently ended because of child protection concerns.

So now we know of seven. This is definitely a number of abusers comparable to what has been discovered at Ealing.

But Downside is in a way worse than Ealing in its utter recklessness over child protection. Even though the Abbot knew that he had monks living under his roof who were potentially a danger to children, pupils of the school were regularly invited into the monastery itself for overnight retreats!

Thunderer

2012-01-10T16:50:00.002Z

The following article by Lech Mintowt-Czyz, a Times journalist and former Downside pupil, appeared in the Thunderer column of the Times last Thursday. It provides a vivid account of what it is like to be a boy at boarding school trying to survive the presence of paedophile monks.

There have been a number of very touching comments on the Times website in response to the article, many of them addressing the issue of "survivor's guilt". Of course, the children weren't responsible for the abuses they or their friends suffered, and now they have reached adulthood they should not take on guilt at not having been able to stop it. But we don't always think entirely rationally about these things, and several people have expressed similar regrets to me that they weren't able to do more to save their friends from abuse.

If emotion is to be involved, let it be the appropriate one: anger, directed at the adults who were responsible, who knew about the abusers in their midst and did nothing to stop the abuse and everything to hide it for so many years.

Father Nick, the paedophile priest, was my teacher

We all knew where his desires lay and, dark jokes aside, stayed silent

Lech Mintowt-Czyz
January 5 2012 12:01AM

Richard White is a name that means as little to me as it does to you — to me he will always be Father Nick.

As you read this he is starting a five-year jail term for child abuse — crimes he committed while I was in his care in the late 1980s. White, the name used in court, taught me geography, he was my housemaster, he watched me in the showers and he molested my friends.

When one victim had the extraordinary courage to speak out Father Nick was shuffled aside. Initially removed from some teaching duties at Downside School but allowed to stay in the abbey (which was attached to the school buildings) he abused again, paying 50p to his victim each time.

As it happens, “50p” was one of his catchphrases — a term we inmates at the school used to say in his nasal tones by way of an impression: 50 pence was the maximum he would allow us to withdraw from our school accounts to spend on sweets each day.

Another catchphrase (wheedle as you hold your nose and you will hit the right sound) was: “Come out where I can see you.” This was what he said to us pubescent children as we tried to dry ourselves in the relative privacy of the heated pipes after our showers.

He used to give boys early morning detention — a ruse that meant he knew they would be alone in the showers. And he would join them, even though he had his own private bathroom. Some stopped washing — it didn’t save them. He seemed to enjoy giving corporal punishment too.

We all knew where his desires lay and, our dark jokes aside, we all stayed silent — conspiracy ruled us and betrayed us.

But this was almost 25 years ago. Boarding schools are different now, the Roman Catholic Church is changing, child protection systems are much better. Yes, yes and yes. And no.

Boarding schools are indeed more humane in their trappings these days but when I think back to the silence that protected Father Nick it had nothing to do with lumpy mattresses or a lack of carpets.

When you are a child away from home, if it’s not happening to you, you are grateful and keep your mouth shut. Be it bullying or child abuse there is nowhere to hide and you will do nothing that might bring it on your head. The moral cowardice of a child collaborator? Yes, and I feel the guilt ... but count yourself lucky you’ll never have to face that same test.

Furthermore, when you are in a closed community — a monastery, for example — it is incredibly hard to take tough action against a member of that group. A different type of collaboration — but effective nonetheless.

So I feel no joy at the sentencing — I am too compromised for that. And I know that it will happen again.

And then there were five

2012-01-10T14:23:00.001Z

We now know that the abuse at Downside was far more extensive than just Richard White, or Fr Nicholas as he was known at the school. The Times reported yesterday that the police have cautioned two others.

Detective Constable Mark White, of Avon & Somerset Constabulary, said: “As a result of our inquiries a 79-year-old man living in the Irish Republic received a caution and an 80-year-old man, resident in the South West of England, was also cautioned. The second man was removed from Downside Abbey following our inquiries.”

And BBC Points West reported yesterday that there are in addition a further two monks are still living at the monastery on restricted ministry.

That makes five. It's a bit of a pity Fr Aidan couldn't have come clean about that initially. This is beginning to rival Ealing Abbey in terms of scale - not a competition that Downside should want to win.

Restricted ministry failed at Ealing in the case of Father David Pearce, who was able to abuse a child even after he had been placed on restricted ministry. He was arrested in January 2008 and pleaded guilty in August 2009 to a string of offences spanning 36 years. The ISI, DfE, Charity Commission and Lord Carlile have all condemned the use of restricted ministry as ineffective. The Schools Minister Nick Gibb took a personal interest in ensuring that the practice ended at St Benedict's. That the policy of restricted ministry is still in use at Downside four years after Pearce's arrest is nothing short of a disgrace.

Downside's most recent ISI report is a nightmare. I'm going to describe that in more detail in future articles. The school has published a response on its website.

We have prepared an Action Plan in consultation with the appropriate agencies, and it has been sent by the Department for Education to Ofsted and ISI for their evaluation.

We are working with our Trustees, Governors and outside advisors to ensure that the plan is implemented in a timely and effective manner.

We fully subscribe to the principle that the protection of children is paramount in all that the School undertakes.

Talk is cheap. If a practice known to be ineffective at protecting children is still in use, then they can "subscribe to the principle that the protection of children is paramount", as much as they like but it won't matter in the slightest since the practice doesn't match the principle.

Explanation incomplete

2012-01-09T23:58:00.002Z

So, Fr Aidan Bellenger told something less than the whole truth in his email to the Gregorian mailing list. What a surprise. The Times today (behind paywall) has been talking to the police, and it turns out that the police enquiries have been going on for some time.

However, the abuse allegations are not confined to one priest, The Times can disclose, and two other Downside monks, also former teachers, received police cautions during an 18-month criminal investigation, which is continuing.

Detective Constable Mark White, of Avon & Somerset Constabulary, said: “As a result of our inquiries a 79-year-old man living in the Irish Republic received a caution and an 80-year-old man, resident in the South West of England, was also cautioned. The second man was removed from Downside Abbey following our inquiries.”

He added: “We identified a number of offences by a number of offenders. However, there is no evidence that offenders were co-operating together to victimise particular individuals. A lot of the victims in these cases have not wanted to give evidence.”

It is clear that Fr Nicholas was not the only abusing priest who was being permitted to live at Downside Abbey on restricted ministry.

Rob Hastings is White's victim, he has waived his right to anonymity to be interviewed in the Times today. This is what he had to say.

“I believe now he singled me out as someone who was vulnerable to grooming,” Mr Hastings said. “I had an interest in old books and maps and he used to take me to the library in the abbey. That’s where the abuse happened, and it went on for 18 months.”

Mr Hastings said: “I didn’t know how to deal with this when I was 12. I was told then that the Church knew how to handle it. I am aware of one boy abused by White before me, but the Church dealt with that by allowing him to carry on teaching in the junior school.

“I believe there are other former pupils out there who suffered similar experiences and I would encourage them to come forward to the police.

I'd like to commend the courage of Rob Hastings in coming forward and being willing to waive anonymity and be interviewed. I have spoken to a considerable number of victims of the abuses at Ealing Abbey, so I am aware of how very much courage his actions required.

I echo his call for victims and witnesses to come forward to the police. I know it is difficult. I have spoken to enough victims of the abuses at St Benedict's to understand how very difficult it is. But those who have gone to the police almost without exception tell me that once they have got over the exhaustion and emotional stress of actually giving the statement, it has helped lighten the load on them, that they feel better for having grabbed a bit of power back from those who would keep them silent and helpless.

It is also extremely powerful for abuse survivors to come forward and tell their stories, and even more so for them to be prepared to show their faces. It helps to lift the sense of shame from other victims. Abusers depend on everything remaining hidden so that few people realise what is happening and even fewer realise its effect. I think it very likely that Mr Hastings' willingness to go public will prompt others to come forward. He has made a real difference.

The Press Association has an extremely interesting twist in one paragraph of its article on the subject.

White's court case in Taunton heard that the school received legal advice in the early 1990s that they were not required to tell the police what happened. Instead White was sent to a number of monastic retreats in England and Scotland over the next 20 years.

Though it might beggar belief, their legal advice was correct as far as I know. Even if a pupil is raped by a member of staff, the school has no statutory obligation to report the matter to the police.

But I will leave it to you to decide on the moral status of an organisation that relies on legal advice to justify putting its reputation ahead of the welfare of the children in its care in this way.

With this most recent conviction, monks at five out of the six English Benedictine monasteries in England have been convicted in recent years of offences against children. There have been convictions at Ealing, Ampleforth, Belmont, Buckfast and now Downside, all since 2005. Only Worth has so far not had any monks recently convicted (at least, not that I have heard of). What is it about the Benedictines?

The Abbot of Downside explains

2012-01-07T01:05:00.001Z

... or does he?

The following email has been sent out to the Old Gregorians mailing list, and has been forwarded to me.

On Tuesday 3rd January 2012 Richard White, known at Downside as Father Nicholas White, a House Master and teacher in the School was sentenced to five years imprisonment for the abuse of children at Downside School. The Media have already made this public. This letter is to inform the whole Gregorian Family about this sad episode. Father Nicholas showed a fundamental betrayal of trust and, on behalf of the whole community, I apologise without reservation for what he has done. We are conscious that the care of children is our paramount concern as educators and we are truly sorry that any child should have been abused here while under our care. We must not underestimate the great damage such abuse can inflict on people and we will do everything possible to ensure that it does not happen again in the future.

The offences for which Richard Nicholas White has been convicted occurred over twenty years ago, when safeguarding procedures were clearly not adequate, something that is a matter of great regret to all of us now associated with Downside. The School has since fundamentally reviewed the way it approaches safeguarding issues, and continues to reform in order to provide the safest possible environment for those in its care. This will include a major re-structuring of Governance over the next year.

In 2010 the police and the safeguarding office of the Clifton Diocese, with the full co-operation of the Abbey, undertook a detailed review of historic cases that involved safeguarding concerns. It was after this re-opening of his case that Fr Nicholas was brought to court.

Before that, Richard Nicholas White had been through therapy and a risk assessment and had lived under restrictions. After Abbot Aidan Bellenger's election as Abbot in 2006, Richard Nicholas White continued to live under the same restrictions as during Abbot Richard Yeo's period of office (1998-2006), and remained withdrawn from public ministry and any direct contact with children.

I wish you all a Happy New Year.

Apud bonos iura pietatis
Aidan Bellenger

Let's take the key points one at a time.

"Father Nicholas showed a fundamental betrayal of trust and, on behalf of the whole community, I apologise without reservation for what he has done."

Two points here. First, it is very convenient to put the blame onto Fr Nicholas, but it won't wash. The offences to which he pleaded guilty occurred after it was already known to the abbot of the time that he had already abused another boy. Despite this, he was not removed from contact from children, and the police were not informed. This abuse should never have happened. Even if the formal policies were inadequate, any person with the slightest concern for child safety must surely have realised leaving a known abuser in a position supervising children is wrong. It is so obvious, it shouldn't even need to be said.

It is also not Fr Aidan's job to apologise for what Fr Nicholas has done, only Fr Nicholas can do that. What the Abbot should be doing is apologising for what he himself has done or failed to do, or what the monastic community as a whole (including his predecessors as Abbot) have done or failed to do.

"We are conscious that the care of children is our paramount concern as educators and we are truly sorry that any child should have been abused here while under our care."

"Should have been abused"? Rather odd form of words here. It seems as if he is trying to shrink from the fact that at least two boys were abused at the school. If it turns out to have been only two, I'll be astonished. If Ealing Abbey is anything to go by, once the first one or two victims come forward, others will gather the courage to do the same. I suspect that this story will run and run.

"We must not underestimate the great damage such abuse can inflict on people and we will do everything possible to ensure that it does not happen again in the future."

That's a promise that the parents have a right to hold him to. I've taken a look today at the school's child protection policy. It has clearly been updated recently (August 2011), no doubt as a result of official scrutiny, both because of Downside's association with Ealing Abbey and St Benedict's and also because of the police investigation at Downside itself. I have to say that on first reading it seems to be considerably better than the travesty of a policy still being operated by St Benedict's School (how Lord Carlile ever thought the St Benedict's policy was as good as any in the country is still a mystery to me), but it is still short of best practice.

One absolutely key element of best practice is that all allegations of abuse of children by staff or volunteers, must without exception be reported promptly to the LADO. Whenever I look over a school's safeguarding policy, this is always the very first thing I look out for. The Downside policy requires that the school "consult" with the LADO rather than "report". At least it seems to be without the glaring exceptions present in the St Benedict's policy, but there is a distinction to be made between reporting and consulting, and Downside has come down the wrong side of that line.

"The offences for which Richard Nicholas White has been convicted occurred over twenty years ago, when safeguarding procedures were clearly not adequate, something that is a matter of great regret to all of us now associated with Downside."

The problem is that it seems that Fr Nicholas remained a monk at Downside (though he visited other monasteries for a time as well) until he was arrested. His offences were known to the Abbot of the time, and to all his successors, including Aidan Bellenger himself, and none of them thought it appropriate to report the matter to the police, social services or the LADO.

So an obvious question is to ask whether Fr Aidan is aware of alleged abuses committed by any other Downside monks, either past or present, which have not previously been reported to the police or social services. If he does know of any others, then since he has promised to "do everything possible to ensure that it does not happen again in the future" he must immediately contact the police in order to fulfil that promise.

The other point is that by emphasising how long ago the offences occurred he is making himself a hostage to fortune. He's implying that things are different now, and that this sort of thing won't have happened more recently. We shall see.

I would be more convinced by that assurance if I knew that the school had called in outside experts (such as the NSPCC or the Lucy Faithfull Foundation) to review the school's policies and provide additional child protection training to staff. Once a school gets into the habit of turning a blind eye to abuse, it is desperately difficult to change the culture into one of awareness, vigilance and automatic reporting. Just changing the written procedures isn't enough, they have to be zealously implemented.

The school had an inspection from the ISI in December 2010, an inspection of boarding provision from OFSTED at the same time, and a follow-up inspection from ISI to review progress in June 2011. In all three inspections safeguarding was rated inadequate and not meeting statutory requirements. Some of the criticisms are very severe and the shortcomings described extremely basic. So the issue of inadequate safeguarding is not a matter of an historical mistake long since corrected, it is a matter of shortcomings which extend to the present or at least the very recent past.

"In 2010 the police and the safeguarding office of the Clifton Diocese, with the full co-operation of the Abbey, undertook a detailed review of historic cases that involved safeguarding concerns."

It's not really enough that the abbey co-operated with a review of historic cases conducted by somebody else. There ought not to have been anything that needed to be reviewed - the case of Fr Nicholas was known to Fr Aidan, and he did nothing to report it until the police happened across the file when looking into another case.

After Abbot Aidan Bellengers election as Abbot in 2006, Richard Nicholas White continued to live under the same restrictions as during Abbot Richard Yeos period of office (1998-2006), and remained withdrawn from public ministry and any direct contact with children.

In January 2008, Father David Pearce was arrested, having abused while already under restricted ministry at Ealing Abbey. The descriptions of the abuses and grooming techniques are really very similar. The Charity Commission, the Independent Schools Inspectorate, the Schools Minister and Lord Carlile have all severely criticised this policy. And yet, it appears that when Fr David's abuses came to light, a fact which must surely have come to the attention of Fr Aidan, he continued with the policy which had so disastrously failed at Ealing. This must change - there must be a policy henceforth that any monk under restrictions because he is considered a risk to children must not live at the Abbey. As far as I can see, there is no such commitment in the Downside Child Protection Policy.

When Fr Nicholas stopped teaching at the school, the school had a statutory duty to return a Notification to the Teacher Misconduct Section of the Department for Education (or whatever it was called then) outlining the nature of the abuses he had committed.

Also, perhaps inadvertently, Aidan Bellenger has rather dumped is predecessor in it with the statement about restricted ministry. Because it is clear that it was Abbot Richard Yeo who set up the restricted ministry, and by the time Yeo was appointed to the Apostolic Visitation to Ealing, he will have known that one of the major criticisms of Abbot Martin Shipperlee was the fact that precisely the same policy failed at Ealing with respect to Father David Pearce. Knowing that he had operated the same policy at Downside, Yeo should have recused himself from the Visitation at the very start. It shouldn't have taken pressure from Lord Carlile to get him to offer to resign.

This letter from Abbot Aidan Bellenger shows every sign of being from somebody still in deep denial about the scale of abuse at the school he runs. There is every reason to believe that more bad news from and about Downside has yet to appear.

Not just Ealing, Downside as well

2012-01-04T10:28:00.001Z

The BBC website has a story this morning Monk jailed for abusing two boys at Somerset school. Richard David White, a monk at Downside Abbey and a teacher at Downside school, has been jailed for five years for five counts of indecent assault and two of gross indecency with a boy. The BBC report states

The court heard that White was warned about his behaviour after molesting one 12-year-old boy but, instead of being reported to police, the Benedictine abbot of the monastery, which is attached to the school, simply prevented him from teaching younger students.

He went on to indecently assault a second boy - the one he was charged with assaulting - over the course of several months while he was aged 12 and 13.

Later in the article we have the following.

The Abbott for Downside School said: "Our first thoughts are for those who were abused as children.
"Being conscious that the care of children is our paramount concern as educators, we are truly sorry that any child should have been abused at Downside."

He added that White has lived under restrictions since 1998 and has been withdrawn from active ministry.

This is precisely the approach to safeguarding which failed so thoroughly at Ealing in the case of Father David Pearce. The restrictions imposed on White in 1998 would have been applied by the then Abbot of Downside, Father Richard Yeo. Yes, the same person who was appointed to the Cumberlege Commission to make recommendations on effective safeguarding practice in the Catholic Church, and the same person appointed to the Apostolic Visitation to look into the child protection failings at Ealing Abbey.

Lord Carlile suggested that Yeo should resign from the Visitation because of conflicts of interest arising out of his prior connection with Ealing. The case for his resignation is even stronger now, he has operated the same policy of keeping monks at his abbey under restrictions when he knew them to be a danger to children which was so severely criticised by the ISI, the DfE and Lord Carlile at Ealing.

The Daily Mail also has details of the case.

White lured the pupil, who was interested in old books, to the monastery library, which was usually off-limits to students.

He was discovered after other pupils at the independent Catholic School in Stratton-on-the-Fosse near Bath, Somerset saw the boy had extra money to spend at the tuck shop and he admitted how he had come by it.

Astonishingly, the police were not told even when the matter was again reported to the monastic school authorities, and White himself told the principal what he had done.

Instead the former British Army soldier, whom the court heard was repressing his homosexuality at the time, was dismissed from his teaching post and sent to monastic communities across the country over the next 20 years, a move designed to keep him away from children.

After the News of the World ran an article about the scandal, the boy's own family obtained a court injunction to keep him out of any further reports before removing him from the school.

Despite the publicity, no complaint was ever made at the time to the police and White's offending was only brought to light when police investigating another teacher at the school for child pornography offences found a file in school records detailing what he had done and contacted the second victim.

This is why a policy of always reporting abuses to the authorities immediately is so important. White should have been prevented from abusing before he ever got to the victim of the offences for which he was charged.

If you are going to cover up abuses in this way, word will get around about the cover up, and so both monks and lay teachers will see that they are protected if they abuse. You might as well put up a sign at the gate saying "paedophiles welcome here".

This is all of a piece with the various reports into clerical abuse in Ireland. The welfare of the abusing priest is always put ahead of the welfare of the abused child. This has to change.

Richard Yeo resigning from the visitation?

2011-12-15T08:10:00.000Z

The Times yesterday carried a report that Abbot Richard Yeo has offered to resign from his role in the Visitation.

A spokesman for the Diocese of Westminster said yesterday that Father Yeo had offered to resign after a meeting with Lord Carlile. “Father Richard Yeo felt that as he is the Benedictine Congregation’s Abbot he should offer his resignation to the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith (CDF). Father Yeo has not yet received a response from Rome,” he said. “It is for the CDF to accept or decline Father Yeo’s offer to resign. Similarly, the CDF would determine if a replacement were to be needed.”

Lord Carlile said yesterday that Bishop Arnold and Father Yeo had met him in private after the publication of his report to discuss the conclusions he had reached.

“I suggested to Father Yeo that there would be at least a perception of a conflict of interest in taking part in any further Visitation,” Lord Carlile said. “Clearly following the discussion he felt that advice was appropriate and he would step down. It is the right and responsible decision.”

Abbot Richard Yeo should never have been appointed to the Apostolic Visitation in the first place. The conflict of interest is clear and obvious.

As the head of the English Benedictine Congregation and a member of the Cumberlege Commission, he should some years ago have been advising the Abbot of Ealing on safeguarding issues and making sure that the advice was taken. If any advice was given, it clearly wasn't taken. If the visitation is to be thorough and complete, he would have to investigate himself.

Bishop John Arnold, the other Visitor, also has a conflict of interest and should never have been appointed either. His immediate superior, Archbishop Vincent Nichols, has known for a number of years that there were significant problems concerning child sex abuse at Ealing Abbey, and he has done nothing as far as I know. He has said in public that he has no formal authority over Ealing Abbey, but he could at any time have requested an Apostolic Visitation. I did that, and my request was granted. A request initiated by Archbishop Vincent Nichols would have had far more authority than a request from a mere layman. So if the Visitation is to be thorough, it also has to review the inaction of the Diocese of Westminster, and John Arnold would therefore have to investagate the inaction of the diocese led by his own archbishop. That would include the appalling pastoral failing involved in Nichols' letter to "C", replying to C's description of the abuses he suffered at the hands of Pearce.

I am grateful to you for telling me something of your background. I was sorry to read of the harmful experiences you have had, and the continuing effects of these for you and your family. I am sorry that you feel that the Roman Catholic Church has failed your family.

So, no apology for the abuse. Just an expression of regret that C feels the church failed his family. Would Arnold have the nerve to criticise his own archbishop for this or any other failings? I very much doubt it.

You don't get a mess like Ealing Abbey without there being serious management failings at multiple levels. Obviously most of the responsibility has to lie with successive Abbots at Ealing itself, but the abuses could never have gone on for so long had there not been serious failings elsewhere as well. While the Apostolic Visitation is being run by Yeo and Arnold, it will always be suspected that its purpose is to find out as little as possible, lest it further embarrass the Catholic Church.

Carlile Report summary

2011-12-10T19:34:00.002Z

So, now we have been in detail over the Carlile report, it is worth taking a further look at it in the round.

Paragraphs 1 to 8 are background information concerning the school and the circumstances in which the inquiry was commissioned and its report was delayed. Almost all of this information was already in the public domain.

Paragraphs 9 to 14 describe in general terms who he has spoken to, the abuses that have been committed and where the blame for them lies. There general details of the range and extent of abuses at the school is already in the public domain, though many of the individual instances which were disclosed to Carlile no doubt had not been publicly disclosed and Carlile is (quite properly) not disclosing them now. The rather simplistic allocation of blame is obvious, but gives no guidance as to how such abuses can be avoided in future.

Paragraphs 15 to 32 mostly provide information concerning the governance structure of St Benedict's, and for comparison the structures of some other Benedictine schools. The information concerning current structures of governance is already in the public domain, some of it on the school website, some of it in the trust documents and Charity Commission reports. The only significantly new item in this section is Carlile's recommendation in paragraphs 30 and 31 concerning a new structure of governance for the school.

Paragraphs 33 and 34 provide some details concerning who has been convicted of or alleged to have committed abuses. The list is incomplete, Carlile certainly received allegations concerning Father Kevin Horsey in addition to those which he has listed.

Paragraphs 35 and 36 describe a range of failings alleged by the solicitors for a victim, and he says that these would not have occurred under a more modern form of governance. but he isn't specific about how a more modern form of governance would have prevented them.

Paragraphs 37 to 43 largely provide public-domain information concerning the Nolan and Cumberlege reports, and mentions with regret that no governance review of the school was carried out post-Cumberlege.

Paragraphs 44 to 46 talk about reporting arrangements within the school concerning allegations of abuse, but no specific and formal recommendations are made. More importantly, no recommendations are made concerning external reporting of allegations to the statutory authorities.

Paragraphs 47 to 56 describe the recent history of the school in terms of inspections by the ISI, and subsequent correspondence with the DfE and the ISI. In the course of it, Carlile quotes various recommendations made by the ISI (which are already in the public domain in its own reports), but he makes no new recommendations of his own.

Paragraphs 57 to 65 continue to provide details of recommendations from ISI and DfE, particularly concerning the need for monks who have allegedly abused not to remain at the monastery. Carlile endorses the ISI recommendation in this respect but makes no further recommendation.

Paragraphs 66 to 68 summarise briefly diocesan safeguarding arrangements. Carlile approved of the extra layer of protection but considers it to be a desirable addition rather than a replacement for scrutiny by statutory authorities. A mention is also briefly made of the concerns expressed by the Schools Minister concerning the practice of keeping monks under restriction at the monastery.

Paragraphs 69 to 74 summarise the inquiries by the Charity Commission. The report of the two statutory inquiries is already in the public domain, but Carlile does disclose that there was a further compliance review following the allegations against Mr Y.

Paragraphs 75 to 80 again summarise who has been talking to Carlile.and what evidence he has been taking.

Paragraphs 81 to 82 mention a document audit that has been conducted separately to his inquiry, and Carlile endorses the recommendations of the auditor, the ISI et al concerning the importance of proper record keeping.

And paragraphs 83 to 85 are his conclusions, which is basically that all is now well, the school is a wonderful place, safeguarding there is as good as anywhere in the country and that all his recommendations can be implemented by 1st September 2012.

What recommendations? He hasn't made recommendations in the plural, he has made just one recommendation, for a change in the governance structure, and that for reasons I have already described is unlikely by itself to greatly improve safeguarding.

In all the 37 pages and 85 numbered paragraphs of his report (not including the appendices), he has made no other recommendations at all. Most specifically, he has made no recommendations concerning improvements in safeguarding policies and practice. He has made no suggestions for improvements whose purpose is (as he described in the report) "to use the lessons and failures of the past to ensure that such problems are avoided in the future". The vast majority of the report is merely a rehashing of information, including other people's recommendations, which was already in the public domain when he started his work.

Carlile has introduced no new insight which wasn't already known a year ago. If you don't believe me, read the report again carefully for yourself.

The mountain hath groaned and given forth a mouse.

BBC London News

2011-12-09T19:27:00.001Z

There was an interview with Skelton's victim on the BBC London News this evening. Very powerful. It might be on again later this evening at 10.25.

He very clearly described the fear he felt - that he might never get out of Skelton's house alive, that he might never be able to escape, and his huge relief when he got to the doorway.

The trailer for it, though not the main part of the interview, mentioned how even after his mother complained to the school, he was put back into Skelton's class for maths until Skelton left.

The BBC have clearly stated that the school gave Skelton a good reference and sent him on his way, and that he was able to go and abuse elsewhere.

Cleugh was interviewed and he said that if this happened today, they would automatically report it. But remember that until I started raising a stink, the school didn't have such a policy. This is what the ISI said when they finally noticed that there was a problem.

At the time of the follow-up inspections, the school did not have a fully established policy for reporting directly to the Department for Education and Skills (later the Department for Children, Schools and Families, and currently the Department for Education) or to the Independent Safeguarding Authority, responsible for such referrals since 20 January 2009.

That state of affairs was in place under the current Abbot and the current headmaster. And they had the effrontery to tell Lord Carlile that the deficiency of the policy that the ISI had found "was a narrow one about wording rather than substance" (para 50 of the Carlile report).

And as I've noted already, the school's policy doesn't commit to automatic reporting. Paragraph 30(c) contains a glaring exception.And even the wording of the relevant part of the overall commitment (para 5(i) of the policy) says it will "deal appropriately" with allegations and will be "consulting with" the LADO. Not good enough. The London Child Protection Procedures (para 15.2.1) are perfectly clear and unequivocal. "The employer must inform the local authority designated officer (LADO) immediately an allegation is made."

UPDATE: This edition of BBC London news is now available on iPlayer.

Carlile Report analysis - 14

2011-12-09T17:05:00.000Z

The next section is titled "Representations by individuals, and internet activity" and covers paragraphs 75-80. It briefly describes the different categories of input he received. The first was descriptions of abuse from victims, the second was representations from people supportive of the Abbey and the school. The third part of what Carlile took into account was this blog and the comments received on it.

An additional and significant part of the material I have studied has been the energetic online blog organised and studiously run by Mr Jonathan West. I met Mr West and colleagues during my Inquiry. I have not been immune from criticism in the blog. That notwithstanding, I have found its volume and content broadly helpful. A good deal of the information on it is anonymous, much is not to an evidence standard, and some of the language used fairly extravagant. Nevertheless the blog has been most helpful in directing individuals towards me, and enabling me to understand the behaviour complained of, and the cynicism and anger understandably felt by many about the events of the past.

I'm afraid the criticism has had to continue to some degree because I have found the report to be rather disappointing in the lack of any recommendations concerning safeguarding, which was supposed to be the whole point of the exercise.

The penultimate section of the report (not including the appendices) is titled "Document Keeping". In it Carlile states what ought to be obvious, that effective and secure recording of incidents and actions is vitally important. Perfectly true.

The final section of the report describes Carlile's conclusions. Worth repeating in full.

83. I am grateful for the information and co-operation I have been given for the purposes of my Inquiry. Nobody has obstructed me, and most of my interlocutors have striven to provide assistance.

84. I believe that St Benedict’s School, Ealing, is an excellent place for boys and girls to be educated in safety today and for the future. No school is perfect, and ‘never’ is a dangerous word and a hostage to fortune. However, if those responsible for the School adopt the advice offered in this Report, and advice from the agencies referred to above, I consider that St Benedict students will be as well safeguarded as anywhere else in the country, without in any way losing the Benedictine connection and ethos.

85. I believe that all recommendations in this report, especially the crucial advice about governance, can be implemented by the 1st September 2012 at the latest.

I'm not so sure about the truth of paragraph 83. Certainly I have no doubt that Carlile believes it to be true, but if stuff has been hidden from him he would not necessarily be in a position to know at the time of writing the report. I think at the very least the issue of whether Chillman is or chould be living at the Abbey is a debateable point. Given that Chillman merits two lines to himself in the table in paragraph 33, and had to resign as a trustee in 2010, if he is not to be required to live away from the Abbey I would have expected Carlile to say so and say why.

As for paragraph 84, Carlile is even less of an educationalist than he is a safeguarding expert, and he is entirely unqualified to offer such an encomium. Anyway, it is the Benedictine ethos which the ISI criticised as having taken precedence over the safety of the children, a criticism Carlile has quoted in his report.

Stephen Skelton

2011-12-08T20:57:00.000Z

And now there's another.

Stephen Skelton (Mr. X in the Carlile Report) was convicted today in Isleworth Crown Court of two indecent assaults against boys. He was sentenced to six-months jail suspended for two years. He was required to sign the Sex Offenders’ Register and banned from unsupervised contact with children under 16.

His first victim in 1983 was an 11-year-old boy, a pupil of St Benedict's where Skelton was teaching at the time. The abuse occurred during maths tuition at Skelton's house. The boy's mother reported her concerns to the school and attended a meeting with Abbot Francis Rossiter and Father Stanislaus Hobbs.

Though she was in no position to know it at the time, she could hardly have chosen two worse people to voice her concerns to. Rossiter presided over the abbey and the school at a time when we now know from the Carlile Report and other sources that there was a whole shoal of abusers present at the school - Father David Pearce, Father (later Abbot) Laurence Soper, John Maestri, Father Anthony Gee, Father Gregory Chillman, and of course Father Stanislaus Hobbs, present at the meeting with the mother!

Rossiter and Hobbs promised to sort things out. The way they did this was to send Skelton quietly on his way. He was given a reference and went on to work at three more schools, finishing his career at West Hill Park, Tichfield, Hampshire.

Ten years after this first assault, when Skelton was teaching at West Hill Park, he assaulted another boy, aged 10, again during a private lesson at his home. His victim had been playing on Skelton’s computer and with a train set before being attacked.

When the St Benedict's pupil came forward to the police, they contacted school to make enquiries about Skelton, but found that the school had kept no records of Skelton’s employment.

Let us make something very clear here. St Benedict's School broke the law in giving Skelton a reference which made no mention of the reason he was sacked, and in failing to make a Notification to the Department of Education. Even in 1983, it was a legal requirement to send a notification when a school got rid of a member of staff in circumstances where the school thought him unsuitable to work with children.

Had the school made the report they were legally obliged to at the time, there would not have been the slightest possibility of Skelton ever getting another teaching job elsewhere. The notification almost certainly would have resulted in Skelton being placed on List 99, which would have barred him from any other job working with children, provided other employers actually carried out the List 99 checks they were obliged to. Abbot Francis Rossiter is therefore wholly responsible for Skelton continuing to occupy positions of trust which gave him further opportunities to abuse.

In addition, this shows the police's normal approach to these matters - they do contact the school where an alleged abuser worked at the time as part of their enquiries. It is inconceivable that they did not also do this in the course of the investigations that resulted in John Maestri's three convictions in 2003, 2005 and 2008. And yet Mr Cleugh, the present headmaster, has claimed he was unaware of them and so could not mention them to the inspectors.

Cover-up? What cover-up? I'm afraid that line will no longer wash. There was a cover-up, and it clearly extends to include the current management of the school.

After the hearing, Detective Constable Christine Hobson said “Skelton has worked for many schools in and around Hertfordshire, Bedfordshire, Berkshire and Hampshire and we would encourage any similar victims of such crimes to make contact with police. They will be treated with respect and their allegations will be taken seriously.”

With two indecent assaults 10 years apart at different schools, each with an identical method, there is every reason to think that there may be other victims of Skelton who haven't yet come forward, either at St Benedict's School or other schools where he taught. If you were abused by him, I would like to reinforce the plea from the police - please go and tell them what happened to you.

Carlile Report analysis - 13

2011-12-08T17:16:00.001Z

The next section of the report, paragraphs 69-74, is titled "The Charity Commission", and looks into the various enquires that have been carried out by the Charity Commission into the school. Of the first inquiry Carlile reports the following.

The findings were favourable, particularly to the effect that the charity was able to demonstrate that its child protection policies had been reviewed by the appropriate authorities and were accurate.

It's important to understand what this means. The Charity Commission has no brief to investigate safeguarding. In an exchange of correspondence I have had with the Charity Commission, they stated the following in this specific context.

Whilst the Commission will often request trustees to provide copies of child protection policies and evidence that appropriate checks (such as CRB) have been conducted where required, the Commission does not generally comment on the adequacy of these policies as this is more appropriate for other agencies, such as Ofsted.

So, in essence, the Charity Commission checks that there is a document labelled "Child Protection Policy". They don't look inside to see if it is any good, they rely on other agencies to do that for them. In the case of St Benedict's, they were relying on the ISI. All they looked for was evidence that the school had a policy and that it had passed the last ISI inspection.

So, you can't rely on the Charity Commission ensuring that the child protection policy is either well-written or effectively implemented, since they in turn rely on others to police that. That's not wrong, after all, resources are limited and there is every justification for avoiding an overlap of government functions.

The Charity Commission's second inquiry was a different matter. As Carlile states

The Commission found that, despite assurances, the Charity had failed to implement restrictions placed on the individual [Pearce] whilst on its premises. The Commission was ‘extremely critical’ in this regard. One of the terms of the individual’s continued role in the Charity was that he was to have no access to children and young people on the Charity’s premises: the trustees had failed to ensure this was the case. However, they concluded that the trustees had taken positive steps to protect the reputation of the Charity; and had confirmed publicly that an independent review would be carried out to ensure that the situation could not reoccur.

So again, this was not a general review of child protection, but rather the narrow issue of how it was that the charity failed to keep Pearce away from children despite specific assurances on that point. The "positive steps" taken were to ensure that Pearce lived away from the Abbey during the period between his arrest and his trial. No attempt was made by the Charity Commission to conduct a more general review of safeguarding, again this was left to others.

Carlile reports that the Charity Commission completed a further regulatory compliance case into the allegations against "Mr Y". Carlile states that in the opinion of the Charity Commission:

The trustees were held to have complied fully with their obligations under the Commission’s serious Incident Reporting guidance, and had also complied with the recommendations made by the ISI with regard to safeguarding policy. They were satisfied that the trustees fully understood the requirements to have or put in place all the necessary controls to mitigate the risks the Charity’s beneficiaries, assets and reputation.

So, again, the Charity Commission are depending on the ISI. But there is a slightly odd wording here "They were satisfied that the trustees fully understood the requirements..." That doesn't actually say that the Charity Commission was satisfied that the necessary controls were in place, just that the trustees understood the need for them. So has the Charity Commission checked whether the necessary controls have actually been put in place? I will try to find out.

Carlile Report analysis - 12

2011-12-07T12:43:00.000Z

The next section is titled "Diocesan and other activity" and contains paragraphs 66-68.

66. There are arrangements in place for child protection arrangements to be scrutinised and monitored, on a voluntary basis on both sides, by the Archdiocese of Westminster. The Archdiocese has its own system in place, and I had the advantage of meeting the experienced person currently fulfilling this function.

In the whole of this business, the diocesan safeguarding adviser Peter Turner is the only person associated with the church who in my view emerges with any credit. He advised the Abbot back in 2004 that Pearce should be considered a risk to children and should placed under restrictions. He tried to arrange a meeting last year between me and the Abbot to try and get my concerns addressed, but which the Abbot refused to attend. He's actually tried to do something. Unfortunately, Ealing Abbey's status as an independent Benedictine monastery has meant that the Abbot could and did ignore his advice, and there was nothing that he could do about that.

67. Whilst I favour this additional strand of child protection, and the interest of the Church given past events, in my view this should be considered as a desirable addition to the protection strategy rather than in any way substituting for the scrutiny of the statutory and local authority bodies. The same applies to any formal Visitation ordered by the Church, in which it is essential that there should be no conflicts of interest arising from past contact with St Benedict’s by any Visitor.

The first part of this is entirely sensible. The more checks and balances there are, the less chance there is of a problem spreading unhindered until it becomes a catastrophe on the scale of St Benedict's. Some degree of effective diocesan oversight of the safeguarding arrangements at St. Benedict's and all catholic schools would be a good idea.

There is a very simple and effective mechanism by which this could be done. All faith schools are required by law to undergo what are known as "Section 48" inspections to ensure that religious education and the overall ethos of the school are in accordance with the sponsoring religion. For catholic schools within the diocese, these inspections are carried out by a team of inspectors appointed by the diocese. It would be a straightforward matter for the diocese to establish a policy that effective implementation of good safeguarding procedures shall be considered to be part of the ethos of the church, and accordingly include a review of safeguarding in the Section 48 inspections, and have its inspectors trained accordingly.

If there is some legal difficulty with this in terms of this being considered properly within the scope of a Section 48 inspection, then the safeguarding aspects can be made the subject of an entirely separate and unofficial inspection which happens to be carried out at during the same visit and by the same inspector, but with a separate report being provided. It being a church inspection rather than a statutory inspection, it would be perfectly appropriate for the standards applied to be higher than the statutory minimum.

I also happen to agree with the last part of Carlile's paragraph, about the need for those conducting the Apostolic Visitation to have no prior connection with the abbey. But is a bit rich coming from Carlile, given the prior connections of Tony Nelson who appointed him to this task.

68. The Department for Education, to Ministerial level, has been following carefully the progress of the ISI inspections. I have reviewed the correspondence. The Minister of State for Schools in July 2010 sought reassurance that all the recommendations the ISI had made would be implemented promptly. This has been done. The Minister was particularly concerned about the arrangements whereby monks, after conviction or being placed on List 99, had continued to live at the Abbey, even under restrictions imposed by the Abbey in consultation with the Archdiocese of Westminster. These arrangements were described as ‘ineffective’ (and the practice no longer continues).

But the practice did continue and still does continue! At the time of writing, Father Gregory Chillman is still listed as a monk resident at Ealing Abbey.

Carlile Report analysis - 11

2011-12-06T20:50:00.001Z

Finishing off the "Convicted and listed Monks " section.

63. The revised Child Protection and Safeguarding Policy determined in November 2011 is contained in Appendix 1 below. It is the result of extensive advice and consideration. It will require amendment to take into account any future changes in the governance of the school in accordance with the recommendations set out above. It should be kept continuously under review by the governing body of the school, and should be a specific agenda item, with adequate time for discussion at least annually at meetings of the governing body, and of the trustees of the Abbey. Every effort, including through external consultation, should be made to ensure that it remains an example of best practice at all times.

But Carlile hasn't in the report made any recommendations at all that would cause the policy to become an example of best practice in the first place! All he has done is quote large chunks of the ISI Supplementary Report. We know what is in the supplementary report, we've known for nearly a year and a half, and we've known since considerably before Carlile took up his commission. The ISI has no authority to insist on anything more than statutory minimums of safeguarding arrangements. If this report was going to achieve what any reasonable person would have expected of it, there would have been specific recommendations for changes in the wording. There would have been reference to models of good practice at other schools, and if appropriate the wholesale importation of the policies of other schools which do form a model of excellence.

And if Carlile felt that he didn't have the knowledge end expertise to make such recommendations on the basis of his own knowledge, then he could and should have consulted with expert organisations such as the NSPCC or the Lucy Faithfull Foundation, or even with expert individuals such as Dr Kevin McCoy, who was offered to him.

64. It will be noted that the headline items in the new Safeguarding Policy are:
1) Commitment to an up to date and effective policy.
2) Ensuring that only appropriate and checked individuals work in the school.
3) A proper referral arrangement with the Independent Safeguarding Authority [ISA].
4) Effective inter-agency procedures under the Ealing Safeguarding Children's Board processes.
5) Understanding the indicators of abuse
6) Acting effectively upon suspicion of abuse.
7) Following relevant guidelines and policies whether statutory or apparent best practice.
8) Dealing correctly with complaints.
9) Training at all levels including governance.
10) Designation of staff in the school to deal with abuse issues.
11) Procedures for the obtaining, retention and use of evidence.
12) Monitoring.
13) Adherence to the matter described in paragraph 59 above.

Where has this list come from? Item 1 is a motherhood and apple pie statement, it tells us nothing about what actually needs to go into the policy.. Item 2 is a statutory requirement anyway. Item 3 is a statutory requirement. But it is noticeable that he only is talking about statutory referrals to the ISI - which is a process which only kicks in when a member of staff or governor leaves or resigns. The far more important issue of referring all allegations immediately to the LADO is not stated!

Item 4 is not within the school's power to ensure. Item 5 is fine, but item 6 is really disappointing. "Acting effectively upon suspicion of abuse" again tells us nothing about what action this should consist of. Item 7 is woolly - which guidelines? Who decides whether they are relevant?

Item 8 - who is to decide the "correct" way of dealing with complaints? What are the criteria for correctness? Item 9 is fine, but doesn't describe what sorts of training is appropriate, to what level of detail. It is obvious that different roles within the school require different levels of training - obviously the designated teacher requires more training than other staff. But we have nothing about this.

Item 10 is fine, though not directly related to safeguarding, item 11 is ok, item 12 is woolly - monitoring of what by whom? And finally item 13 is merely a reference back to the requirements mentioned by the ISI a year and a half ago.

Carlile has talked of these being "headline items". This isn't quite the same as him saying that he has ensured that the necessary changes have been made to implement a policy that is a model of excellence, or even that he has ensured that these items are effectively implemented within the policy itself.

65. The new Safeguarding Policy of course is that of the school, not of the Abbey. The governors of the school will have to exercise the Policy as much in relation to any input to the school from the Abbey as with any external body. In other words, for safeguarding purposes the Abbey community will have no special status. Certainly this can be seen as further evidence of a distinct change of relationship between School and Abbey. This is an inevitable consequence of the wrongs of the past, and of procedures that were less than effective. The three separate bodies the School, the Parish and the monastic community should all have safeguarding policies and procedures that are fit for purpose. This would ensure that any child, not necessary students or parishioners, would be protected if they engaged in any way with those three bodies.

The idea that in safeguarding terms the monks should have no special status is something which should have been obvious all along. The key point about safeguarding is that nobody should be considered to be in a position where they are above suspicion. Whoever are the governors, they have to be regarded as not being above suspicion. Just changing who is in charge doesn't affect that fact that they might just possibly have got themselves into a position of trust so that they can abuse unhindered. It is not just monks who have done that.

As for the idea that the School, the Parish and the monastic community should all have their own safeguarding policies, that was a recommendation of the diocesan safeguarding officer for the diocese of Arundel and Brighton, who carried out another "independent inquiry" the better part of two years ago.

We do seem to be awfully short of specific recommendations from Carlile in terms of the school's safeguarding policy.

Carlile Report analysis - 10

2011-12-06T01:58:00.002Z

The next section, paragraphs 57 to 65, is titled "Convicted and Listed Monks". I'll take the first two paragraphs together.

57. There remained continuing concerns about what should happen to monks who had been convicted, banned (named in List 99) so that they should not work with children, or otherwise should not have any access to children in the school. This was a concern of mine from the earliest stages of my Inquiry. I have discussed the issue with the Abbot, who was alert to the inevitability of a change from previous practice. I recognise that the sense of responsibility felt by the Community for its Brothers, even those who have strayed and sinned heinously, is considerable.

58. I am pleased to say that the Abbot has accepted that another dwelling has to be found for any member of the monastic community falling within the categories described, and that none is at the Abbey now. This must continue as a permanent policy.

Unfortunately, at the time he wrote the report, the first sentence of paragraph 58 wasn't true. And moreover, the table following paragraph 33 demonstrated that it wasn't true. The table listed Father Gregory Chillman, and gave the outcome of one of the incidents involving him as "Deemed inappropriate behaviour: restrictions imposed". At the time of writing the report, Chillman was still living at the monastery. According to the Clergy page of the parish website, at the time of writing this blog, Chillman is still listed as being resident at the abbey.

It could be argued that Chillman, has not been placed on List 99 as Hobbs has, and has not been convicted of anything (unlike Pearce, who will not be permitted to return to the Abbey on completion of his sentence), and therefore he should not be required to move.

This is a line of argument that needs to be taken seriously. It is wrong, but the reasons for it are fairly subtle.

At the time Pearce committed his last offence, he had not been placed on List 99, and he had not been convicted of anything. In other words, his status was exactly as Chillman's is now - there had been substantiated allegations but no action by the secular authorities. The Abbot had knowledge concerning the risk that Pearce posed to children which was not known to the secular authorities.

There are two lessons to be learned from this. The first is that terrible mistakes are liable to occur if the secular authorities are not promptly and fully informed of all allegations, because they have the knowledge and training to make a proper evaluation and the school staff do not. The second is that a risk analysis and the decisions flowing from it mustn't depend solely on convictions. A person can have been convicted of no crime, not even have a crime alleged against him, and get have shown behaviour which indicates he is a danger to children.

It is now accepted by the Abbot that keeping Pearce at the abbey was a mistake, one which he has gone round apologising to all and sundry for.

So why did he repeat the mistake with Hobbs and Chillman?

Why did he fight the DfE when they demanded Hobbs' removal?

Why did Chillman remain at the abbey even after the Abbot gave assurances to Carlile that no monks falling into the categories described in paragraph 57 remained at the Abbey? Chillman clearly did fall into the category and Carlile knew he did. Both Carlile and Cleugh looked extremely embarrassed at the press conference when they were asked where Chillman is presently living.

59. At the time of the inspection visit on 30 April 2010, the school’s safeguarding policy was found to cover most of the requirements which are the duties of governors of independent schools. However, the school’s written policy for dealing with allegations and suspicions of abuse was focused on investigation by the school rather than speedy referral to outside agencies. As a result, under Regulation 3.(2)(b) of the Independent School Standards Regulations, the school was required to word the policy so that it is clear that in the case of a disclosure or suspicion of abuse:

(i) the investigations are to be carried out by the local safeguarding children board or in case of doubt the advice of such an agency is to be sought;
(ii) the child’s interests are paramount;
(iii) referrals are made not only where a case is considered by the school to be serious and criminal;
(iv) no case of substance is investigated and dealt with under the school’s internal procedures.

The school was also advised that it must include in the policy the statutory guidance to be found in Safeguarding Children and Safer Recruitment in Education; and the recently issued guidance on reporting to be found at www.education.gov.uk/aboutdfe/statutory/g0076914/dealing-with-allegations-of-abuse-against-teachers-and-other-staff (7 September 2011) and any successor guidance.

The version of the policy included in the appendix to the Carlile report does not include the statutory guidance referred to in the last paragraph above. It makes reference to the document from time to time. It does not incorporate the guidance.

Carlile is incorporating another large chunk of the ISI supplementary report as if this was the last word on making the school's child protection policy a model of excellence. The ISI has no power to insist on a model of excellence, all it has is the power to insist that the school meets national minimum standards. And those standards are pretty low. So for Carlile to keep quoting chunks of the ISI report and not go beyond them to describe what needs to be done in addition to ensure that the policy is a model of excellence is a clear abrogation of the responsibility he took on when he agreed to conduct the inquiry, and a failure against the standard he himself set to "use the lessons and failures of the past to ensure that such problems are avoided in the future".

60. Soon after the inspection visits, the school posted on its website a fully compliant version of its safeguarding policy, and it undertook that from September 2010 it would include examples of ways in which staff, volunteers and members of the religious community are guided to help avoid the possibility of allegations in the future.

There is only one place that Carlile could have got this information - from the school itself. It is simply not true, though Cleugh claimed it to be true at the Parental Forum in September 2010. The May 2010 version of the child protection policy was anything but compliant. I provided Carlile with a detailed analysis of its shortcomings. I also provided him with a copy of my correspondence with the DfE in which the DfE assured me that the May 2010 version of the policy was not regarded by them as the final complaint version, and that they were continuing to work with the school in order to ensure that a compliant policy was put in place. Carlile gives every appearance of just not knowing what he is talking about here, and not even being aware of the extent of his ignorance.

In the February 2011 Headmaster's Newsletter, it was claimed that the school has now fully implemented the recommendations of the ISI report. So clearly the school hadn't done that in the May 2010 version, and yet here is Carlile saying they had. This just looks incompetent - it isn't even correct against easily checkable public information, let alone the private conversations he supposedly has had with the DfE and ISI.

61. Under Standard 4C of the Independent School Standards Regulations, the school was required to ensure that the dates of checks are included in the single central register of appointments. This action too has been taken.

This is very basic stuff, it is first level safer recruitment practice. For a school to have a central register of appointments that is incomplete in any way is really gross negligence and in fact a breach of the law. There's not that much safeguarding law which applied to independent schools, but properly maintaining the central register of appointments is one of the few statutory requirements. This is one of the things the ISI insisted on, and it had to be and was done more or less immediately. For Carlile to be mentioning it a year later looks to me to be claiming credit for insisting on something which had been done before he ever started work.

62. The ISI recommended that enhanced emphasis be placed on safeguarding, and that the following precautionary action be taken where possible:

1.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.
2.Follow the advice given to render the safeguarding policy a model of excellence in its wording, implementation and review.
3.Ensure that referrals are always made to the Independent Safeguarding Authority when appropriate. For historical cases, ensure that all relevant information is passed to the Independent Safeguarding Authority.
4.Give greater emphasis to safeguarding in the school personal, social, health and citizenship (PSHCE) programme and reflect this in the school improvement plan.
5.Emphasise awareness raising and training in safeguarding across the whole community of school, Abbey and parish, with formal contact between the child protection officers.

Again, all Carlile is doing is quoting verbatim yet another paragraph out of the ISI Supplementary Report. This is all he has done with regard to the safeguarding policy - quote bits out of the ISI supplementary report.

Carlile has no recommendations concerning safeguarding policies beyond quoting parts of the ISI report which was published some months before he even started his work, and the implementation of which is being monitored anyway by the ISI and DfE. Goodness only knows how much money Carlile has charged for this report, but if they were expecting an expert view with substantive recommendations for future improvements in safeguarding policy and practice, they didn't get their money's worth. Since the school appears to be pretty happy with the report, perhaps that isn't what they were looking for.

Carlile Report analysis - 9

2011-12-02T22:24:00.000Z

Now for the other half of the "Events leading to the new Child Protection Policy" section. This is the next paragraph.

52. The ISI described the following points relating to each of the six individuals. These coincide with the cases referred to in the table contained in paragraph 33 above.

(i) Legal action had been initiated in connection with a previous member of the religious community.

(ii) A monk who had taught in the school a long time ago had recently come under investigation by social services. At the time of the follow-up visits he was living in the monastery under a restrictive covenant barring him from contact with children.

(iii) A similar covenant applied to another monk, also currently residing in the monastery. He had been acquitted of child abuse in 2007.

(iv) A monk was in custody following his conviction in October 2009 on charges spanning many years. Following a defeat in an earlier civil case, he was subject to a restrictive covenant, but subsequent to this he engaged in improper conduct with a pupil of the school who was doing work in the monastery. A review of his case was conducted by the safeguarding officer of the Diocese of Arundel and Brighton and an independent social work consultant.

(v) A previous lay teacher, for many years no longer associated with the school, the Abbey and the monastery, was most recently tried and convicted in 2008.

(vi) The case of a monk, now for a long time living abroad, had not been pursued.

This is simply a repeat of what the ISI said in its supplementary report. Since Carlile has said that the cases listed here match those of the table in paragraph 33, we can deduce that case (i) is Anthony Gee, or Father Anthony Gee as he was when he was headmaster of the school. I had long suspected that (i) was Gee, but hadn't until now had sufficient confirmation to be able to say so.

The dates involved here are very interesting. According to the table in paragraph 33, the first civil claim was made against Gee in March 2010. But in July 2011, Gee appeared as a witness for the defence in the trial of Pearce and Maestri. He denied ever having heard any complaints about either of them while he was headmaster, and said that he most certainly would have acted had he received any such complaints. And yet Maestri, according to the evidence he gave during the same trial, left the school in 1984 as a result of complaints about abuses he had committed. Gee remained headmaster until 1985. It really does stretch credulity that Gee didn't know the true reason for Maestri's departure. Neither this discrepancy over dates nor the fact that civil action has been taken against the school concerning alleged abuses by Gee were raised by the prosecution at the trial, possibly because they didn't have any details about Gee until a few minutes before he gave evidence.

Pearce's defending solicitor was the school solicitor, Mr Anthony Nelson, who also commissioned Lord Carlile to conduct this enquiry. I made Carlile aware of the issue concerning Gee's testimony at the trial. He thanked me for it but advised that he would not be able to suggest in his report that the verdict was wrong. However, he seems not to have thought this issue worth including in the report at all.

We already know that case (ii) is Chillman and case (iii) is Hobbs. Case (iv) is Pearce. At the time, the ISI didn't know the circumstances in which the safeguarding officer of the Diocese of Arundel and Brighton conducted his review, but I have since found out. In The original "independent review" at Ealing Abbey and St. Benedict's School, I described how he had been comprehensively misled by the Abbot. This information was also passed to Lord Carlile, but he seems not to have made anything of it, even though, when I met him, I specifically emphasised the point, and he responded by saying "forewarned is forearmed."

Case (v) is Maestri, and case (vi) is Soper. Case (vi) and Soper himself are most definitely being pursued now!

53. The reporting of allegations was subject to criticism by the ISI. Some of the allegations had been referred to social services by the school following disclosure by a pupil. The school’s safeguarding records since 2003 did not mention any other report to social services in connection with concerns related to staff, volunteers, trustees or monks. All had been family or other matters. Safeguarding contacts had also been maintained with the Westminster Diocesan Safeguarding Commission. The Abbot had made statements regarding the monks in 2004 and 2006, and each headmaster wrote accordingly to parents on both occasions.

This is also factually incorrect. It is untrue to say that "some of the allegations have been referred to social services" That describes a plurality that just doesn't exist in the context. The ISI made is perfectly clear that just one allegation concerning a monk or member of staff had been forwarded to social services, the incident which resulted in Pearce's arrest.

The ISI did not go back further than 2003. Neither in this context has Carlile. Since we know abuses that occurred back into the 1940s, it is rather disappointing that Carlile hasn't troubled to mention in his report how previous allegations were addressed by the school. A description of the procedures followed or not followed would not include any of the salacious physical details of the allegations which Carlile quite rightly decided should not be published.

54. At the time of the follow-up inspections, the school did not have a fully established policy for reporting directly to the Department for Education (as it is now called) or to the Independent Safeguarding Authority, responsible for such referrals since 20 January 2009. Since the follow-up inspections this situation has changed, in that the advisability of making such referrals is now clearly understood even when there may not be a strict legal obligation to do so; and an historical referral was made in May 2010.

This is where the report becomes a bit of a car crash. Carlile is again quoting verbatim a paragraph from the ISI supplementary report. But there is nothing here which indicates that he realises that there are two separate kinds of "referral", which have two different kinds of legal status. The ISI did a very poor job in writing this paragraph in the first place.

Before I get into a description of the two kinds of referral, it's worth noting that this paragraph makes it clear that the deficiency in the school's child protection policy mentioned in paragraph 50 isn't "a narrow one about wording rather than substance". Having no established policy to make referrals the school is legally obliged to make is not a narrow matter of wording.

Let's now address the two kinds of referral, starting with the type for which there is a legal obligation. If a member of staff, volunteer, governor or trustee leaves the school, and the school considers that there is a question as to whether the person is suitable to work with children, then the school must report this (make a referral) to the Independent Safeguarding Authority (ISA) within a month of that person's departure. It doesn't matter whether the person resigns, retires or is sacked. It doesn't matter whether the stated reason for the departure involves the concerns. If the school has concerns, it must refer the matter.

Since 2009, the law has required referrals to be made to the ISA. Before that, they were called "notifications" and they were made instead to the Teacher Misconduct Section of the Department for Education (or whichever other name the department has had down the years).

Until the ISI did their extra visit, the school had repeatedly failed to make these notifications or referrals. The DfE is completely toothless, and seems not to prosecute as a matter of policy. So while the law exists, in practice is is not enforced.

The other kind of referral is to report an allegation or incident of abuse to Social Services (specifically to the Local Authority Designated Officer for child protection, or LADO for short), when the allegation first comes to light. Unbelievably, there is no statutory obligation for a school to make such referrals, the recommendation to make these referrals is only in Statutory guidance. So, a school's child protection policy can be very iffy about reporting abuse, and still it can be "acceptable to the Department for Education and the Independent Schools Inspectorate", as paragraph 47 of the report describes.

By just quoting this paragraph and not offering any commentary, Carlile gives no indication that he has understood the distinction between the two kinds of referral. He might understand it, but we can't tell from what he's included in the report. But as I've described before, automatic reporting of all allegations to the LADO is a vital part of an effective child protection policy for school, particularly a policy which claims to be a model of excellence. But the version of the policy included in the Carlile report does not commit to this.

55. The ISI has also considered the nature of the relationship between the school and the monastic community. In addition to the use of restrictive covenants, the trustees had taken other steps to balance their responsibilities for monks and pupils. A lay person on the Board of School Advisors was appointed as the child protection ‘governor’ for 2009 to 2010, and her responsibility for safeguarding has been assumed subsequently by an advisor who has previously carried out work as a schools inspector. Since June 2009 the Board of Advisors and the trustees have undergone child protection training.

What? The "trustees had taken other steps to balance their responsibilities for monks and pupils"???? Whatever happened to the principle that "the child’s interests are paramount", which was stated as a regulatory requirement in the ISI supplementary report? In the event of there being conflicting responsibilities towards the monks and the pupils, the pupils simply have to come first. There's no "balance" that is appropriate there. And "the use of restrictive covenants" was specifically criticised by the ISI, a criticism which Carlile himself in his report says was echoed in the DfE right up to ministerial level.

56. The ISI added:

On the other hand, the school had not made a necessary referral (re. Father Pearce) directly to the appropriate authorities and the use of restrictive conditions is not altogether convincing, since the restrictions were not adequate in the case of [Father Pearce] and the failure to implement them occasioned serious criticism in the Charity Commission report of 15 December 2009. Shortcomings were also apparent in the school’s safeguarding policy and in the single central register of appointments. An obvious safeguarding emphasis is not included in the school improvement action plan 2009 to 2010 or in the programme for personal, social, health and citizenship education (PSHCE).

Carlile has quoted another paragraph from the ISI supplementary report, but again has provided no commentary. I suppose it's a cheap and easy way of filling out the report and making it look nice and thick and impressive, but there's again no sign that he understand the implications of what the ISI has written. He seems to have subcontracted the key aspect of his report, the procedures necessary to prevent a recurrence of abuse, out to the DfE and the ISI. That's the ISI who found nothing wrong with the school in November 2009, and the DfE who have such confidence in the ISI that they have sponsored legislation that will give the ISI responsibility for carrying out welfare inspections of independent boarding schools. Carlile's confidence would be touching if it weren't so disastrously misplaced.

Many of the shortcomings in the school's child protection policy that existed at the time Carlile first started work in 2010 remain, but he has shown so sign of having been able to identify them. Indeed, in his article in the Catholic Herald last month, he goes so far as to confidently state that the current policy "is as good as any in the country". Piffle. Quite simply he is wrong.

It's a pity, because we know he was offered the services of an expert in the field, and it appears that the decision was made not to use the expert, apparently on grounds of cost. Had Dr Kevin McCoy been involved, the report might have read somewhat differently.

Carlile Report analysis - 8

2011-12-01T20:48:00.001Z

The next section is quite long (10 paragraphs) and is titled "Events leading to the new Child Protection Policy". It deals with matters that go to the heart of the child abuse issue, and so I'm going break this section up into 2 articles, and in each one I will quote each individual paragraph and comment on it.

47. The comments in the previous paragraph must be set alongside the school’s Child Protection and Safeguarding Policy. This has been through several changes, and four recent drafts. The result is the version, which is now applicable and is reproduced in Annex 1 to this Report. I am informed that this is a version now acceptable to the Department for Education and the Independent Schools Inspectorate [ISI].

The fact that it is "acceptable to the Department for Education and the Independent Schools Inspectorate" means nothing more than that it meets the statutory minimum standards. Since these do not even require automatic reporting of all allegations of abuse, the bar is set pretty low. The reporting of all allegations is a mere recommendation included in the DfE's Statutory Guidance. "Statutory Guidance" of course is an oxymoron. If it's just guidance, it's not statutory, and schools can and do ignore it.

48. There has been repeated contact with the Department for Education, the Charity Commission, and the ISI. The ISI and OFSTED have been taking a close interest in Benedictine schools, and in particular have looked at governance and reporting issues at St Benedict’s sister school Downside. I have held meetings with the ISI and the Department for Education concerning this Report. The ISI inspected St Benedict’s in November 2009, with follow-up visits in April and May 2010, and further reports. Separate reports were prepared for the senior school and the junior school respectively. The November 2009 inspection was by a team of 10 inspectors with 2 reporting inspectors. They judged the School to be fully compliant with statutory requirements.

This is why you can't rely on the ISI or DfE for anything. The problems at St. Benedict's have been going on for years and years. Even if we set aside the question of whether Mr. Cleugh misled the inspectors by withholding key information from them, the inspectors still had the school's child protection policy available to them, and they completely failed to notice that there was anything wrong with it. So any statement from either the DfE or the ISI to the effect that the school's child protection policy meets requirements is not in the least bit impressive in terms of assuring that the school actually has a good policy. Carlile should know this, but it would seem that he doesn't.

49. The context of the follow-up visits was as follows. As a result of information provided by a member of the public, further work was conducted after the inspection of the school in November 2009 and after the publication of the senior and junior school reports. The information referred the inspectorate to public records of a total of six prosecutions or civil actions raised in connection with the Abbey and the school. At the time of the inspection, a number of these cases had not been brought to the attention of the inspectorate either by safeguarding agencies or by the school (at this the time of 2009 Inspection school had failed to make one referral, concerning Father Pearce in 2004). The follow-up report was prepared to update the findings in relation to those and related matters. At the time of the follow-up inspection, there were no allegations against current staff or governors at the school.

There are a number of things wrong with this statement. Factually wrong.

"at this the time of 2009 Inspection school had failed to make one referral, concerning Father Pearce in 2004"
Actually, at the time of the 2009 inspection, the following events had occurred at the school which should have been notified:

Maestri's 2003 conviction. It is highly unlikely the school was unaware of it, if if they were aware, it should have been reported.
Maestri's 2005 conviction. The same applies.
Hobbs' arrest in 2005 and his resignation as a Trustee. This is a straightforward notifiable incident, he resigned as a trustee in circumstances where his suitability to work with children was in question. There should have been a notification to the Teacher Misconduct Section of the DfE. There wasn't. The school broke the law. This is not mentioned by Carlile.
The loss of the civil action in 2006, and the subsequent decision to place Pearce on restrictions.
The first Charity Commission Statutory Inquiry.
The 2007 trial and acquittal of Hobbs and the subsequent subsequent decision to place Hobbs on restrictions.
The arrest of Pearce in 2008.
Maestri's 2008 conviction.
The second Charity Commission Statutory Inquiry.
The 2009 conviction of Pearce on a whole range of charges in addition to the one for which he was arrested.

With the possible exception of Maestri's 3 convictions, all these incidents were definitely known to the school. Of these 10 items, only item 7 was reported at the time, and I suspect even that was only reported because the school was already undergoing a Statutory Inspection from the Charity Commission, during which the Abbot had promised that this specific event couldn't possibly happen because of the measures he had put in place to prevent it.

At the time of the follow-up inspection, there were no allegations against current staff or governors at the school.

The truth of this depends on how you read it. During the inspection period (i.e. since the previous routine ISI inspection in 2003) there certainly were allegations against current staff of trustees. Both Hobbs and Chillman were current trustees at the time the allegations against them came to light. The fact that by the time the ISI visited in April 2010, they were no longer trustees is a bit of sophistry on the part of the ISI, and I'm surprised at Carlile for having been prepared to go along with it.

50. The first follow-up inspection was unannounced, and occurred at the end of April 2010. At that time the School was informed that its Child Protection Policy was deficient, though the issue was a narrow one about wording rather than substance. By the time of the follow-up reports in 2010 no extant allegations against current trustees or teachers existed. The known cases related to past events, concerning six previous teachers or trustees. Two involved monks were still living in the monastery under restrictions established by the Diocese of Westminster.

This is complete and utter twaddle. "the School was informed that its Child Protection Policy was deficient, though the issue was a narrow one about wording rather than substance"?

There's nothing so much wrong with that statement than that Carlile should have fallen for the school's line over it. In From inside the meeting, I described how Cleugh spun that line to the parents in the Parental Forum in September 2009 (the one where he put bouncers on the gates to keep me out so I couldn't ask awkward questions), and how the claim that it was a narrow issue of wording was utterly unfounded.

I also described in that article how in a key point the May 2010 policy was actually worse than the September 2009 version in respect of ensuring automatic reporting of all allegations.

That the ISI accepted the May 2010 version of the school's child protection policy is further evidence of the ISI's utter incompetence with regard to safeguarding. I suspect that they simply took the school's word for it that they had made the necessary changes. I checked with the DfE, pointing out the severe shortcomings in the school's child protection policy, including the fact that the May 2010 version was worse from a reporting point of view. In a telephone conversation in June, the DfE assured me that this was not the final compliant version. My correspondence with the DfE was passed to Lord Carlile, he had all this information and appears not to have taken it into account. And in their meetings with Carlile, the DfE would appear to have forgotten it all.

The two involved monks were Hobbs and Chillman. Remember these names, they become important later on.

51. In May 2010 the Chief Inspector of the ISI informed the School that the Child Protection Policy was fully compliant. The follow-up report was published on the ISI website on the 30 July 2010. Despite the approval by the ISI in 2010 of the School’s safeguarding procedures, they have been updated since in order to achieve a model of excellence.

This is also twaddle. As I showed in Automatic reporting, the current policy doesn't even implement the automatic reporting of all allegations which is in the DfE's statutory guidance! If it's not even implementing the statutory guidance, it can't even remotely be called a model of excellence. If the ISI informed the school that the May 2010 version of the policy was compliant, then the ISI ought to be relieved of its duties.

Lord Carlile seems to have assumed that if the child protection policy is "acceptable to the Department for Education and the Independent Schools Inspectorate" then it can be regarded as "a model of excellence". Nothing could be further from the truth.

Carlile Report analysis - 7

2011-11-30T19:26:00.000Z

The next section, paragraphs 44 to 46, is titled "Post Nolan and Cumberlege procedures" contains some of Carlile's most trenchant common sense combined with the most amazing failure to follow that common sense to its logical conclusion.

He starts extremely well.

Of course, the governance of a school or any other institution is no guarantor of good practice. To state the obvious, effective practice depends upon a strong set of written procedures, the management to enforce them, and the commitment to effective enforcement.

Hallelujah! I thought that in all this business about governance he would never actually manage to state this extremely obvious but vitally important point.

In the next paragraph, albeit in the specific context of the reporting arrangements for the school nurse, he goes on to make another very acute comment.

it is possible that, from time to time, allegations will be made against teaching colleagues regarded as of the highest quality and probity, and the danger of the allegations being brushed aside by understandably incredulous colleagues is significant.

Yes! This is the point! Not only is there simply the matter of straightforward incredulity, but this is going to be reinforced by a will to disbelieve caused by the fact that believing and acting on the allegations may damage the reputation of the school. Carlile goes on to say:

At the very least, it should be a given that any person who is or is analogous to a school nurse should be required to report all concerns and allegations about abuse to the Head, Deputy Head and/or designated safeguarding officers. It is also self-evident from these comments that the skills, training and approach of any such employee should be equal to the challenge of abuse allegations, whether such allegations be true or false.

All true and extremely sensible. But the problem is that he stops there, and fails to take the vital next step, which is that particular measures must be taken not to permit this incredulity to determine the subsequent action of the designated safeguarding officer. He must promptly pass on all allegations to the authorities, specifically to the LADO. There must be absolutely no exceptions to this. Only by having a policy of no exceptions can the children be protected from the entirely natural inclination of staff and monks to believe their colleagues incapable of such a thing.

Given that the shortcomings of the school's past practice have been particularly about the school's failure to report allegations to the authorities, this point really needed to be made absolutely explicit in the report. It isn't. Such an opportunity missed.

Carlile Report analysis - 6

2011-11-28T20:59:00.000Z

The next section covering paragraphs 37 to 43 is titled "Best practice: theNolan and Cumberlege reviews". Carlile includes the following brief extract from the Nolan report

Recommendation 1. The Catholic Church in England and Wales should become an example of best practice in the prevention of child abuse and in responding to it.

3.1.8 The 1994 Guidelines concentrated on the response to allegations of child abuse. In the present climate, much more emphasis is placed on child protection and it is worthy of note that almost all dioceses have in fact adopted policies and practices that are designed to prevent abuse occurring in the first place. Whilst the proper handling of allegations is important, it is much more important that the opportunity for abuse does not occur because awareness is high and an effective regime of good practice is in place, and is known to be so.
Recommendation 2. The top priority is to have preventative policies and practices operating effectively in parishes, dioceses and religious orders that will minimise the opportunity for abuse.

3.1.9 It is necessary, however, to face the reality that no organisation which has dealings with children can eliminate the risk of child abuse completely. It is therefore important to complement prevention policies with a clear understanding by those in positions of responsibility that abuse of their position in any way will inevitably have the most serious consequences for them.

All very good in principle. The problem with the Nolan report is that the principle isn't followed up with properly effective practice. For instance, this is recommendation 61 of the Nolan report

Recommendation 61. When there is a disclosure, the statutory authorities should be brought in straight away, without any process of filtering, to take the lead in investigating and assessing the situation

If that "should" had been a "shall" then it would have been the basis for an effective policy - if followed. But having "should" there allows people at the local (parish or school) level to subvert the intent of the recommendation by writing exceptions which neuter it. Nolan reported in 2001, but eight years later, the child protection policy for St. Benedict's was so far from implementing the Nolan recommendations that it was essentially one long excuse for never reporting anything. As the ISI stated in its 2010 supplementary report:

The school did not have a fully established policy for reporting directly to the Department for Education and Skills (later the Department for Children, Schools and Families, and currently the Department for Education) or to the Independent Safeguarding Authority, responsible for such referrals since 20 January 2009.

But as Nolan only said "should", the abbey would have been able to claim if asked that they were complying with the Nolan recommendation, even though they didn't have an effective policy for reporting anything to anyone.

Carlile mentioned that the Cumberlege commission reviewed the situation after 5 years, their report being published in 2007. In paragraph 39, Carlile notes that

One of the members of the Cumberlege Commission was the Abbot President then and now of the English Benedictine Congregation. To objective observers it will be a disappointment that the governance of Ealing Abbey, St Benedict’s School and other related schools were not subjected to a governance review within a short time.

The Abbot President is Richard Yeo. At the press conference, Carlile criticised the appointment of Yeo to conduct the Apostolic Visitation, arguing that he had too close a connection with Ealing Abbey for any review by him both to be independent and to be seen to be independent.

All of Carlile's criticisms are entirely valid, and yet he has still missed the key point. It's not the governance that had to be reviewed, it was the existence sand implementation of appropriate and effective child protection policies. The school's was useless, and the parish in fact had no policy at all.

In fact, as far as I can tell, the parish still doesn't have a child protection policy. The Ealing abbey website has a child protection statement, and a link to the CSAS procedures, without actually stating that the CSAS procedures are being implemented in the parish. I have my criticism of the CSAS procedures and its extremely unfriendly website, but that's a story for another day. For now, it is sufficient to say that even after all the publicity, the Ealing Abbey website still doesn't have an unequivocal statement declaring what (if any) child protection procedures it is following. I would have hoped Carlile might have noticed that, but there is no mention of it in the report.

Carlile ends this section of his report with the following.

43. The above comments should not be seen in any way as implying that the Abbey Community should now, in 2011, be seen as a failure. My meetings with them suggest that is not the case. The vitality, academic success, community reach and diversity of the school are evidence of the positive aspects of the Abbey and St Benedict’s School. As one of my interlocutors put it:

“Any community of Christian men and women who take their Christian vocation seriously is going to be grappling all the time with the consequences of human sinfulness and our natural backsliding tendency.”

This very realistic person recognised that there are ‘backsliding tendencies’ so unacceptable that there can be almost no limit to the level of vigilance required. The outcome of the events under consideration, and of this Report, should be to provide assurance that the lessons have been learned.

It may well be true that the school is awash with "vitality, academic success, community reach and diversity. That doesn't for a minute excuse it for its shortcomings in safeguarding. In any case, Carlile is no more an expert in education that he is an expert on safeguarding procedures, and he's completely unqualified to make that statement.You can give it whatever weight you think it deserves.

In this section, Carlile has noticed that Abbot Richard Yeo (who was a participant in the Cumberlege Commission) failed to ensure that governance of the school was reviewed post-Cumberlege, but hasn't noticed the far more important point, that safeguarding at the school and parish were also not reviewed, because it is those policies which provide the primary protection against the backsliding tendency which Carlile's correspondent so correctly identifies.

You don't get a mess like Ealing without there having been management failures at multiple levels. Three such failures are now clearly visible. The headmaster should have been implementing an effective policy and proposing improvements in it for the Trustees' agreement and approval. The Abbot should have been taking note of the Nolan and Cumberlege recommendations and taking action to see to it that they were effectively implemented. And the Abbot President should have been conducting a review of all the English Benedictine houses to ensure as far as possible that Nolan and especially Cumberlege were getting implemented.

But none of this happened. This isn't a mere historical tragedy, this a serious failure of the duty of care on the part of the current management. Had even one of these three levels of management been doing their job properly, then the school's and probably the abbey's child protection procedures would have been in a fit state. And we know that at least one child suffered as a result of that failure.

More on Soper

2011-11-27T12:42:00.000Z

The Mail on Sunday has more revelations about Abbot Laurence Soper.

The Mail on Sunday has been told that after hiding in Montenegro on the Adriatic coast – where the European Arrest Warrant is not valid – he secretly returned to the Vatican to empty his account.

Fr Laurence, 68, who worked at Barclays Bank between 1960 and 1964 before becoming a monk, is said to have several thousand pounds in investment portfolios and also a ‘large inheritance’ from his parents.

I see that the reports of his age have been changed. The police originally stated that he was 81, and this was reported in various papers at the time. The Mail is now reporting that he is 68. I've independently been told that the original statement concerning his age was wrong. I wonder who could have told the police that he was 80 at the time he was interviewed by them in September last year? And I wonder why?

Carlile Report analysis - 5

2011-11-25T20:41:00.000Z

The next section, including paragraphs 35 and 36 is titled "Creating necessary safeguards".

Paragraph 35 quotes the text of a solicitor's letter to the school in respect of a civil claim, which alleges a wide range of failings in the school's duty of care towards pupils.

Let me quote paragraph 36 in full.

Allowing for the customary tautology in the content of legal pleadings, the allegations set out in the previous paragraph are a formidable menu of complaints. All have been repeated by correspondents to my Inquiry. Many would be avoided or at least made far less likely by a form of governance that removed conflicts of interest, and separated sometimes irreconcilable functions.

And that's it. That's all Carlile has to say in terms of creating necessary safeguards. Get the governance right and everything drops into place with no apparent additional effort.

As far as can be judged from the content of the report, Carlile seems to have entirely failed to notice that the "irreconcilable functions" of protecting the children from harm from paedophile abuse and protecting the school's reputation in the event of a paedophile abuse case are permanently irreconcilable, no matter who the governors are.

Because the two duties are permanently irreconcilable, a decision has to be made to give one duty priority over the other.

It is obvious that the duty of protecting the children from harm must come first, but this requires that governors and staff to some degree act against their own interests and the interest of the school. There is a terrible temptation to find some way of squaring this circle, and the way often found by independent schools is to handle any allegations internally. This can involve any one or more of the following approaches.

Believing that the allegation is probably unfounded or mistaken, so there is no danger to the child and therefore no need to report anything.
Believing that the child's best interests are served not by having lots of strangers (i.e. police or social services) compound an already bad experience for the child by asking him or her lots of questions about it. As a result, it is decided that a report to the authorities is not in the best interests of the child.
Believing that a staff member, if he abused, is unlikely to do so again now that the first incident is known.
Believing that the problem is specific to that particular combination of child and staff member, and that the problem will not recur if they are separated. The separation can be achieved by ensuring the staff member doesn't teach that particular pupil's class, moving the staff member to non-teaching duties, asking the staff member to leave or asking the parents to move the child.

These aren't hypothetical, all these approaches have been used and justified in other (non-catholic) independent schools. And all these approaches have the extremely convenient effect of not needing any kind of report to the authorities, and so they don't risk any kind of bad publicity for the school. The first time an abuse case happens, the headteacher might genuinely believe he is acting for the best. But in fact he is grossly deluding himself, persuading himself that what is in the interest of himself and the school is also in the interest of the pupils. It isn't.

Then another case occurs, and having not reported the first one, the management find it necessary not to report the second. And so by slow degrees a culture of denial and non-reporting gradually builds up until you have a disaster on the scale of St Benedict's in the 70s and 80s, where there were multiple abusers all active at the same time, quite probably covering for each other, and all taking advantage of the opportunities available from the knowledge that they wouldn't be reported. I shudder to think how many children in total were abused at the school over the years.

By the time of Pearce's conviction, the St Benedict's safeguarding policy was 11 pages of excuses never to have to report anything. This is not specifically a catholic school problem, even though St. Benedict's happens to be a catholic school. This can happen at any independent school, because the temptations exist for all independent schools. It may be that catholic schools are more prone to this than others, because they feel they have the reputation of the catholic church as a whole to protect and not merely the reputation of the school, but it seems to me this is a difference of degree rather than of principle.

This is why I think Carlile's magic bullet of a change in governance is profoundly wrong-headed. It simply doesn't address the institutional and psychological factors that cause a culture of non-reporting to come into existence and to develop. It is not all about the monks. The change in governance is a good idea, but for reasons quite unrelated to safeguarding.

The only way to be sure of preventing abuse from building up is to make a firm decision from the outset to automatically report everything, withstanding all temptations to the contrary. Everything means everything, even if it seems trivial at the time, and even if publicity will result in short-term damage to the school's reputation. All allegations and incidents. No exceptions.

Carlile Report analysis - 4

2011-11-24T22:44:00.001Z

Now that Lord Carlile has made his major recommendation, he finally gets down to what his report is supposed to be about, an analysis of the abuse itself. The next section is titled "A summary of historical abuse cases" and covers paragraphs 33 and 34, with a table placed between them..

The title irritates me to start with. Of all serious crime, only child sex abuse ever gets the label "historical". If somebody is arrested for a murder that took place 30 years ago it isn't called an "historical murder". Similarly we don't have historical rapes or historical robberies. Only child sex abuse gains the dubious distinction of being labelled "historical".

For those still trying to obtain justice or to come to terms with what they suffered, the abuse is anything but historical. The phrase I suspect has been coined and is promoted by those who would minimise the importance and effect of the abuse. It doesn't matter any more, it's "historical". The use of this phrase is a significant insult to victims. As somebody who has prosecuted child sex abuse cases, Carlile ought to know better.

The news has mentioned 21 cases by 8 different people. And indeed the table following paragraph 33 has 21 rows in it, and mentions 8 different people.

Father Gregory Chillman (2 cases)
Father Anthony Gee (2 cases)
Father Stanislaus Hobbs (1 case)
John Maestri (4 cases)
Father David Pearce (6 cases)
Mr X (prosecution pending) (1 case)
Mr Y (teacher) (1 case)
Father Laurence Soper (4 cases)

The table is somewhat unclear, but it doesn't seem to be the number of allegations brought to Carlile's attention, it appears to be the number of cases which have been brought to the attention of the school in some fashion or other, most generally by means of a civil action initiated by the alleged victim. For instance Pearce merits 5 rows in the table, but the 11 charges he pleaded guilty to in 2009 are all contained within a single row of the table.

Moreover Carlile was well aware of allegations against Father Kevin Horsey (now deceased). His name came up at the press conference and Carlile acknowledged he had received accounts of abuse by him, but he does not appear on the list. Moreover this seems also to have been acknowledged by the Abbey, and a decision has been made to rename the Horsey building at the school.

So the table is not an accurate description either of the number of probable perpetrators nor of the probable number of victims or cases. Carlile has made no attempt to provide any kind of estimate of the probable total number of victims.

The information in the table is extremely minimal. I wouldn't expect Carlile to provide details of the abuse allegations, but I would have expected some attempt at describing the actions taken by the school in response to allegations and where those actions fell short, at least in a representative sample of cases.

Let's take just one row from the table as an example.

Accusation against: Fr. Pearce
Victim: Male pupil
Date: 1992
Allegation received date: 1992
Social Services: Informed
Charity Commission: No
DfE aware: No
Outcome: CPS decided not to proceed

This is very thin. From the dates, we can infer that this was the allegation which led Pearce to "retire" as Junior School headmaster. We are informed that social services were informed, but not who by or when. We could reasonably have expected Carlile to provide some details of the case, not in terms of the details of the allegation itself, but in terms of the procedures which led to the decision to move Pearce from his post and appoint him Bursar instead. The fact that the CPS did not proceed with a prosecution might have any number of reasons which would not affect a balance-of-probabilities assessment that Pearce was a danger to children. And clearly that assessment was made, otherwise Pearce would not have been moved from his post.

These are the details that the abuse victims deserve to have in the report. These are the details which need to be disclosed so that the errors of the past can be clearly identified and therefore be avoided in future. And these are the details which are entirely absent from the report.

Without knowing past events in sufficient detail to identify the institutional failings of the school and the abbey, we have no means of knowing whether Carlile's recommendations are sufficient to prevent the same failings from recurring in future.

Again, Carlile seems to be going at this as a lawyer, concentrating on cases which have or may come to court, either civil court in respect of claims against the school, or criminal court to determine the guilt or otherwise of the alleged perpetrators.

But good safeguarding practice requires that you should take action to protect children hopefully long before matters get sufficiently serious as to justify a criminal prosecution or a civil claim against the school. I have little doubt that Pearce for instance exhibited a steadily escalating sequence of behaviour until he got to the point of committing criminal offences. But the report is silent on the subject. It is silent on the measures taken or not taken, it is silent on the reasons for this. All Carlile says in the last part of paragraph 34 is the following.

I have concluded that a more modern form of governance, in which the senior teaching management of the school were not effectively under the total control of the Abbey, and with effective procedures for dealing with possible abuse, would have rendered it more likely that abuse would have been suspected, detected, rejected, and the future secured.

That is his conclusion. It might even be true to an extent - a more modern form of governance quite possibly would have "rendered it more likely that abuse would have been suspected, detected, rejected". But he doesn't describe the line of reasoning by which he gets from the rather minimal facts provided to that conclusion.

And it is a pretty dubious conclusion anyway. Secular independent schools have had abuse crises without there being a monk in sight. So his proposed form of governance isn't a magic bullet. He hasn't explained why he thinks the new form of governance will achieve what he claims for it.

He seems to have worked on the basis that since the majority of (known and currently alleged) abusers have been monks, then what is needed is to take governance of the school away from the monks and hey presto all will be well.

But three of the 8 people listed in his table are or were lay teachers, not monks. Teaching attracts paedophiles, because it is an occupation which (like the priesthood) involves trusted contact with children. So, under the old form of governance it wasn't merely monks refusing to shop other monks who were abusing, it was monks not shopping anybody who was abusing, in order to protect the reputation of the school. Protecting a school's reputation is not an action which monks are uniquely inclined to take. Lay governors are prone to it as well.

Carlile Report analysis - 3

2011-11-24T00:14:00.000Z

I find the next section of the report "Governance of school and abbey" is really very odd. Carlile goes straight into governance issues without even having yet described the extent, nature and duration of the abuse or the institutional failings which allowed it to go on for so long.

Paragraphs 15-19 briefly describe the current governance arrangements, paragraph 20 points out that the arrangements leave all decision-making power in the hands of the monks, paragraph 21 describes the academic staff and the (lack of) support they have from the governance structures.

Paragraphs 22-24 compare the structure with the governance structures of other English Benedictine schools.

In paragraph 25 Carlile describes the school's existing governance arrangements as "wholly outdated and demonstrably unacceptable".

In paragraphs 26 to 32 he makes his proposals for a new governance structure for the school.

There seems to be a good deal of jumping to conclusions here. First of all, the review was supposed to be about abuse and safeguarding against it, and Carlile hasn't even got to the point yet of providing any details about the abuse and who did it, what institutional failings allowed it to continue and how they could be prevented in future. Instead he steps straight in with recommendations about governance.

Those recommendations are basically for there to be a separate charitable trust to run the school, while the existing trust continues to run the abbey, monastery and parish. the new trust for the school will have a relatively large governing body, drawn from a wide range of experience and interests, including monks, staff, parents and pupils. There will always be a lay majority on the board and the chairman will always be a layman.

If Carlile had been requested primarily to conduct a review of governance this would have been fair enough, but he wasn't. He was asked to review the abuse and make recommendations about putting a stop to child sex abuse at the school and making sure it can't start up again

In his governance proposals, Carlile seems to be proceeding from two principles. One is that the present arrangements are outdated (which is true but irrelevant to safeguarding), and the other is described at the start of para 26.

In a school where there has been abuse, mostly (but not exclusively) as a result of the activities of members of the monastic community, any semblance of a conflict of interest or lack of independent scrutiny must be removed.

Those of you who have been thinking of me as being some sort of rabid anti-catholic may be surprised by the next bit: These shortcomings are not limited to monks. Paedophiles will be paedophiles, and the clever ones who can do the most damage will always be attracted to occupations which involve the supervision of children. That includes teaching as well as the priesthood.

In being aware that the Ealing Abbey scandal is part of the wider catholic abuse scandal, and also that in this particular case the majority of the abuses were committed by monks, Lord Carlile seems to have forgotten that abuse can and does happen in non-catholic independent schools as well. So the principles of independent scrutiny have to be applied whoever is given the job of governing the school.

If abuse is to be prevented, or where it can't be prevented, if it is to be quickly detected and stopped, then it is vital that those tasked with governing the school are aware of their responsibilities in this area, and also aware of the inherent conflict of interest involved in running an independent school.

That conflict is simply stated. The publicity of a paedophile abuse case at a school is very bad for business. Independent schools compete with each other for pupils, they are businesses, even though they are usually constituted as charities. So the short-term interests of the school demand that publicity is avoided, and this is best achieved by making sure that nobody outside the school is aware of it, and so there is a great temptation to find ways of not reporting it to the authorities. This temptation isn't unique to monks. So, whether a school is Catholic, Anglican, Muslim or secular, this conflict of interest remains and must be openly acknowledged so that effective measures to combat it can be devised, whoever is running the school.

Having a board of governors with a secular majority doesn't by itself achieve this. It's a good idea in its own right for the general welfare of the school, which quite frankly needs governors with a wider range of expertise and backgrounds. It will even help safeguarding a bit, but the effect will be minor. A school with a secular board can still fall prey to bad safeguarding practices and end up covering up abuses.

It seems to me that Carlile has been going at this as a criminal lawyer rather than as an expert on the dynamics of child abuse in institutional settings. He has of course both prosecuted and defended child abuse cases and that has no doubt been useful to him, but it is no substitute for knowledge of the institutional failings which allow abuse to flourish, and how those institutional failings are permitted to occur. In my view it has also led him to place too much emphasis on those who committed the abuses (which is what he has to concentrate on for the purpose of criminal trials) rather than on those whose job it was to prevent them.

It is a pity that Lord Carlile did not request the participation of an expert in this field as an equal partner in the conduct of the inquiry. I suspect that if he had, a rather different report would have been produced.

That the monks are being removed from control of governance is what grabbed all the headlines in the papers. An anachronistic governance structure is a nice easy target and a recommendation to reform it is obviously sensible.

But it doesn't address safeguarding.

Carlile Report analysis - 2

2011-11-23T00:30:00.003Z

The second section of the Carlile report, paragraphs 9 to 14, is titled "The evidence in summary, and my approach to it".

Carlile described how in response to a call for evidence and more general publicity, he was contacted by about 100 people who felt they had a contribution to make. He also mentions that he met the Abbot and headmaster as and when he required, the DfE, the ISI, the monastic community, several of the lay advisers, and some former pupils, both those who were aware of abuses and those who were not.

A wide range of abuses have been described to him, but he has decided not to describe them in detail in the report. His reasons are worth quoting directly.

First, and most important, in my judgment for the effect of what may seem at first sight to be less violent abuse may be just as damaging for the victim as more obviously violent or overt acts. Secondly, it would be wrong for a report on such matters to provide reading material for the prurient and worse.

I think Carlile is right in this. It is one thing for victims who want to bring the matter to public attention to contact the papers or TV news and describe their stories, knowing that publicity will result. It is another for people who have contacted Carlile in confidence to have their accounts described even in paraphrase in the report.

Carlile describes the majority of the abuse described to him consisted of physical punishment carried out in in appropriate ways and circumstances and with sexual motives. That is is far as he goes with descriptions.

Carlile says that it is not appropriate to describe one kind of abuse as "more serious" or "worse" than another. While it might be in a criminal sense in terms of the severity of the sentence an offender might receive, the effect on the victim doesn't map neatly onto this. As he says:

The reality, borne out by some of my correspondents, is that the combination of fear, a sense of guilt, repetition, physical pain, revulsion and knowledge of impropriety may have an extremely damaging effect on future life chances whatever the detail of the abuse.

Carlile's allocation of blame, though this is not the primary purpose of the report, is simple.

Primary fault lies with the abusers, in their abject failure of personal responsibility and self-control, in breach of their sacred vows if monks, and for all in breach of all professional standards and of the criminal law. Secondary fault can be shared by the monastic community, in its lengthy and culpable failure to deal with what at times must have been evident behaviour placing children at risk; and what at all times was a failure to recognise the sinful temptations that might attract some with monastic vocations. Fault lies too with the trustees and the School historically, for their failure to understand and prepare for the possibility of abuse with training and solid procedures for unpalatable eventualities.

Carlile is saying, in clear and simple prose, that the monks knew that there was abuse going on, and they did nothing to stop it.

Carlile described his main purpose as follows.

to use the lessons and failures of the past to ensure that such problems are avoided in the future; and to provide structures to give confidence to pupils, parents and guardians, staff, and anybody else with a legitimate interest in the School in the future.

That's an entirely appropriate objective, one which any right-thinking person would agree with.

St Augustine's governance

2011-11-22T09:54:00.001Z

The following email has gone out to staff & parents

We are writing to you following the letter from the Headmistress dated 15th November 2011 in which she, amongst other matters, discussed the governance of the School.

The Trustees have confirmed the appointment of the incumbent Governors. The Governors are:-

Professor A.P. Hemingway (Chair)
Dr. M. Barnard
Professor G. Bennett
Mrs. F. Carey
Deacon A Clark
Dr. M. Dowling-Brannigan
Mrs. A. Kendall
Mrs. C. Phillips

We confirm that the first priority, led by the appointments sub-committee of the Governing Body and TES (Times Educational Supplement), is to continue the search for a new Head Teacher of the highest calibre.

The Governors, with the unreserved support of the Trustees, are committed, with appropriate advice and assistance, to review and update where necessary the Instrument of Government to ensure it provides effective transparent and accountable governance. This process will commence immediately. Amongst other objectives, it is hoped that this will prevent the recurrence of the difficulties recently experienced in the relationship between Governors and Trustees.

The Diocese of Westminster, although not having any direct involvement in the School’s governance, has also pledged its support and assistance.

We are committed to build on the School’s undoubted achievements, to continue and build on that success and to support the dedicated and professional Staff in providing education of the highest quality to the Pupils.

Yours faithfully,

Professor Anne Hemingway
Chairman of Governors

David Murphy
Chairman of the Trustees

Mrs Catherine Wilson
Acting Headmistress Elect

A few things here worth noting.

First, whoever was behind the attempt to oust the governors has been decisively defeated, both in terms of the governors' continued presence and in the acknowledgement of the need to review the governance arrangements. All the governors are back in place.

Second, the governors seem to have regained control over the process of appointing the new headteacher.

Third, this outcome appears to have the support of the diocese.

Fourth, it is interesting to note whose signature is absent from the email!

There have been comments on previous articles concerning the past willingness of the governors simply to go along with what Mrs Gumley Mason requested. That criticism can be made of their past behaviour. I'm not sure that it is entirely fair: if they genuinely believed that Mrs Gumley Mason's proposals were in the interest of the school, then it is reasonable for them to accept them. And it is normally a reasonable assumption that a headteacher's proposals are both well-informed and in the interests of the school he or she is head of.

However, since the publication of the ISI report, it seems to me that the governors have recently shown appropriate degrees of independence and professionalism and have managed to get to grips with the difficult situation resulting from the ISI's criticisms, Mrs Gumley Mason's subsequent announcement of her retirement and other recent events. So, whatever criticisms there may be of their past approach, it seems to me that their present approach is clearly working in the interest of the school. And that is what matters the most right now.

I suspect that there has been a whole lot of work going on in the background which hasn't been communicated in parent emails and other public communications. As far as possible, I suggest that the governors communicate more of this background work to the parents. Sorting out the appointment of the new head and the various other issues facing the school is a complex task, and the parents are going to be greatly reassured by open communication of the work that is going on. If it turns out that some task is taking longer than expected because of some unanticipated difficulty, then it is better for the parents to be told so they can understand the issues. The trust of the parents in the school has taken a battering over the last few months and an implemented policy of openness and transparency on the part of the governors can do more than anything else to earn that trust back.

Carlile Report analysis - 1

2011-11-22T01:48:00.001Z

This is the first in a series of articles I shall be writing on the Carlile report. As I mentioned before, it is a substantial document and I felt it deserved a measure of reflection before I wrote in detail about it.

Paragraphs 1-4 deal with the background and history of the school and contain nothing contentious.

Paragraph 5 briefly describes the circumstances of Carlile's appointment, but neglects to mention what I at least regard as a significant issue and which I raised at the press conference.

Carlile accepted this appointment as a barrister, and was therefore instructed by a solicitor, this being the normal way of things in the law. His instructing solicitor was the school's solicitor Mr. Anthony Nelson of the firm Haworth and Gallagher.

At the time Carlile took the instruction, Nelson was also acting as the defending solicitor for Father David Pearce, not only for his appeal against sentence (successful in that it was reduced from 8 years to 5), but also for Pearce's second trial this summer along with John Maestri.

At the press conference I asked Lord Carlile how the apparent conflict of interest was managed between Nelson acting on behalf of Pearce while at the same time commissioning an inquiry which would inevitably in part be an investigation into Pearce's criminal activities. Carlile replied to the effect that there was no conflict of interest, in that he had made it clear to Nelson and the Abbey that he would conduct the inquiry in his own way, and would not provide any of the documents he received or the notes he made to Nelson, these would all go into his own personal archive at his chambers and not be made available to the abbey.

I've no criticism of Carlile in the way he has approached the task, but it seems to me that by saying this, he has tacitly accepted that there was a potential conflict of interest on the part of Nelson which needed to be guarded against by the precautions Carlile described.

I'm astonished that, even after he pleaded guilty to multiple crimes against pupils of St Benedict's, Pearce has continued to be represented by the school solicitor. I'm even more astonished that the Abbot thought it appropriate at the same time to use Nelson to instruct Carlile. I realise that Nelson and Carlile have worked together before and that there is nothing at all wrong with that. I accept that provided that everybody concerned is happy that Nelson is able to compartmentalise his mind, he can continue to represent these different clients with potentially conflicting interests.

But politically it stinks. Carlile is perfectly well aware of the need for independence in such matters not only to exist but also to be seen to exist, and in the press conference he criticised the conduct of the Apostolic Visitation, in that he felt in particular that Abbot Richard Yeo ought not to have been appointed to it because he has too close a prior connection with Ealing Abbey and its monks. I agree with him on this point, and I feel that the same issue applies to the involvement of Mr. Nelson in the Carlile inquiry. This doesn't sound like an example of the openness and transparency that the Abbot and Mr. Cleugh have been banging on about recently.

Just how acute those conflicts might turn out to be was demonstrated at the trial of Pearce and Maestri this summer. One of the arguments used by the defence was that the alleged victim had mistakenly identified his abusers and had in fact been abused not by either Pearce or Maestri, but instead had been abused by Father Laurence Soper. While that line of argument was a perfectly valid one for the defence to use, it showed how the interests of Pearce and of the abbey and the other monks are no longer necessarily the same.

Paragraphs 6 & 7 mention the status of Pearce and Hobbs at the time of the inquiry, and paragraph 8 describes his agreement to conduct the inquiry "on the understanding that this report would be published on the School and Abbey websites, and made available in printed form on request to the Abbot or school Headmaster".

That concludes the introductory "Background" section of the report.

The governors are back

2011-11-17T23:19:00.001Z

Well, I think we all now know that the St. Augustine's governors have been reinstated. It seems that the fuss kicked up by parents phoning in all directions has had an effect.

But the turnaround didn't happen until after a quite extraordinary letter had been sent out by Mrs Gumley Mason to all parents, presumably with the authority of the Mr Murphy, the chairman of trustees. A copy of the letter has of course been passed to me (a number of copies in fact) and it is worth quoting a few key paragraphs.

The latest rumour is that all the School's Governors have been sacked; that, consequently, the School is in breach of various (unidentified but numerous) regulations, that we may have to close and so on, with hair-raising variations and embellishments.

Well, I wouldn't call it a rumour, at the time of writing it was a fact that the governors had been sacked. The business of them not being "confirmed in office" is sophistry. They had been attending governors meetings, some of them for a considerable period of time. Of course they were sacked!

Those sacked included two lawyers, the two recently elected parent governors, and a deacon who is also a diocesan school inspector. If you're going to pick a fight with that group, you had better be very sure of your ground.

What makes a difference, of course, this time around is the fact that I am retiring at the end of this term, and in any independent School the departure of a long-serving Head can create uncertainty and anxiety. Another factor that has not helped the situation is that there has been a certain amount of frenetic jockeying for position by a few members of staff in the run-up to my departure. This has been an unwelcome and unexpected distraction.

And with this, Murphy and Gumley Mason don't merely declare war on the parents by sacking their elected parent governors, they create additional enemies by attacking the staff as well. Even if it were true, it's a really bad strategic move to unite the staff and parents against you. It's a colossal error of judgement, compounding the error made by picking this fight in the first place. And in any case, all other accounts I've heard suggest that this jockeying for position is the purest fiction. There's no point in it. There's one vacancy, for headteacher. It's going to get filled by an open interview process, to which both internal and external candidates can apply. There's no purpose in "jockeying for position", because there aren't any positions to jockey for. Any staff member who wants additional responsibilities will in most cases achieve this by applying for a more senior post at another school.

Then we come to a masterpiece of creative writing, the questions and answers!

Have all the Governors been sacked?
No. A number of Governor appointments, however, were subject to approval by the Directors. The Directors were quite content to confirm the appointments of all those who had been acting as members of the Board of Governors, but made it a condition of their appointment that they (the Governors) would confirm that they would act in accordance with the Instrument of Government. Unfortunately, six individuals did not give this undertaking when asked to do so, and consequently their appointments did not take effect at that time.

That left three Govemors, one of whom has now resigned for family and personal reasons unconnected with the action of the other six. The remaining two are being joined by three appointees (so as to achieve the required quorum of five) who havs agreed to abide by the Instrument of Govemment and who, subject to their confirmation by the Directors, will take office. The Instrument of Government provides for these Governors to appoint two other Governors, and the line-up will be completed by two Parent Governors.

Well, as we all now know, this appointment of unnamed replacement governors didn't happen. But the whole business is utterly ridiculous. It makes the instrument of governance sound as if it is Holy Writ. It isn't, it's a school document, detailing the powers of the governors and certain other aspects of the way the school is run. It should be reviewed at regular intervals in order to ensure that it reflects the situation as it currently exists at the school. But the current instrument of governance hasn't in fact been updated for several years, and is demonstrably outdated and incorrect. The single most obvious flaw is that it doesn't even get the age range of the pupils right - the age range has been extended as a result of the opening of the nursery, but the instrument of governance hasn't been updated to match.

And governors, especially the lawyers among them, know perfectly well that they have act within the powers given to them. Requiring them to sign a letter, in the way it happened seems to have been a deliberate insult, designed to provoke the governors into a refusal and to walk away. Such a letter has never previously been required. So this issue of adherence to the instrument of governance is not the real issue, it is a clumsy pretext for something else altogether.

Why has an advertisement for the new Head not yet appeared in the Times Educational Supplement?
I found out the reason for this over the weekend, when I was telephoned by one of the TES staff dealing with the advertisement. He told me that one of the six (ie one of those who had refused to give an undertaking to comply with the Instrument of Government) had contacted the TES and told them to put the advertisement "on hold". This was done without my knowledge or agreement, and since the individual concerned has no authority to give such an instruction I directed the TES to place the advertisement as soon as possible. (The TES have since told me that the advertisement will appear on November 25th.)

This is highly implausible. If you engage a firm of headhunters for a top job, they do a bit more to earn their money than simply typing up an ad to put in the TES. There's a bit of preparatory work that has to be done first, because you want to ensure that the best possible candidates are minded to apply when the ad is placed. If you engage the services of recruitment specialists, you take their advice on such things. It is extremely unlikely that anybody could possibly take up the post until September, so there is time to do the job properly in order to get the best possible candidates.What matters is not that the ad is placed as early as possible, but that it attracts the best candidates.

It is extremely unprofessional for Mrs Gumley Mason to get involved in any way in the recruitment of her successor. She has no valid interest in the matter. If her primary interest had been the welfare of the school, she would have given a year's notice of her departure so as to avoid the need for an interregnum at all. Of course, Mr. Murphy is aware of the arrangements for recruiting the head including the use of consultant, and yet he must have authorised this precipitate action by Mrs Gumley Mason.

Let's think about Mr Murphy for a moment. I have no idea why he has chosen to pick this fight with the governors. The issue of the instrument of governance was trivial, and an obvious pretext. If had been the real issue, then it could have easily been sorted out with a bit of goodwill and a few phone calls, as between professional colleagues with a common objective. I have no idea what is the issue that he felt required the sacking of the governors and their replacement with appointees. It would be good if he could enlighten us.

Then there is the matter of how he went about it. This showed serious lack of judgement. First, whatever the issue is, it would have been better to get it openly discussed with the governors. It's the obvious course of action - you discuss the problem with colleagues who can help. One has to wonder why he didn't do this.

Then there is the choice of people to pick a fight with. The elected parent governors have a strong mandate, they were voted into their positions. Sacking them without good evidence of misconduct was bound to enrage the parents who participated in the election. Refusing to sign some silly letter to order doesn't even come close to misconduct. Trying to solve the problem, whatever the problem is, by sacking them was seriously unwise.

Then there was the decision to go public with the letter. If there had to be a letter to parents on the subject, Mrs Gumley Mason was the wrong person to write and sign it. She's supposed to report to the governors, not the other way round. If the letter was to be sent at all, it should have been sent out over Mr Murphy's own signature.

Then there was the issue of picking a fight with the staff. It's exceedingly unlikely that the letter was sent without Mr Murphy having looked it over first. So he approved the paragraph that took a pop at the staff. Not clever. Whoever is appointed the new headteacher, and whoever does the appointing, you still need to find ways of minimising the disruption. The last thing you need is to provoke an exodus of your best staff who are mortally offended by the insult. Another seriously bad judgement.

And then finally there is the climbdown. If the replacement of the governors was justified two days ago, it is still justified today, Mr Murphy ought to tell us what that justification is. If it wasn't justified, then the sacking shouldn't have happened in the first place.

And in any case, the ploy has failed. He's failed to shift the governors, he has provoked the ire of the parents, and has undoubtedly lost the respect and confidence of the staff. So, whatever ideas he has for taking the school forward, he's now entirely unable to implement them because he's not got any allies to work with. His only effect he can have by remaining in position is to obstruct the work of others. That's an untenable position. If he has the welfare of the school at heart, he should go.

BBC Inside Out

2011-11-15T08:46:00.002Z

The Inside Out programme about St Benedict's School is now available on BBC iPlayer

No Governors at St. Augustine's

2011-11-15T02:11:00.003Z

With all the publicity that has surrounded St Benedict's over the last few days, it has been hard to credit the extraordinary goings-on at St. Augustine's Priory School. The following has come from a number of impeccable sources. For obvious reasons, I am not going to say who.

The School currently has no Board of Governors. With the possible exceptions of Dr Dowling-Branagan and Mrs Kendall, the Trustees have told all the Governors that they have not been "confirmed in office" by the trustees.

It appears that they received a letter from Mr Murphy to the effect that he required them to sign a letter promising to adhere to the Instrument of Governance before they could be confirmed. This has apparently never previously been required, and Governors of any school by definition have to act within their defined powers as governors. In phone conversations between them, I understand that the governors decided to wait until their meeting on November 9th and discuss the issue there before deciding whether to sign.

Mr Murphy arrived at the meeting with a solicitor in attendance. He handed out a letter to the governors. The letter was threatening in nature and required them to sign to agree the terms of the instrument of government immediately, or the governors' meeting could not continue. A very stormy meeting followed, and there was no resolution. Mr Murphy made it clear that the governors' meeting could therefore not take place and that he required them all immediately to leave the premises. They requested to remain while they discussed matters, as private individuals if necessary.

Mr Murphy was adamant. One of the governors pointed out that they had been invited in not by Mr Murphy by by the headmistress, and it was for her to withdraw the invitation. Mr Murphy remained adamant, and said that if they wished to continue their conversation, they must do so in the car park. It was a remarkably petty demand on his part.

The governors in further discussions amongst themselves over the next couple of days concluded that it would be better to sign the letter and then to be able to get on with the urgent business of the arrangements to recruit the new headteacher. However, it seems that Mr Murphy is taking the view that this is not sufficient, and that a decision of the trustees is now needed to confirm them in office, and that a decision on this point has not yet been made.

So, the current situation seems to be that there is no quorum of Governors at present, so in effect there is no Governing Body.

This for all practical purposes renders aspects of the school's safeguarding policy inoperative, because there is no suitably trained Safeguarding Governor to oversee it. The Complaints procedure is also inoperative, because there are no Governors to hear any complaints.

Some of the (former) governors have informally met with staff to appraise them of the situation. There has been a staff meeting attended by Mr Murphy at which he was by all accounts robustly questioned.

This is not the first time this term that Mr Murphy has interfered with the decisions of the governors operating validly within the areas of responsibility delegated to them by the Instrument of Governance. Earlier this term, it came to the attention of the governors that Mr Mason had requested of an IT technician passwords to staff email accounts, and that the technician in all good faith had provided them. On learning of this, the governors suspended both of them while the school computers could be re-secured.

It seems that Mrs Gumley Mason appealed to the Trustees and that Mr Murphy advised the governors that he was taking over the matter and that the Governors no longer had any part to play. Apparently the Instrument of Governance allows for this to happen if the headteacher appeals to the Trustees. The governors threatened to resign unless the issue was returned to them since it fell squarely within their delegated responsibilities. Mr Murphy backed down.

This latest action by Mr Murphy seems to me to be highly irresponsible, As I understand it, the diocese and the ISI have been informed and the DfE is going to investigate. These actions are damaging the Charity's reputation and may potentially damage the charity's income, if parents decide that enough is enough and take their children away from the school. And most importantly they are putting in jeopardy the charity's ability to fulfil its charitable objectives, the education of the pupils.

It is worth noting that Lord Carlile's principal recommendations for St Benedict's concern its governance. Carlile has noted that the St Benedict's governance arrangements are that all decision-making powers are in the hands of the board of Trustees, that all the trustees must be monks of Ealing Abbey, and the chairman of trustees is the Abbot. There is a Board of School Advisers, which in fact makes recommendations and decisions in much the way that a Board of Governors might be expected to, but that in fact the BSA has no powers, and the Trustees can ignore any decision or recommendation from the BSA if they choose to.

Lord Carlile described this arrangement as "wholly outdated and demonstrably unacceptable". What strikes me is how close it is to the arrangements currently in place for the governance of St Augustine's. Admittedly the St Augustine's Trustees are not monks, but in all other respects, the comparison is very close, in that there are two boards, one of which has delegated some powers formally or informally to the other, but which can be taken away at any time and for any reason.

The existing argument shows how very unsatisfactory those arrangements are in the event of a disagreement between the Governors and the Trustees.

Lord Carlile has recommended that other independent faith schools should review their governance arrangements, and that his proposals (essentially of a single governing body with a wide range of experience, and a lay chair and lay majority) are meant to be broadly appropriate for all independent faith schools, of all religions and denominations. Certainly, his recommendations should be studied by St Augustine's.

I suspect that the argument is in fact over who has control over the appointments process for the new headteacher. That is the most important decision that the school needs to take in the immediate future, and it would seem that the Trustees are alarmed at the approach to the matter being taken by the governors.

But at the moment, it doesn't matter in the slightest who has control of the process. I cannot imagine that any competent headteacher would be prepared to take up the post amidst such a shambles. Any prospective headteacher worth his or her salt is going to do some research on the school, if only by typing the name of the school into a search engine to see what comes out. What on earth would anybody think about the recent goings-on at St. Augustines? There's not the slightest point in wasting money on placing an ad for the new headteacher until the present crisis is amicably resolved and some stability is restored. That means getting the governing body back in place, hammering out an agreement concerning an appointments panel for the headteacher, and agreeing that the Instrument of Governance needs to be reviewed and amended, probably to merge the two boards and have a single governing body so that these kinds of deadlocks cannot happen again.

The sooner this happens, the better for the children. They are the ones who matter here. I hope that everybody concerned will remember that.

Is saying sorry enough?

2011-11-15T02:10:00.002Z

Abbot Martin Shipperlee has been saying sorry to anybody prepared to listen to him. Here is him quoted in the Times.

I apologise. I apologise to anyone. Actually apology is a feeble word but what words are there. This is too awful. You can’t ever stop apologising to everyone.

Defenceless children were hurt and harmed by bad or foolish or weak people and they weren’t stopped from doing that and that’s awful and I can’t ever stop saying sorry. Sorry’s not a very good word either, but what more can I say? If someone wants me to say sorry, phone me up. I’ll say sorry.

There's one refreshing thing about what Shipperlee is saying - and that is that he's not trying to duck responsibility. He's not trying to put the blame for Pearce having access to his last victim on anybody but himself. For this he deserves credit.

But there are two extremely troubling aspects to this nonetheless.

The first concerns what quite frankly has to be regarded as his dishonesty in failing to explain at the time the true reasons for Pearce being placed on restricted ministry.. Instead, in a letter from the time which was later read out in court by the prosecution at Pearce's sentencing hearing, he said that it was "to protect Father David from unfounded allegations" when he knew perfectly well that the allegations were all too well-founded. They had been tested in court and found to be substantiated. It is not as if those were the only allegations which had been received about Pearce either.

We must be blunt here, this was a lie. It is a lie which is on record. It is a lie which put children in danger, and very directly contributed to causing harm to a child. Pearce's last victim was aware that he was under restriction. He didn't know why. The sole responsibility for that state of affairs lies with the Abbot. If he were the Chairman of Governors of a maintained school and something comparable had happened, his immediate resignation would have been required by the Local Education Authority.

What happened here is something which is dreadfully familiar to those who have read the various reports about the Catholic abuse crisis in Ireland and elsewhere. Abbot Martin put the welfare of an abusing priest ahead of that of his abused victims and ahead of the welfare of the children of his parish.

The 1989 Children Act establishes a principle in law and in government practice that in any decision concerning children, the child's interests are paramount. Now, the Abbey is not a public body, so the Act doesn't quite apply directly in this way. But it is still a good principle. Children have to be defended because they aren't in a position to defend themselves. In lying in this way, Abbot Martin did the precise opposite. One might forgive an honest mistake in keeping Pearce at the Abbey, but a deliberate lie with such harmful consequences is harder to stomach. I haven't yet heard the Abbot apologise for it. He's had opportunity enough these last few years.

The second really troubling aspect is this. If he realised what a disaster this is, why has he persisted with the same policy with two other monks under restriction, even since Pearce's arrest and trial?

Following his trial and acquittal in 2007, Father Stanislaus Hobbs was placed on List 99, presumably because of his admission under police questioning of an indecent assault against a pupil during a school trip to Italy. (Because of the way the law stood at the time, this incident could not be prosecuted in the UK.) The Abbot chose to keep him also at the Abbey under restrictions.

In their supplementary inspection report published in July 2010, the ISI took an extremely dim view of this policy, and said that it had to cease.

The Abbot fought this decision tooth and nail. By September, Hobbs had still not been moved, and at the Parental Forum held to discuss the ISI Supplementary Report, he explained all the reasons why he opposed the process. The reasons included concerns for Hobbs' welfare and the fact that he didn't have anywhere to put him. Hobbs was moved to a care home outside the diocese in March 2011.

At the same Parental Forum, the Abbot mentioned the other monk described in the ISI report who was on restrictions, but didn't name him. This was in fact Father Gregory Chillman, and he had resigned as a Trustee in March 2010 following allegations of abuse from a former pupil. Abbot Martin said that there was no need to remove Chillman because "almost all the restrictions had been lifted". He didn't say what restrictions remained, why the restrictions had been imposed or why they had been lifted. He also it seems did not trouble to inform the diocesan safeguarding team of Chillman's changed status.

Restrictions were re-imposed when an incident dating from 2004 concerning pupils at St. Augustine's Priory School came to light. This had previously been handled internally within the school and not been reported to Social Services at the time.

There are still very troubling discrepancies here. The Carlile Report states that these new allegations came to light in July 2010, and that restrictions were imposed, but based on his own account they had not been put in place by September at the time of the Parental Forum.

Paragraph 68 of the Carlile Report states the following.

The Department for Education, to Ministerial level, has been following carefully the progress of the ISI inspections. I have reviewed the correspondence. The Minister of State for Schools in July 2010 sought reassurance that all the recommendations the ISI had made would be implemented promptly. This has been done. The Minister was particularly concerned about the arrangements whereby monks, after conviction or being placed on List 99, had continued to live at the Abbey, even under restrictions imposed by the Abbey in consultation with the Archdiocese of Westminster. These arrangements were described as ‘ineffective’ (and the practice no longer continues).

There just one small problem with that last sentence. It isn't true. The Carlile Report itself states as the outcome to the 2004 incident "Deemed inappropriate behaviour: restrictions imposed". And at the time of writing, Father Gregory Chillman is still listed as one of the "Monks Resident at Ealing Abbey" on the Abbey website.

Are we expected to accept the Abbot's apology when he is continuing with the behaviour he has apologised for? In such circumstances, can his repentance be regarded as genuine? Or is he merely sorry that he has been found out?

Update: Pearce's last victim has sent me a message via a friend of his. He has asked me to add the following note to this article.

"I did not know that David Pearce was on restricted ministry, I only found this out while/during the moments when I brought it to the attention of the deputy head. I believe the court case, or whatever was said was misinterpreted, of what I actually meant, I could be very grateful if you could amend your blog post."

As this has come from the person concerned, I must of course accept this as his accurate account of events, and I'm happy to correct the record. My earlier statements were based on what I myself heard and made notes from the prosecution barrister's recitation of Pearce's crimes at his sentencing hearing.

In terms of what Abbot Martin should have done, my original point still stands, and if anything it is made stronger. Young people should not have been allowed inside the monastery at all, and the reasons for Pearce's restricted ministry should have been known more generally.

Misleading the inspectors?

2011-11-15T02:09:00.000Z

At his prizegiving day speech in September last year. Mr Cleugh said the following.

There have been failures here in the past and quite rightly those involved have been or are being exposed and punished. The School continues to co-operate with all the relevant authorities. I absolutely refute that anyone associated with St Benedict’s School has misled the Inspectors or protected offenders - such allegations are at best misguided and at worst deliberately malicious.

I asked Mr. Cleugh about this at Lord Carlile's press conference. He said that there had been two points he knew about in November and had told the Inspectors about both, and the remaining issues came to light between the November 2009 and April 2010 visits.

But this is very odd. The only safeguarding incident mentioned in the November 2009 ISI reports is the "serious recent incident involving a member of the monastic community" described in Section 4.4 of the Senior school report, with the same text in section 4.5 of the Junior School report. We know that this serious recent incident is the abuse of Pearce's final victim and Pearce's subsequent arrest. We know that because the Charity Commission report mentions that a report was made to the authorities about that incident, and we know from the ISI Supplementary Report that the school has reported it, and that there are no records of any other incidents having been reported.

But it seems to me that at the time of the November inspection, Cleugh couldn't possibly not be aware of the following other matters, relevant to safeguarding at the school and which as an ISI inspector himself he knew were relevant to the inspection.

The arrest, trial and placing on restricted ministry and on List 99 of Father Stanislaus Hobbs, which involved Hobbs resigning as a Trustee in 2005. His resignation as a Trustee is an event which the school had a statutory duty to report to the Teacher Misconduct Section of the DfE.
The civil action against the school successfully brought by "C" in 2006, in which the judgement was against the school to the tune of £43,000.
The resulting placement of Father David Pearce on restricted ministry
The first Charity Commission Statutory Inquiry.
Father David Pearce's conviction and sentencing for a whole range of other offences to which he pleaded guilty, in addition to the offence for which he was originally arrested.
The second Charity Commission Statutory Inquiry.

It is certain beyond any shadow of a doubt that Mr. Cleugh knew of all of these events. Some of them were public knowledge at the time.

In addition, I think it very likely that the police contacted the school in the course of their inquiries which led to Maestri's three convictions in 2003, 2005 and 2008. It would be very normal for them to do so, even though Maestri left the school in 1984.

But lets leave aside the Maestri issue and concentrate on the other points. All these were very much of interest to the inspectors and were mentioned in the Supplementary Report, though not with the names of the individuals attached. Lets go though the issues listed in the Supplementary Report

(i) Legal action has been initiated in connection with a previous member of the religious community.

I had wondered for a long time who this is. Based on the information in the Carlile Report, I now think this is Anthony Gee, or Father Anthony Gee as he was when headmaster of the school. According to Carlile, the school first heard of this in March 2010. I have no reason to disbelieve this.

(ii) A monk who had taught in the school a long time ago has recently come under investigation by social services. At the time of the follow-up visits he was living in the monastery under a restrictive covenant barring him from contact with children.

This is Father Gregory Chillman. The allegations concerning him appear to have first come to light in March 2010. So we can't say that Cleugh knew about this one in November 2009.

(iii) A similar covenant applies to another monk, also currently residing in the monastery. He had been acquitted of child abuse in 2007.

This is Father Stanislaus Hobbs. It would seem to me that Cleugh definitely did know the situation with regard to Hobbs, and the fact that he had resigned as a Trustee. And equally clearly, the ISI did not know. in November 2009, or they would have mentioned it then.

(iv) A monk, Fr DP, is in custody following his conviction in October 2009 on charges spanning many years. Following a defeat in an earlier civil case, Fr DP was subject to a restrictive covenant, but subsequent to this he engaged in improper conduct with a pupil of the school who was doing work in the monastery. A review of his case was conducted by the safeguarding officer of the Diocese of Arundel and Brighton and an independent social work consultant. The review findings were not available at the time of the ISI inspection in November 2009.

This is Pearce, obviously. Note here that the civil case is mentioned, and the full range of his convictions is alluded to. Quite different from the "recent serious incident" (singular) mentioned in November 2009.

(v) A previous lay teacher, for many years no longer associated with the school, the Abbey and the monastery, was most recently tried and convicted in 2008.

This is Maestri. As mentioned above, we can set him to one side for the moment.

(vi) The case of a monk, now for a long time living abroad, has not been pursued.

This is Soper, and clearly the case has been taken up again since. According to Carlile, the first allegations against Soper became known by the school in November 2009, i.e. at around the time of the inspection visit, though whether before or after isn't clear. But it can reasonably be argued that even if the allegation came in after, Cleugh had a duty to ring up the inspectors and mention it, since they hadn't yet produced their report.

The ISI also made mention of the Charity Commission in its supplementary report. Cleugh knew that the Statutory Inquiries had taken place, although the report wasn't issued until December 2009. but this was still well before the ISI issued its reports, and again a phone call to the inspectors to say it was now available would have been a good idea, and I have no doubt it is what Cleugh himself would have expected of another school had he been inspecting it.

And the ISI definitely wasn't aware of all these events, as you can see from the my correspondence with Durell Barnes of the ISI.

So, we have Mr. Cleugh's assurance that he didn't mislead the inspectors, that the school "continues to co-operate with all the relevant authorities", which he made at his prizegiving day speech and repeated in front of Lord Carlile, 5 TV cameras and about 40 journalists, and yet we seem to have all these relevant pieces of information which Cleugh obviously knew about but for which there is no evidence that he shared with the inspectors.

What are we to make of it?

Write to your MP

2011-11-14T10:47:00.001Z

If you are concerned about the abuses at St. Benedict's School, and the fact that the Independent School Inspectorate failed to detect the school's shortcomings, please write to your MP along the following lines.

Change the first paragraph as necessary if you live at such a distance from St. Benedict's that no pupils are likely to live in your MP's constituency.

I am sure that the children of some of your constituents are pupils of St Benedict's School Ealing, and that you have been as shocked as anybody else at the terrible abuses there which have recently been reported by Lord Carlile.

It is highly probable that the abuses could have been discovered earlier had the school been effectively inspected. However, the Independent Schools Inspectorate (ISI) completely failed to notice any problems with safeguarding at the school for at least two successive routine inspections in 2003 and 2009.

The Thunderer column in the Times today points out the severe shortcomings of the ISI in respect of safeguarding inspection, and also points out severe shortcomings in the law, in that unbelievably there is no statutory obligation on the part of schools to report allegations or incidents of child sex abuse committed by staff on pupils.

The Education Bill currently going through Parliament includes a clause which would enable the DfE to appoint the ISI to inspect welfare at independent boarding schools (those which are members of the Independent Schools Council). This responsibility is currently held by OFSTED. Baroness Brinton spoke forcefully against this extension of the ISI's powers in the Grand Committee of the House of Lords,.

In the face of the ISI's terrible failure to detect gross shortcomings at St. Benedict's School and elsewhere, and given that boarding school pupils are even more vulnerable to their setting than day school pupils, the last thing that should be happening is for the ISI's responsibilities to be extended to include the welfare of boarding school pupils.

I urge you to support the amendment introduced by Baroness Walmsley and Baroness Brinton, and to oppose any further extension of the ISI's responsibilities.

Email this to your MP, sign your email and give your postal address, so your MP knows you are a constituent.

The Thunderer

2011-11-14T07:26:00.000Z

The Thunderer column in the Times carries a piece today (behind paywall) arguing that the St. Benedict's abuse scandal could happen elsewhere because of weaknesses in the law.

There ought to be a legal obligation to report every allegation of abuse to child protection officials in the local authority. The statutory guidance does not at present insist that abuse allegations be brought to the attention of the local authority-designated officer for safeguarding; merely that this “should” be done.

There is simply too much temptation for private schools, which have reputations and fee levels to protect, to attempt to deal with damaging allegations in-house and on the quiet, as St Benedict’s did. This allows perpetrators to operate with impunity or to be discreetly moved on, potentially to offend elsewhere.

The Thunderer goes on not only to criticise shortcomings in the law, but also the failings of the inspectors who visited St. Benedict's School.

Nor does Lord Carlile convincingly tackle the failings of the Independent Schools Inspectorate (ISI), which praised the “high quality” of welfare at St Benedict’s in November 2009. Just a few months later, after revelations in The Times about the conviction of a monk who had lived at the school, the inspectors were forced to return. Only then did they discover that a “commitment to trust within the community and to St Benedict’s rule of love and forgiveness appears on occasion to have overshadowed responsibility for children’s welfare”. After years of widespread abuse, this is a dramatic understatement.

The column wraps up by pointing out that the law is about to change to allow the ISI to perform welfare inspections of independent boarding schools, and suggests that far from doing this, the DfE ought to be looking to see if ISI is going its present job properly.

I think the Times has a good point. The pupils of boarding schools are even more vulnerable to their setting than the pupils of independent day schools. Of all schoolchildren, the pupils of boarding schools need an effective safeguarding regime, properly inspected. On the evidence of St. Benedict's, there is no reason to think that the ISI is capable of this.

BBC Sunday Programme

2011-11-13T16:05:00.000Z

Lord Carlile and Abbot Martin Shipperlee have both been interviewed this morning by Ed Stourton on BBC R4's Sunday. The relevant section of the programme starts at 32:20.

Automatic reporting

2011-11-13T10:39:00.000Z

Automatic reporting of abuse can't be regarded as automatic if the school safeguarding policy mentions things that must be done before deciding whether to report.

It has to be understood that in matters of child protection, all independent schools (not just the Catholic ones) have a conflict of interest. The safety of their pupils requires that they immediately report all allegations or incidents of abuse to the authorities so that they can be independently evaluated and if necessary investigated.

But on the other hand, the school's business interests point in quite the opposite direction. A reported abuse case can get the parents very concerned, especially prospective parents deciding what school to send their children to. It is all terribly bad for business, and so there is a strong temptation not to report abuse and instead to handle it quietly within the school so that as few people as possible know about it. This conflict of interest doesn't exist in the state sector, because they aren't businesses competing for trade in the way that the independent schools are.

If this conflict is to be resolved always in favour of the safety of the children, the school's child protection policy has to offer absolutely no wriggle room for finding ways not to report. In addition, there has to be a determination at the school shared by all the staff that everything will always be reported. Notwithstanding Lord Carlile's positive opinion about the latest policy, this is not the case.

In the St. Benedict's policy, the Designated Teacher is the person responsible for reporting allegations to the LADO (Local Authority Designated Officer for child protection), and section 30 of the policy describes "Action by the Designated Teacher". The clause starts "The action to be taken will:" and then provides a list of items. Item (c) of this section is as follows.

c) satisfy the wishes of the complainant's parents, provided they have no interest which is in conflict with the pupil's best interests and that they are properly informed. Again, it may be necessary, after all appropriate consultation, to override parental wishes in some circumstances. If the Designated Teacher is concerned that disclosing information to parents would put a child at risk, he or she will take further advice from the relevant professionals before making a decision to disclose.

This is a hole so big that you can drive a cart and horses through it.

Just imagine a scenario for a minute. You have a school (not necessary St Benedict's, any independent school) whose current management are much concerned for their school's reputation, and it has a policy including the wording above. A mother and father come to the headteacher with a complaint that their boy has been abused by a teacher. Automatic reporting, if it were truly automatic, would require that the LADO is informed immediately. But with the wording above, it is open to the headteacher to persuade the parents that since the boy has had a bad experience, the last thing anybody wants is for it to be made worse by lots of strangers asking him questions about it.

This is not a hypothetical situation, I know of places where exactly this has happened.

If they are persuaded by the headmaster, then the parents wishes are that no report is made. The child and family don't get the professional assistance they may need and are entitled to, and the abuse (and the abuser) goes unreported and uninvestigated. And this is all strictly in accordance with the safeguarding policy, because it says that the school must "satisfy the wishes of the complainant's parents".

This specific point was raised in Lord Carlile's press conference, and Mr Cleugh and Mr Oliver (the Designated Teacher) were asked if the policy would be changed. All we received in reply was a rather vague statement to the effect that it was their policy always to report.

BBC Inside out programme

2011-11-12T13:08:00.001Z

The BBC Inside Out programme will be covering the Ealing Abbey and St Benedict's School story in its broadcast this coming Monday, at 7.30pm on BBC1 (London).

Update: It seems that the Inside Out website maintains an archive of all past programmes. Once Monday's programme is there, I'll provide a link.

Sins of the Fathers

2011-11-10T08:25:00.000Z

The Times has an editorial today about Ealing Abbey (behind paywall) concerning the Carlile Report. It is worth quoting and commenting on a few bits of it.

It should be read, especially, by those few who may still believe that Catholic bodies have been unfairly tarnished these past few years. For it was commissioned, and published, by Ealing Abbey itself. And its findings are entirely shocking.

I think it worth noting that a number of people have suggested that this blog is merely a self-serving grab for publicity, that it is motivated by virulent anti-catholicism or violent secularism, and that I have been blowing things out of proportion. Well, think again.

This report is not only an acknowledgement of a catalogue of terrible abuse — which began in the 1940s and continued up until 2007 — but also of the long-running failure to address this abuse, or even to acknowledge it as being of suitable severity to be addressed. It was only commissioned long after The Times had begun reporting on a series of allegations of sexual abuse at St Benedict’s, prompting more victims to come forward.

It is inevitable that there will be even more victims who come forward, simply because even if we could wave a magic wand and absolutely guarantee no abuse happens at St Benedict's ever again (something I acknowledge to be impossible), because it can take decades for a victim to acquire the will and courage to come forward, there is going to be a trickle of cases which will probably last for the next 30 years or so.

Lord Carlile recognises primary and secondary fault, with the first belonging obviously to the abusers themselves, and the second being shared between the school and “the monastic community, in its lengthy and culpable failure to deal with what at times must have been evident behaviour placing children at risk”.

All perfectly correct. But I happen to be of the opinion that the secondary fault isn't all that secondary. Paedophiles will be paedophiles, and occupations which involve the care of children will inevitably be attractive to paedophiles. The Catholic priesthood is one such occupation. You can't recognise a potential child sex abuser at sight. As Catherine Pepinster has found out in the case of Father David Pearce, you can know an active abuser very well and still not realise. So, it is inevitable that abusers will get into the priesthood from time to time. The same applies to the teaching profession.

What matters is minimising the number of victims, and minimising the harm done to them. The only way that you can find out that somebody is an abuser is from actual reports of abuse. So these reports, from victims and witnesses are the primary weapon in the fight against abuse. They have to be taken seriously, they have to be passed to the authorities who have the knowledge and training to investigate them properly, and they have to be acted on in so that when abuse is discovered, the abuser is immediately and permanently removed from a position supervising children.

All this Ealing Abbey failed to do. Victims were accused of maliciously accusing their abusers, abusers were permitted to remain, when the complaints got too loud abusing priests were moved to different duties and abusing lay teachers were quietly sacked and sent on their way with a good reference so they they could continue to abuse elsewhere.

All these actions, carried out for the most part by people who weren't abusers themselves, could hardly have been better at maximising the number of victims and the extent of the harm done to them had they been designed with that especial objective in mind. And these action contributed hugely to the overall duration of the abuse and the number of victims, which just at St. Benedict's School must by now number in the hundreds.

Even when Lord Carlile began his report, he writes, another monk banned from working with children was still living there. “The Abbot has accepted that another dwelling has to be found for any member of the monastic community falling within the categories described,” he writes. “This must continue as a permanent policy.”

It stretches credulity that such a thing could even need saying. The fact that it does is indicative of the problems which Lord Carlile highlights, and sheds light upon the Church’s continuing inability to police itself.

In fact, when Lord Carlile began his work, there were two monks living at the Abbey under restrictions, Father Stanislaus Hobbs and Father Gregory Chillman. At the insistence of the Department for Education and over the energetic objections of the Abbot, Father Stanislaus Hobbs was moved to a care home outside the diocese earlier this year. But the Carlile Report lists Chillman as still living at the Abbey under restriction, and the Abbey website also lists him as a monk resident at the Abbey. I believe he has only very recently moved out.

It is this kind of obstructive, grudging response to obviously sensible suggestions for child protection which leave me of the opinion that the abbey and the school cannot move on under their present management.

The Carlile Press Conference

2011-11-09T22:30:00.000Z

The Carlile Report has now been published. it is available on the school website.

It is quite a long document: 58 pages including a new revision of the school's child protection policy. A document of that length deserves a bit of time spent considering it. I shall be reviewing and analysing it over the coming days. But for the moment I want to concentrate on the events of the press conference itself.

It was held at 9am this morning, and journalists had an opportunity to arrive at 8am in order to read the document before the press conference started. There were 40-50 journalists present.

Present to answer questions were Lord Carlile himself, the school's headmaster Mr. Christopher Cleugh, and the schools deputy headteacher and Designated Teacher for safeguarding, Mr, Stephen Oliver.

Both Carlile and Cleugh opened with apologies to the victims who had suffered from abuse. Carlile said that the physical severity of the abuse (whether physical or sexual) does not neatly map onto the extent of the damage to the victims. He stated that, for instance, repeated sexually motivated beatings can be just as psychologically damaging as outright sexual assaults. So, whatever might be severity of this or that form of abuse in criminal terms, in the sense of the sentence that an offender might receive, he was treating all categories of abuse together

Carlile described the delays to the report that had been caused by the recent trial of Pearce and Maestri, how he didn't want to prejudice either the prosecution or defence. He also commented about Father Laurence Soper, and urged himself to return to answer police questions and go though the justice system if necessary, just like anybody else would have to.

Carlile then went on to describe his recommendations. Chief among them are his proposals for the governance of the school. At present, there is a single charitable trust that administers the abbey, the monastery, the school and the parish. Only monks can be trustees and the chairman of trustees is the Abbot.

Carlile (quite correctly in my view) regards this as an unhealthy situation. In essence the problem is that while the charity has a number of different categories of beneficiary (e.g. monks, parishioners, pupils), the governance is wholly in the hands of just one of those categories, the monks. It can lead to distortions in priorities, and the Abbot has apparently acknowledged that it is opaque to outsiders.

Instead, he proposes that two separate trusts be set up, one to administer the Abbey, monastery and parish, and which owns the property, and another educational trust which administers the running of the school. He proposes the following composition for the governing body.

I suggest that it should consist of not less than 13 and not more than 24 members. This governing body should include the Abbot for the time being, the Headmaster/Headmistress of the Senior School, the Deputy Head and (if a different person) the designated senior member of staff responsible for safeguarding. There should be at least two parent representatives (I would suggest one elected and the other appointed by the Chair of the Governors with approval of the body), at least one elected staff representative, a senior student representative over the age of 16, at least two alumni, and up to fourteen independent governors. There should always be a lay (non-Monastic) majority. The student representative should serve for one year only. Teacher and non-teacher governors (apart from those serving ex-officio) should serve for four year terms, renewable no more than twice. The Chair should be elected by the governing body, but should be neither the Abbot nor any other member of the monastic Community. The detailed constitution should reflect contemporary forms of governance of independent schools.

One might quibble over the details, but the general principle is clear. There is a need for the governing body to be able to draw on a wider range of experience than is available to the monastic community alone, the chairman of governors needs to be a layman, and there should always be a lay majoity in the board. By this means, he hopes to avoid the school falling into the trap of placing the perceived interests of the monastic community above those of the pupils and the school as a whole.

Carlile acknowledged that he isn't an expert in trust law, and when the trust is set up it might differ in some details, but his position is that the school needs governance arrangements appropriate to the needs of an independent school in the 21st century, while retaining its Catholic and specifically Benedictine character.

Carlile went on to acknowledge that a good structure of governance by itself is "no guarantor of good practice". As the report says, "To state the obvious, effective practice depends upon a strong set of written procedures, the management to enforce them, and the commitment to effective enforcement."

I'll write about the journalists' questions later

Carlile Report

2011-11-09T14:16:00.000Z

It was published today, and Mr Cleugh and Lord Carlile gave a press conference. There were a large number of papers and TV channels present. I suspect it's going to be on the news most channels this evening - BBC London, ITV London, Channel 4, Sky, BBC R4.

I'm too exhausted to write about it in detail for now.

Why automatic reporting is important

2011-11-08T14:21:00.001Z

This is an issue relevant to all independent schools, not just Catholic schools. St Benedict's is part of the Catholic abuse scandal, but it is also part of the independent schools abuse scandal. There have been abuse cases at many independent schools reported recently, and in almost all cases there have been failures to properly report the abuse, either at the time, or when a teacher is removed.

The Times (behind paywall) for instance yesterday reported the resignation of Peter Crook as headmaster of the Purcell School, following the way he handled incidents of sexual bullying at the school. There are quite a few other cases that could be mentioned.

Private schools may claim status as charities, but it must be understood that they compete with each other as businesses. The problem is that an abuse scandal is very bad for business - it unsettles the parents something terrible. So when an allegation of abuse comes to light, there is a huge temptation to find some way of handling it quietly and internally with no publicity. The teacher is moved to another post to put him out of the way of the victim, or is quietly kicked out and sent on his way with a good reference.

Both these techniques have been used at St. Benedict's, but the school if far from the only one which has been caught at it.

Make no mistake, kicking a teacher out because of abuse and not telling the authorities about it is against the law. The school by law must send a report to the Independent Safeguarding Authority describing the circumstances, so that they can in turn decide whether the teacher ought to be put on "List 99", the government's list of people not considered suitable to work with children.

St Benedict's has undoubtedly broken the law in this respect, not once but several times. But so have other schools. In any of these cases, if you ask the Department for Education what they are going to do about it, they say something wishy-washy like "we are working with the setting to improve matters". So, while there is a law against non-reporting, there aren't any really effective sanctions. To the best of my knowledge, no independent school has ever been de-registered by the DfE because it has broken the law on reporting abuse.

In the absence of effective legal sanctions which at the moment just don't exist, the only way to ensure that St. Benedict's doesn't gradually slip back into its old bad habits is for there to be a major change in attitude there. There has to a firm determination that nothing like this will ever be permitted to happen again.

That has to be backed with actions, the first of which must be a well-written safeguarding policy that is a model of best practice: unambiguous, thorough, and which commits absolutely to automatic reporting, both of allegations of abuse and of allegations of misconduct related to safeguarding. Misconduct covers things such as making inappropriately sexual remarks to children, or having or viewing child pornography. These can be the precursors of more serious abuse, and so must also be reported so that a stop can be put to it before anybody is harmed, even though inappropriate remarks aren't a crime.

In addition, a culture of awareness needs to be fostered, so that inappropriate touching is not a taboo subject, the parents have to be made aware of the issues so that they know to respond appropriately in the hopefully unlikely event that their child tells them of something untoward which has happened. The teachers have to be trained in child protection, including how to prevent themselves from being placed in situations where allegations could arise. There has to be an open-door policy to ensure that teachers are not unavoidably alone in a closed room with a single pupil.

And because of the risk that there will be backsliding and a reversion to old habits, the school needs to accept that it doesn't trust itself for the time being, and voluntarily submit to increased external monitoring for the time being, by an organisation expert in child protection in independent schools. The Lucy Faithfull Foundation could do an excellent job of this.

I doubt that the existing management can pull through such a radical programme, especially when they are so identified with the culture of denial that has existed up to now. That means that the abbot and the headmaster at the very least have to go. If you are going to clean up this mess, you have to have a new broom.

That is what I hope Lord Carlile will recommend and what I hope the school will implement, because the children at St. Benedict's deserve to be safe there, and future generations of children going there deserve also to be safe.

The St. Benedict's Child Protection Policy

2011-11-08T08:56:00.001Z

One of the most disturbing aspects of the sexual abuse scandal at Ealing Abbey and St. Benedict's School is that the school has repeatedly failed to report allegations of abuse to the authorities.

If the school was serious about putting its house in order, you would have thought that the one thing they would do is to work as quickly and thoroughly as possible to make the school's safeguarding policy into a model of best practice.

One particular key point is that whenever there is an allegation or incident, not only of abuse, but also of misconduct related to safeguarding, the Local Authority Designated Officer for Child Protection (LADO) must be informed immediately.

The LADO has the training and independence to make a decision as to whether the allegation needs to be followed up, whether Social Services need to be called in to investigate, and whether a crime may have been committed and the police need to be involved. So, all allegations must be reported initially to the LADO.

But the school's policy doesn't say that. Section 30 of the policy says the following.

30. Action by the Designated Teacher

The action to be taken will:

a) conform to the local inter-agency procedures of the Ealing Safeguarding Children Board.

b) ensure that the school will not investigate concerns but refer them to the Local Authority Designated Officer (LADO), SSD or police.

c) satisfy the wishes of the complainant's parents, provided they have no interest which is in conflict with the pupil's best interests and that they are properly informed. Again, it may be necessary, after all appropriate consultation, to override parental wishes in some circumstances. If the Designated Teacher is concerned that disclosing information to parents would put a child at risk, he or she will take further advice from the relevant professionals before making a decision to disclose.

d) respect duties of confidentiality, so far as applicable.

e) ensure that a child’s interests are paramount.

f) ensure that, if there is room for doubt as to whether a referral to SSD should be made, the Designated Teacher will consult with the Local Authority Designated Officer (LADO) or other appropriate professionals on a no names basis without identifying the pupil. However, as soon as sufficient concern exists that a child may be at risk of significant harm, a referral will be made within 24 hours. If the initial referral is made by telephone, the Designated Teacher will confirm the referral in writing to SSD within 24 hours. If no response or acknowledgment is received within three working days, the Designated Teacher will contact Social Services again. The Designated Teacher will agree with the recipient of the referral what the child and parents will be told, by whom and when.

Item (a) shouldn't need to be said, the school's policy as written should already conform to those procedures. It also is a copout in that the school is claiming to follow procedures which it neither publishes not makes a direct reference to. The parent is left with the job of trying to find out what those procedures are.

Item (b) is wrong, the school should immediately report to the LADO. The LADO then makes the decision to bring in other agencies as needed. If the school contacts other agencies directly, this should be in addition to its report to the LADO, not as an alternative.

Item (c) is very dangerous. It has happened in many independent schools that the school has persuaded the parents of a victim that the last thing that their child needs is the further trauma of answering questions, and so the parents' consent to notify the authorities is withheld. So, the child and its family don't get the professional help and support they need at a very traumatic time, and the actions of the alleged abuser don't get properly investigated. And so the abuse can continue. Such a scenario is entirely consistent with this clause of the school's child protection policy, and completely undermines any claim that the school will automatically report all incidents.

Item (c) is also inconsistent with item (e). If the child's interests are to be regarded as paramount, then automatic reporting must occur, so that the necessary professional support is made available to the child.

Item (f) is also dangerous. We don't need weasel words about cases of doubt. If there is any doubt, you report to (not consult with) the LADO anyway, and then let the LADO decide whether a referral to SSD (Social Services Department) is needed.

There are several other severe shortcomings in the school's safeguarding policy. If the school wanted to make sure it prevented any repetition of the errors of the past, it should have been as keen as mustard to make the safeguarding policy an absolute model of clarity and thoroughness. Instead, the policy has been left muddled and contradictory, and with no more than grudging improvements on the policy in place at the time of Father David Pearce's sentencing, which was one long excuse never to report anything to the authorities.

The policy is better than it was, but in the circumstances parents had a right to expect a whole lot more than this. There is no justification for waiting for Lord Carlile to report before doing anything, these shortcomings have been obvious for ages and work should have started immediately. If Lord Carlile happened to make additional recommendations, then they could be added to the policy afterwards.

But the school hasn't done that, they have done the bare minimum. This doesn't offer confidence that they are serious about safeguarding. If the policy were left as it is now, then when Lord Carlile's fees have been paid, the press has lost interest and the parents have forgotten about the brouhaha, this policy would enable an abuser to get into the school and not be detected and reported for some time. And then we will be back where we started. It's just not good enough.

Back in the beginning

2011-11-06T20:30:00.001Z

The Daily Mail article has prompted me to take a look back at the first article about Ealing Abbey that I wrote here, way back in August 2009, Catholic clerical abuse at Ealing Abbey and St. Benedict's School.

I think it is worth re-emphasising the main points I made in that original article.

I made it clear that I did not blame the ordinary Catholics who attend Mass at the Abbey, I acknowledged that they had no idea what was going on.
I suggested that the Abbey's records on all matters of complaints or allegations of sexual abuse connected to the Abbey should be independently reviewed.
I suggested that provisions should be made for counselling and pastoral care to be provided to victims, including those who had not yet come forward.
I suggested that a full and unreserved public apology be issued.
I suggested that the parish and the schools review their child protection policies.
And finally, I hoped that those involved in putting things right avoid getting into a siege mentality.

In my naivity back then, it seemed to me that this was a very reasonable and moderate set of suggestions, which no reasonable person, Catholic or otherwise, would have any difficulty with, given the awful truth that had recently come to light about Father David Pearce.

I wasn't asking for the school to be demolished or for the monastery to be dissolved. I wasn't branding all catholics as child abusers or suggesting that the pope was the Antichrist. All I was asking was that the mistakes of the past be acknowledged, the victims be apologised to, and measures be taken to make sure that this can never happen again.

It is now 2 years and 2 months since that original article. Had there been a determination on the part of the Abbot to do so, almost all these things could have been achieved 2 years ago. Each passing month lessened my respect for Abbot Martin and increased my conviction that he was deliberately hiding matters that had not yet come to light, and hoping that it would all blow over.

In December 2009, the Charity Commission published the report of its two Statutory Inquiries into Ealing Abbey. I had no hand in them being set up, they started before I ever became aware of the issue. Publication of the reports had been delayed until after the trial of Pearce had been concluded. The local MP Andy Slaughter said that he had never seen such a damning and critical report from the Charity Commission

In February, what purported to be the report of an "Independent Review" commissioned by the Abbot was published. I later learned who had conducted the inquiry, and a friend of mine spoke to him concerning the circumstances under which it had been carried out. It turned out that:

the terms of reference were the Abbey only, not the school,
it was a paper-only review, nobody was interviewed.
the reviewer visited for only half a day
the review addressed only the period covering the abuse of Pearce's last victim, when Pearce was already under restrictions
the reviewer was not told about the duration and number of Pearce's other known crimes, though he inferred that other crimes not disclosed had been committed.

Despite this, the report was placed on the school website as being the fulfilment of the Abbot's promise of an independent review.

As my concerns increased, and as more facts came to light, I wrote to the Independent Schools Inspectorate and the Department for Education expressing my concerns. The DfE's response was to order the ISI to make an additional unannounced inspection, which resulted in a critical report the like of which had never previously been published by the ISI. This inspection took place at the end of April 2010, six months after my original blog article.

That report was published in July 2010, but not sent to parents until September. In the meantime of course, the cheques for another term's school fees had been sent to the school and banked. By this time, publicity was growing, there had been articles in the Times and there was a degree of restiveness among parents. So a Parental Forum was held, at which two mutually contradictory lines were pursued by the Abbot and headmaster. The first was that the abuse was all in the past, nobody involved with the abuse had any current connection with the school, all was now well and parents had no reason to be concerned. The second line was that this was all so serious that the school had decided to commission Lord Carlile to conduct an independent review.. (The earlier review was conveniently forgotten.)

The first approach was holed below the waterline when a perceptive parent asked if there had been any recent allegations of abuse against monks or members of staff apart from those mentioned in the ISI report. There was dead silence in the room for several seconds, before the headmaster admitted that a current member of staff was at present suspended following allegations of misconduct. (That member of staff was subsequently returned to duties, and the headmaster wrote to all parents on his return. The letter didn't state whether the allegations had been substantiated, but did say that the staff member concerned had been given training in "communication skills". The staff member has since been given additional pastoral duties.)

In June last year, I learned of the connection between Father Gregory Chillman and St. Augustine's Priory School. I also learned of allegations of misconduct by Father Gregory in his role as Chaplain there. There had already been allegations made publicly in the comments of the blog dating from his days as a teacher at St. Benedict's. I took a look at the school's child protection policy on the school website, and saw that it was so bad it made the St Benedict's policy look like a model of thoroughness and diligence in comparison. So I wrote again to the ISI and DfE, passing on the allegations I had received and requesting that they look into it. As it happened, St Augustine's had recently joined the Independent Schools Council, and had just had an ISI inspection in March, and the report had not yet been issued.

The ISI's final report was as critical of St Augustine's as the report of the special inspection had been of St. Benedict's. But rather than accept the report and make the necessary improvements, Mrs Gumley Mason sought Judicial Review of the report in the High Court. Judicial Review is a hard thing to obtain. In order to get an administrative decision by a public body overturned on Judicial Review, you have to demonstrate that the original decision is so perverse that no honest and reasonable person with two braincells to rub together could possibly have reached the original decision. Nearly a year after the original inspection, the report was finally published, still containing all the criticisms the school had complained about.

In June this year, I wrote to the new Papal Nuncio. I summarised my concerns regarding the abbey and both schools, providing brief histories of the key people involved. When I met the Nuncio at the end of July, he told me that he had been so concerned about the letter that he had researched the matter, and as a result had contacted Rome. Cardinal Levada, head of the CDF, had ordered an Apostolic Visitation, which would start in September and be conducted by Bishop John Arnold (auxiliary bishop of the diocese of Westminster) and Abbot Richard Yeo (Abbot President of the English Benedictine Congregation).

So this isn't just a matter of some sad obsessed individual with a grudge against the school (which is how the Abbey has portrayed me to journalists recently). My concerns were well-founded, the authorities agreed with me and have conducted investigations, the results of which so far have borne out my concerns.

In his prizegiving day address in September 2010, Mr Cleugh used the occasion to express his belief that the recent publicity seemed "hell-bent on trying to discredit the School and, at the same time, destroy the excellent relationship between School and Monastery",and speculated that it was "part of an anti-Catholic movement linked to the papal visit". This is not the attitude of a man who thinks that there is any need for improvements.

If I were as anti-Catholic as Mr. Cleugh appears to suggest, I would be taking no trouble at all over the safety of Catholic children. It is after all mainly the children of Catholics who attend Catholic schools. If I were anti-Catholic, I would say that it served them right and leave them to stew in their own juice. But in fact, I believe that the children of Catholics have as much right to be safe in their schools as any other children.

The next chapter will open next week, with the release of the Carlile Report. I very much hope that this will finally set the abbey and St Benedict's School on a new path where the evils of the past are acknowledged and apologised for, and work is finally started in earnest to ensure that this cannot happen again. I do not wish to see the closure of the school. For as long as there are parents who wish for a private Catholic education for their children, the existence of independent Catholic schools is entirely valid. All I expect is that those schools provide the highest standards of safeguarding for the children in their care.

More in the press

2011-11-05T09:44:00.001Z

The Daily Mail has a piece about Ealing Abbey today.: Predators at the Abbey.

The Mail describes the ghastly experiences of a boy it calls Jeff (not his real name), and then goes on to describe an even more shocking incident.

In an apparent fit of despair, one of his friends in the middle school, Lewis de Luca, shot himself in the temple with an airgun at 16. It took 13 months for him to die.

An inquest heard that he had become depressed after being accused — falsely, he insisted — of stealing a tennis racquet at St Benedict’s, and expelled on the eve of his O Levels. Jeff is convinced it was the paedophile masters who really drove him to his death.

At 13, he says, Lewis had been one of the school’s most popular boys — outgoing, handsome and a champion athlete. Then he was summoned to a monk’s office where it seems he was violently assaulted. Jeff saw him emerge white-faced and trembling with his trousers soiled.

‘Lewis was terribly abused; broken down,’ he told me. ‘You just knew. I left the school at 13, and lost touch with him, and then one day I heard he was dead. I am absolutely convinced it had something to do with what happened to him at that school.’

Having followed the unfolding scandal at St Benedict’s, Lewis de Luca’s mother Rosalind harbours the same suspicions.

The experience of losing her teenage son was so devastating, she told me, that for many years she blanked out many memories. But now she remembers how he came home one day and told her someone, a teacher, had ‘made a pass’ at him, and he had made it clear he wasn’t interested.

She hadn’t thought this incident to be serious, but now wonders whether it was a hint of something far more sinister. ‘It’s very disturbing for a mother to think he might have been subjected to abuse and couldn’t tell me about it,’ she said. ‘It’s such a horrible feeling. In those days, I’d heard about Gay Dave, but I thought the boys were making it up. I didn’t think it was happening. They were priests. Men of God. I just didn’t believe they could go around doing that sort of thing.’

Mrs de Luca, I don't know if you will ever read this blog, but if you do, please realise that if Lewis was sexually abused, it is no surprise that he was unable to tell you at the time. Because of the psychological manipulations carried out by their abusers, many victims are unable to tell anybody at all for many years, and a significant proportion feel unable to come forward until both their parents are dead, because they cannot bear the distress it would cause to those they love the most.

If Lewis couldn't tell you it is not because you are a bad parent, almost certainly it is because you are a good parent and he was trying to protect you as well as he knew how.

I have heard of other suicides amongst pupils and former pupils of St. Benedict's. It is of course impossible to prove that those pupils were abused or that there was a connection between the abuse and the suicide. That is something known only to their abusers, and they aren't likely to admit it, even to themselves. It is to prevent more pupils going through the experiences described by Jeff, and to reduce the risk of suicides such as Lewis's that I will not rest until I am satisfied that the child protection measures at the school and Abbey have been made a model of best practice, and that there has been a complete change of culture there, from the denial that exists now to one of awareness and education in these issues.

From a parent

2011-11-04T13:34:00.002Z

Below is an open letter about St Benedict‘s School from a parent of a child who attended this school between the age of 7 and 18. For entirely understandable reasons the parent wishes to remain anonymous.

=====================

The revelations about the child abuse that went on at St Benedict’s School for a period of about 40 years are distressing.As a parent one attempts to do the very best for one’s child; this included aCatholic and Christian education at what was then known to be an excellentprivate Catholic school in West London. The struggle to find the fees was thought to be well worth while for the prize of aplace at St Benedict’s.

My son was taught religion by Father David Pearce andFather Pearce was also his form master. As “Captain David” he ran the CadetCorps which involved going away to camp in Wales. This priest, as we all nowknow, is serving 8 years, (now reduced to 5 years) imprisonment for childabuse. One trusted these priests and the lay teachers, as one consigned totheir care, the most precious commodity – a child.

My son did not reallyachieve what he should have done at St Benedict’s, although with much parentalsupport and help he has turned out to be a model and responsible citizen, witha good career and a happy marriage. His success in life has come through hisown efforts with strong family support and not, I regret to say, from his timeat St Benedict’s which made him under achieve and with left him with a contemptfor authority. I now understand why.

When the news broke about Father David, myson’s reaction was “Oh, I am not surprised it’s him, but there was one monk,much worse that has not been mentioned”. I had had no inkling at all beforethis that anything inappropriate had gone on. My cousin’s son, also a pupil atSt Benedict’s at about the same time, similarly never raised with his familyany inappropriate behaviour, yet both boys were obviously aware that “thingswere not right”. I suppose some strange code of schoolboy behaviour preventedthem from saying anything.

My son, regularly returned home from the Rugby field, dressed in two shirts (possibly not his) nosocks or two pairs of socks and clothes thrown on any old how; my reaction tothat was that boys did not care, and paid no attention to how they dressed. NowI learn that Father David appeared in the changing rooms complete with cinécamera and, with hindsight, I now realise the need for speedy dressing. Itnever dawned on me at the time that anything could be wrong; my son nevercomplained.

Likewise my cousin’s son mentions a group of boys going up to onemonk’s office to stand outside and make a noise, whilst one of their friendswas inside being “chastised”. This was their effort to ensure that theheadmaster knew they were there, so nothing “inappropriate” might happen totheir friend. My worried question to my son “were you.....?” was answered by“don’t worry Mum, I knew enough to keep out of his way”. Really? Is this thebest St Benedict’s could offer its children?

My question to the monks and layteachers at St Benedicts is this: How over a period of nearly forty years didall this abuse go undetected? Within any organisation, especially one asclose-knit as an abbey, can no-one else, ever have raised or had any suspicionabout what was going on? I am afraid it beggars belief.

Careful wording ofdocuments issued from the abbey can confuse the issue. Does one need to know“officially” about child abuse before deciding to take action? Letters statingthat “I am sorry you feel youwere let down” puts the blame on the victims. Fathers, we don’t just feel wewere let down. Five or six child abusers in one school? We were let down andbadly.

We now hear that Father Lawrence Soper, has failed to turn up for policequestioning or “jumped bail” as eloquently reported in the national press a fewdays ago. It is a wild stretch of the imagination to believe that this 80 yearold, known to the boys as Father Florence, has simply gone on the run. Obviouslysomeone, somewhere is looking after him, caring for him and giving him succour.I only hope and pray that this won’t turn out to be a Benedictine monastery orconvent somewhere in Europe.

As for my son? His“caring” Catholic and Benedictine education has made him “not officially” apracticing Catholic. Not quite the hoped for result in sending him for a goodCatholic education. With whom, Fathers, rests the responsibility for his lostSoul?

Catherine Pepinster

2011-11-04T01:02:00.008Z

In her column in The Tablet, Catherine Pepinster has been lamenting the defilement of Ealing Abbey, which she regarded as "a very special home for me". I have a good deal of sympathy for her. I would like to address this blog article to Catherine Pepinster, going over some of the issues raised in her article.

Several years ago, I clearly remember being at Mass in my parish and thinking at the Consecration: imagine if the hands that held the host were the hands of someone who had assaulted a child. To those who are not Catholic, such a thought would be meaningless alongside the horror of a vulnerable child being abused. But it would make any Catholic shudder. Might I have had any inkling of what was to come? A short while later, a priest friend asked to meet me. Something was clearly up yet it never occurred to me - not once - that this Benedictine monk whom I'd known most of my life was to tell me that he was accused of abusing children.

Today, Fr David Pearce is in prison.

Catherine has previously gone on record as having been a longstanding friend of Father David, and I entirely sympathise with her shock about this. Clever career paedophiles are very good at polishing their outward appearance of respectability. The primary damage they do is to their child victims. But while it doesn't compare in seriousness to the damage done to children, it is worth acknowledging the damage done to the adults who were taken in by that outward show of respectability. Father David was the very epitome of this. What could possibly be more respectable than a monk, priest, teacher, former dentist, TA officer? All jobs which earn people's trust. There is no disgrace in having been taken in by such a very plausible liar.

Three of his fellow Ealing Abbey monks have been investigated as well. One has been restricted in his dealings with children; another was found not guilty but after his acquittal was asked to leave the monastery. The third, Fr Laurence Soper, is wanted by the police after failing to answer bail. He is thought to be somewhere in Italy.

I'm sorry to have to break this to you Catherine, but there are more than this. The ISI report last year mentioned six separate cases, five monks and one lay teacher. Four of the five monks are Father David Pearce, Father Gregory Chillman, Father Stanislaus Hobbs, and Abbot Laurence Soper. I have a good idea who the fifth is, (he no longer lives at the Abbey) but I haven't had sufficient confirmation yet to justify naming him.

But in addition to those five, and John Maestri (the lay teacher referred to in the ISI report), Father Kevin Horsey would very likely have been charged by now had he not died in 2006.

The fallout from this scandal continues, day after day, in Ealing. Monks who have given their lives to the Church, to their order, to their school, and to the parish, and who are innocent of any crime, are now viewed by some with suspicion.

That suspicion is understandable. Not only because people will be wondering whether somebody else will be charged with abuse, but because they will also be wondering who knew about the abuse, and covered it up.

The individual who was found not guilty of abuse was made to leave the monastery, under pressure from the diocese.

The way you have presented this suggests that you might have been misinformed about the circumstances. The monk in question is Father Stanislaus Hobbs, and he has indeed been moved out of the monastery. And I don't doubt that pressure from the diocese was a factor. But the primary insistence on this came from the Department for Education.

Hobbs was indeed acquitted in 2007 of the charge made against him. But in the course of police questioning, recorded and played during the trial, he admitted to a similar indecent assault on the same boy during a school trip to Italy. Because of the way the law stood at the time, that assault could not be prosecuted in the UK because it took place abroad. the defence argued that the victim had made up the story of the assault in the UK because he knew that the assault in Italy couldn't be prosecuted. The jury decided there was reasonable doubt and acquitted, as they had every right to do.

The Independent Schools Inspectorate, the Department for Education, Ealing Social Services and the diocese all formed the view that Hobbs on balance of probability was a danger to children, since there was a recorded admission of an assault on a child, even though no prosecution could result from it.

The ISI in its recent report on the school advised that the trustees should "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." On the basis of that recommendation and in the light of Hobbs' own admission, there was no way that his continued presence at the Abbey could be justified. And yet the Abbey fought tooth and nail to prevent his removal. Why?

And the monk you mention who "has been restricted in his dealings with children" by the same token also ought not still to be at the Abbey. He would hardly be restricted unless he too had been found to be a danger to children, and yet he remains at the Abbey, in defiance of the ISI recommendation. Have you attempted to find out why this is so?

There have been rows between parishioners with very different opinions, from those who think that a priest in prison is evil and should have no contact with any of us, not even a Christmas card, to others who refuse to believe that "Father" could possibly have done anything wrong and it's all a plot by the anti-Catholic media.

I can believe it. Those who claim it is all an anti-Catholic plot include the headmaster of the school Mr Christopher Cleugh, who used his prizegiving day speech in September 2010 to press that line. In front of several hundred assembled staff, pupils and parents, he said "Recent media and blog coverage seems 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." Has it occurred to you that at least some of those who complain most loudly about anti-catholic plots might be doing so in order to divert attention from genuine catholic abuses which they have committed, or at least know about?

There is also a great deal of suspicion about the past. When Fr Laurence Soper was abbot and suddenly resigned, we were never given any formal explanation. Then a story floated which seemed to stick: that he'd had a row with his brethren about the cost of the church extension. Or did he flee because there were already complaints about his behaviour towards young boys?

I think you are right to be suspicious. It is perhaps a pity that your suspicions weren't aroused earlier. One of the things school inspectors are supposed to be trained to do is regard any sudden departure of somebody from a school setting as worthy of detailed investigation, especially if it occurs in the middle of the school year, and even more so if it occurs in the middle of a school term. All such sudden departures are supposed to be checked during an inspection. The majority do have an entirely innocent explanation - a move to a better job at another school, a departure for reasons of illness or to look after a sick relative. But concealed amongst them can be departures that are actually for reasons of abuse, which the school has kept quiet about because they don't want the adverse publicity. This it seems is how John Maeastri's departure from the school was handled, it was put about that he had left for reasons of ill health. And for that matter, ill-health was also given as the reason for Father Gregory Chillman's retirement as a governor of St Augustine's Priory School last year.

If it turns out that Soper did skip town because of complaints about his behaviour (for instance, possibly at Feltham Young Offenders Institute, of which he was a visiting chaplain until he left for Rome), then the rumour put out about the row over the church extension must have been a lie, and known to be a lie by those who spread the story, and know to be a lie by Abbot Martin Shipperlee, who clearly did nothing to prevent the story from being accepted.

And what of Fr David: how long did other monks know of his activities? What secrets were kept hidden for so long

I can answer that for you. His abuses were kept secret for at least 15 years, and possibly considerably longer. He "retired" as Junior School Headmaster at the end of 1992, as a direct result of complaints about abuses. I have spoken to the victim concerned. But he wasn't removed from the Abbey, he was instead made Bursar of the school, and as far as I am aware remained associated with the Cadet Corps. Later, he was even given additional responsibilities within the Abbey, being appointed Novice Master in 2004. This was at the time the diocesan safeguarding adviser, Peter Turner, was advising the Abbey that Pearce should be placed on restrictions because there had by now been several independent and credible complaints against him. That advice was ignored by Abbot Martin Shipperlee.

In 2006, the boy known as "C" sued the Abbey and Pearce for damages resulting from Pearce's abuse of him when he was a pupil in the school in the period 1989-93. The Abbey fought the case and lost. Damages were awarded to the value of £43,000. I have been told by a number of parishioners that the story put out was that the case had been settled out of court, not because the abuse had occurred, but out of consideration for the claimant's fragile mental state. This was of course a complete lie.

But at least after this, the Abbot, under pressure from the diocese, did finally put Pearce on restricted ministry. But you appear not to have known that he had been put on restrictions - it seems that very few people did know that he had been restricted, and even fewer knew the real reason why. At the sentencing hearing of Pearce's trial in 2009, the prosecution read out part of a letter from Abbot Martin which stated that the restrictions were "to protect Father David from unfounded allegations", whereas in fact the allegations were all too well-founded, as Abbot Martin knew perfectly well.

And problems with several monks from the same monastery: is that bad luck or symptomatic of a failure in leadership?

You don't get a mess like Ealing, with multiple abusers able to operate unchecked over a period of many years, without there having been serious management failures at many levels. The earliest account of abuse I have been told about dates back to the late 1940s. Here we are, over 60 years later, and the Abbey has not yet come to grips with the problem.

Yes, of course the Abbey's leadership has failed in the most catastrophic way imaginable. But the failings haven't ended there. The Abbot President of the English Benedictine Congregation is supposed to advise the Abbot. Whatever advice was given doesn't seem to have been effective. And the diocese of Westminster has known about abuses at Ealing for many years, and yet has neither obtained the Abbot's agreement to a diocesan inquiry nor made a request to Rome for an Apostolic Visitation. That request was made by me, and passed on by the Papal Nuncio, bypassing the diocese altogether. Archbishop Vincent Nichols had essentially washed his hands of the business, offering to do no more than pass my concerns back to the Abbot. There is plenty of blame to go round, enough for it to stick to a lot of senior catholic officials.

Time and again, the Catholic Church's response to calamity has been secrecy. Last weekend, I went along to a parish meeting at Ealing Abbey, wanting to know more about the abuse scandal and Fr Laurence's disappearance. But the parish priest refused to take any questions other than those submitted in advance. Those selected were about lighting, sound systems and the new translation of the Missal. Any other business would throw things off course, he said.

The conspiracy theorists will view this as a sinister attempt to conceal scandal. I suspect it is more to do with incompetence and the fears of people who are completely out of their depth.

I suspect that they realise that no honest answers will remotely justify their continued management of the school. And they also probably realise that any lies they tell may well be found out next week when Carlile publishes his report. So their only option is to say nothing and helplessly wait for the axe to fall. Carlile is due to publish next week.

St Gregory's Primary School

2011-11-03T08:16:00.000Z

Now it is spreading further. There is a story in yesterday's Ealing Gazette concerning a girl who was molested at St Gregory's Primary school.

She was told she was a liar and when she refused to tell teachers she had made it all up, was frogmarched to Ealing Abbey in Charlbury Grove and ordered to confess to a priest.

She said: "The teacher claimed he was just comforting me because I was crying in his office but that wasn't true. I was dragged to the abbey and put in front of a priest who was very disapproving. I'd never been in a confessional box before, it was very intimidating. I kept saying 'I've not lied, I've not lied' but in the end I gave in.

"I was called a wicked child and got nasty looks from teachers for all the trouble I'd caused. I don't know why he picked me, maybe because I didn't come from a good home. My mother never took it further."

The girl was just six years old at the time.

Letters to the Times

2011-11-02T09:35:00.005Z

Bishop John Arnold wrote to the Times yesterday about the Ealing visitation.

Sir, Abuse of children or vulnerable adults is a terrible crime and our concern is always for those who have suffered the severe and lasting wounds it inflicts (“Pope orders inquiry into child abuse at Ealing”, Oct 25). The Catholic Church in this country is committed to the work of safeguarding, maintaining transparency, and fully co-operating with the statutory authorities to whom all allegations are, and must be, reported. The two specific situations reported last week are a challenge (leading article, Oct 28), but are being addressed.

In Plymouth, the actions of the diocesan safeguarding co-ordinator in using internet images of child abuse are a painful betrayal of trust, particularly for those who confided in him. Following the discovery of these crimes and the safeguarding co-ordinator’s suspension, Bishop Christopher Budd acted in an exemplary fashion by calling in the NSPCC to conduct an independent review. They found that the handling of cases by the safeguarding co-ordinator over the past three years had been appropriate. This review continues to look at wider diocesan practice.

It is true that cooperation between some religious Orders and diocesan authorities needs to be strengthened. This is being addressed. Religious communities do not fall under the authority of the bishop, so where there are concerns it is not uncommon for an Apostolic Visitation to be initiated, as has happened at the Benedictine Abbey in Ealing where the life of the abbey and its safeguarding procedures are being reviewed. The associated school falls under the supervision of the Independent Schools Inspectorate. Lord Carlile of Berriew, QC, is leading an independent review of the school.

The Right Rev John Arnold
Cumberlege Commission, Apostolic Visitor to Ealing Abbey

The Times published my reply today.

Sir, In response to Bishop John Arnold’s letter (Nov 1), I have to say that on the available evidence the problems of Ealing are not being addressed. Bishop Arnold hasn’t yet arranged to meet the person who originally requested the visitation. That person is me.

I have compiled several hundred pages of information about the safeguarding shortcomings of Ealing Abbey and St Benedict’s School, and when I met the Papal Nuncio, Archbishop Antonio Menini, I made it clear to him that I was more than willing to meet the visitors and place all the information in their hands.

The bishop knows this but has not yet contacted me to arrange a meeting or to obtain my information. He has my contact details.

For Bishop Arnold to suggest that St Benedict’s School falls under the supervision of the Independent Schools Inspectorate rather than the Abbey is simply grotesque. The Abbey, the monastery, the parish and the school are all run by a single charitable trust, and the chairman of the trustees is the Abbot of Ealing, Abbot Martin Shipperlee. That makes Abbot Martin the proprietor of the school, not the ISI. Of course Ealing Abbey is responsible for St Benedict’s School.

Most of the abuses committed by Ealing monks have been perpetrated against pupils of St Benedict’s School. If the school is being excluded from the scope of the visitation, then I stand by my statement in The Times last week (report, Oct 25) that the visitation has been designed to achieve nothing at all. The design is even more careful than I was aware of at the time.

Jonathan West

The phone is still not ringing, so he still isn't calling me.

Bishop John Arnold's interview

2011-10-31T13:36:00.000Z

Bishop John Arnold was interviewed by BBC presenter Jane Little on the BBC R4 Sunday programme yesterday. below is a transcript of the interview with my comments

Jane Little: Let me start with Sean’s point that the archdiocese should have stepped in with an investigation of its own, even though technically religious orders don’t come under your jurisdiction.

Bishop John Arnold: No, and you were quite right to correct him. The monastery is autonomous and under the Benedictines, and they have their own structures there for visitations and of course the Vatican can step in and supervise that and establish an Apostolic Visitation. The parish as it is, is under the diocese and of course subject there to the safeguarding provisions and procedures adopted by the diocese and all dioceses in England and Wales.

We have a masterly bit of confusion right at the start here. He seems to be saying that Ealing Abbey both is and isn't under the jurisdiction of the diocese. It seems that in general terms it isn't, but in the specific context of safeguarding it is. So, if the parish is not implementing "procedures adopted by the diocese", does the diocese have the right to intervene in matters of safeguarding or does it not?

This is quite important. If the diocese has the right to intervene, then it should have done, and Archbishop Vincent Nichols was wrong to tell me he was unable to intervene. And if it hasn't the right to intervene, then it should have expressed its concerns to those who can intervene.

JL: But in the case of the diocese of Plymouth, the Bishop there had ordered a review into child protection at Buckfast Abbey and beyond, so why if it can happen there can’t you do it in the diocese of Westminster?

JA: I’m not that familiar with Plymouth itself, but as I understand it, Bishop Budd has brought in the NSPCC to review the whole operation of procedures following the conviction of Chris Jarvis, but again, the monastery would be autonomous. A bishop can make recommendations, and in this case it was in fact the Nuncio who made recommendations to the Vatican that there should be an Apostolic Visitation to Ealing.

The thing I most notice about this is that John Arnold has managed quite neatly not to answer the question. The question is why has the Diocese of Westminster not intervened at Ealing Abbey in the way the Diocese of Plymouth has at Buckfast. But all he's said in answer is to describe what has happened at Buckfast, and then describe what has happened at Ealing, which is that the Papal Nuncio (rather than the diocese) requested a visitation. What he hasn't said is why the diocese never requested a visitation. It is quite clear from comparable cases in other countries that Nichols does have the right to make a request along these lines to Rome, other bishops have (e.g. in Munich) when faced with obstructive Abbots.

JL: What about the argument made there by Sean that the church authorities here were obstructive rather than co-operative and that it’s very important to achieve some sort of transparency?

JA: Well, I’d have to disagree. I think the procedures are working pretty well, and they’re in place. I don’t tink there’s any intention of the church to be obstructive. We’ve got a very difficult problem here, and we’ve got ongoing work with victims, we’ve got to make sure that the safeguarding procedures are in place and I think there is transparency. What there mustn’t be is an overlap, so the Apostolic Visitation is looking to make sure that the safeguarding procedures are in place, and they’re being followed, but the investigations must be handed over to the statutory authorities.

Well, he would disagree, wouldn't he? Note that again though, he seems to be talking about the church in general, whereas Sean O'Neill was talking more specifcally about the church authorities responsible for safeguarding at Ealing and Buckfast.

And in his claims of transparency, I notice he says "we’ve got to make sure that the safeguarding procedures are in place" without making any statement about whether (at Ealing) the safeguarding procedures actually are in place.

And I have severe concerns about the church's procedures for handing over investigations to the statutory authorities. Section 2.1 of the CSAS procedures addresses handling of allegations of abuse of children. Within section 2.1, clause 2.1.1 deals with reporting allegations or concerns to the local safeguarding representative. But clause 2.1.2, describing referral to the police or social services starts as follows.

"When the decision has been made, after consultation with the Safeguarding Officer or Safeguarding Coordinator or by the Local Safeguarding Representative or recipient of the information in the case of an emergency, to make a referral to Children's Social Care Services or the Police, the following steps need to be taken."

And it goes on to describe the actions to be taken, once the decision to refer has been reached. What the clause doesn't do is describe the basis for making the decision to refer, the circumstances under which a referral must be made. So, Ealing Abbey could arguably claim that it is following the CSAS procedures, and yet never refer anything!

JL: It’s a bit embarrassing though isn’t it that the Vatican has come in over the local church’s head, and essentially said “You can’t deal with it. We will.”

JA: No, not really. Apostolic Visitations are not uncommon, and Rome very often steps in. As any big company when procedures are under question, they will come in and review procedures and make sure they are in place. So it’s not unusual, and some people have said this is a rebuke to Archbishop Vincent and a rebuke to the Benedictines, that couldn’t be the case. Here I am, I’m Archbishop Vincent’s auxiliary, and the Abbot President of the Benedictines is my co-visitor. Really, if was in a way a rebuke to either, then there would be a much more senior official from the Vatican coming in and doing the Apostolic Visitation.

In that case, there is a significant concern as to whether the visitors chosen are in a position to be sufficiently independent. For instance, Bishop John Arnold himself is an auxiliary in the Diocese of Westminster, yet the Pontius Pilate job the diocese has done here in leaving Ealing to its own devices is something that ought to be worthy of comment in the visitation's report. But is John Arnold going to have the guts to criticise his own Archbishop? I doubt it very much.

And Abbot Richard Yeo is in an even more invidious position. As Abbot President of the English Benedictine Congregation, he had a role in advising Abbot Martin Shipperlee how to address the crisis in Ealing, and has the benefit of his own participation in the Cumberlege Commission. If he has failed to give the proper advice, then his own personal actions are ones which reasonably ought to be considered by the visitation. So, it is quite possible that Yeo will have to investigate himself as part of his visitation duties. This is madness.

And it is worse. There have been allegations of abuse at Downside, dating from the time when Yeo was Abbot there. So it may yet happen that Yeo will be found to have covered up abuse. Also, the English Benedictine Congregation isn't all that big, the senior monks all know each other very well, they have been colleagues for years. For instance, Richard Yeo has known Abbot Francis Rossiter for many years. Rossiter was Abbot of Ealing from 1967-1991, a time when it seems that Father David Pearce (convicted of abuses), Father (later Abbot) Laurence Soper (on the run from the police) and John Maestri (convicted of abuses) were all teaching at St. Benedict's. Who knows how many oher abusers Rossiter was allowing to run around unhindered? Can we reasonably expect Yeo to conduct a thorough and impartial investigation of an old friend and colleague? He might be able to, but we can't have confidence that he actually will. So somebody who really is independent needs to be appointed if the visitation is going to be remotely credible.

A mess like Ealing doesn't happen without multiple management failures at different levels within an organisation. The immediate responsibility lies in the Abbey itself of course, but there are further levels of responsibility in the diocese and in the wider Benedictine Community, in that the mess in Ealing ought to have nbeen noticed and dealt with many years ago. Both in the diocese and the English benedictine Congregation (EBC) failed to do so. And yet the diocese and the EBC are conducting the visitation! Is there any reason to think that they are going to look into any of this?

JL: Critics have suggested that the Visitation has been carefully designed to achieve nothing at all.

JA: Well, we have our remit. The scope was the monastery to make sure safeguarding procedures are there and being followed, there is a pastoral concern for the monks, and for the victims of past abuse. I think that’s the scope we hope to complete and to achieve in your report to the Congregation.

That "carefully designed to achieve nothing at all" is me, quoted in the Times. I stand by that statement. Consider the following:

Who has been chosen to conduct the visitation
The visitation started without the public announcement by the church which had been promised to me by the Nuncio
The visitation has started and issued an interim report without attempting to contact me to obtain the information I told the Nuncio I had available for them.
Bishop John Arnold has been very vague about the terms of reference of the visitation
Bishop John Arnold is supposedly investigating Ealing, and yet he's asked them about me, and as a result has decided it seems that he doesn't need to ask me about them!

What other conclusion could I reasonably come to on the basis of the evidence available to me so far? I'm very ready to be persuaded otherwise. John Arnold has my phone number, he can call me any time and arrange a meeting.

JL: When will you report, and will you make the findings public?

JA: Well, an interim report is already being made. We don’t make a final report yet, we want also to see Lord Carlile’s report. He was invited in to consider the whole governance of safeguarding between school and abbey.

JL: And that’s coming out in a couple of weeks.

JA: That’s right, so we’ll want to consider that too. As to publication, we don’t actually own the report, the Congregation does. I wouldn’t be at all surprised if they choose to make it public given the circumstances, but it is their report.

What's the betting that the report will sit on a desk in the CDF for several months, and then quietly get forgotten about? They didn't even voluntarily announce that the visitation was happening, the Times found that out for themselves.

Ealing Abbey on "Sunday"

2011-10-29T22:32:00.002+01:00

BBC Radio 4's Sunday will be carrying the Ealing Abbey story in the morning. This is from the programme schedule on the BBC website.

The Vatican has ordered an inquiry into child sex abuse at Ealing Abbey and the adjoining school in west London. Jane speaks to Sean O'Neill, Crime Editor of the Times on the paper's investigation into a number of high-profile cases at the Abbey. She also hears from Bishop John Arnold, the man appointed by Rome to conduct the Apostolic Visitation.

The programme starts at 7.10am. When it is available on BBC iPlayer, I'll provide a link.

Update: You can now listen to the programme on BBC iPlayer. Follow this link. The interviews with Sean O'Neill and Bishop John Arnold are the first item in the programme after the introductions.

Another case at St Benedict's

2011-10-28T16:53:00.000+01:00

I've just turned up an article from the Times (behind paywall) from 28 July this year, which I completely missed at the time.

Former teacher faces pupil abuse charges

A former teacher at a leading private Catholic school appeared in court yesterday (Wednesday) charged with abusing an 11-year-old pupil almost 30 years ago.

Stephen Skelton is alleged to have abused the boy while he was working at St Benedict’s School in Ealing, West London, in 1983.

Mr Skelton, a maths teacher, is also accused of going on to abuse a 10-year-old pupil while working at West Hill Park, a day and boarding school in Titchfield, Hampshire, in 1993.

If Skelton is guilty of the West Hill Park charge, (and I stress that he has not yet been tried on either charge), then I would very much want to know the circumstances of his departure from St Benedict's: whether there was any complaint against him at the time, what action was taken, what reason was given publicly for his departure, and whether he was given a good reference by St Benedict's.

I have passed the details to Lord Carlile and requested that he look into it if time permits.

Sex abuse fears grow

2011-10-28T14:45:00.002+01:00

That is the front page headline on today's Times, describing a story (behind paywall) of another Catholic abuse scandal, concerning another Benedictine monastery with a school attached.

Victims have come forward describing abuse they suffered while at Buckfast Abbey School, a boarding school attached to the abbey, since closed. In one case, the investigation was handled by Chris Jarvis, the diocesan safeguarding adviser for the diocese of Plymouth.

The investigation never went anywhere, and now we know why. Jarvis has pleaded guilty to posessing and distributing child pornography and will appear in Plymouth Crown court today, presumably for sentencing.

The Times also has an editorial on the subject today, Rooting out Evil (also behind paywall), in which they lay into the complacency and secrecy of the church in the face of numerous stories of abuse. The end of the editorial is as follows.

But when things go wrong, the response to calamity must never be secrecy. Those calling for rigorous investigation are not anti-Catholic; they are anti-abuse. From the Vatican down, that must be the response to these latest scandals.

Mr Cleugh, please remember that. In September last year, you used your prizegiving day speech to accuse me and others of anti-catholicism. Do you remember saying this? (It is recorded in the 2010 Priorian magazine, page 7).

Recent media and blog coverage seems 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.

What matters to parents most is that their sons and daughters are safe and happy. I promise I will continue to do everything possible to ensure this is the case and I know that, in this assertion, I speak for all my colleagues.

I have two questions for you Mr Cleugh.

Are you now prepared to withdraw and apologise for those claims of anti-catholicism?
If you are truly doing everything possible to ensure the safety of the pupils, why have you removed from the school's safeguarding policy the appendix which described the procedures for dealing with allegations against members of staff?

UPDATE: Chris Jarvis has been sentenced to a year in jail for his crimes.

A change of tone?

2011-10-27T13:29:00.000+01:00

The publicity and pressure might finally be beginning to have an effect. On Tuesday, the headmaster included the following in his letter to parents

we will take into account any recommendations Lord Carlile makes to strengthen our policies and procedures.

But by the following day, his media statement said this:

The [Carlile] report will recommend how the school can implement exemplary child protection policies for the future and will move to adopt those recommendations immediately.

The emphasis in both cases is mine. There is a significant difference between the two statements. The first commits the school to absolutely nothing at all. They could take Carlile's recommendations into account and then having done so decide not to do anything. But the second is a commitment to adopt Carlile's recommendations immediately.

In the weeks that come, we shall see which version of Cleugh's statement is nearer to the truth, we shall see what the Carlile report contains, and whether the school is going to implement its recommendations immediately.

There is however one aspect of the second statement which gives rise for concern. In it, Cleugh states

we have strengthened our safeguarding procedures

I shall be detailing the latest version of the school's child protection policy in future articles, but for now I'll make just one point. In the version published on 22 September 2010, there was a long appendix describing the procedures to be followed in the event of an allegation against a member of staff. That appendix is missing from the current version brought into effect September this year. This is a strengthening?

Understandably, Mr Cleugh would like to consign the problems to the past, and assure us all that this is purely historical and of no relevance to the school today. But I'm afraid that won't wash.

Father David Pearce's restricted ministry was set up while Cleugh was headmaster, and Cleugh clearly thought that was sufficient, or at least didn't question it publicly.
The ISI Supplementary report found that the central register of appointments (used to record the CRB and other background checks on all staff) was incomplete. This is Mr. Cleugh's direct responsibility.
The ISI Supplementary report also found that the school's safeguarding policy did not meet regulatory requirements. This is also Mr Cleugh's direct responsibility.

Shortcomings in the CRB and background checks recorded in the register of appointments mean that a known abuser could come to the school and the school not realise it. Shortcomings in the safeguarding policy and the way it is implemented means that abuse could occur at the school and go undetected and unreported.

I pointed out shortcomings in the school's child protection policies two years ago. At the time, I got the brush-off from Mr. Cleugh. He could have saved himself an awful lot of trouble by listening to me at the time.

I would much have preferred that the children of the school could have been made safe two years ago by effective changes taken then. It would have saved a great deal of trouble all round.

The Visitation: the Vatican view

2011-10-27T00:18:00.000+01:00

According to the Catholic News Service, the Vatican spokesman Father Federico Lombardi has issued a statement about the Apostolic Visitation to Ealing Abbey.

Auxiliary Bishop John Arnold of Westminster and Abbot Richard Yeo, president of the English Benedictine Congregation, conducted the apostolic visitation at Ealing Abbey and the neighboring St, Benedict's School during September.

They have already made their report to the Vatican's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which ordered the visitation.

Jesuit Father Federico Lombardi, Vatican spokesman, confirmed to Catholic News Service Oct. 25 that Bishop Arnold was asked by the doctrinal congregation to conduct the apostolic visitation.

The congregation, he said, has competency for handling "questions regarding the sexual abuse of minors."

"When the final report of the visitation is ready, it will be given to the congregation, which will take the appropriate steps," Father Lombardi said.

The purpose of the visitation was to ensure that the English and Welsh church's stringent and updated child protection and safeguarding procedures -- put in place in 2002 and revised in 2007 -- have been followed to the letter, said an Oct. 25 statement emailed to Catholic News Service by the Bishops' Conference of England and Wales.

"In accordance with the National Catholic Safeguarding Commission's procedures, all allegations of abuse are passed onto the statutory authorities as has happened with the historic cases at Ealing Abbey," the statement said.

"The Catholic Church in England and Wales is determined to ensure its robust safeguarding procedures are followed, and this visitation is consistent with that aim," it added. "Any person with an allegation of abuse is urged to report it to the statutory authorities."

Well, that's all right then. If this is true, then the visitation has already finished and its report has been written. It was very nice of Bishop John Arnold to tell me so.

The Visitation - the church's description

2011-10-26T22:14:00.000+01:00

The following statement has appeared on the Diocese of Westminster website.

An Apostolic Visitation is a meeting with the superiors and members of a religious community. It provides an opportunity to examine community and religious life. An Apostolic Visitation to the Benedictine Community at Ealing Abbey has been conducted by Dom Richard Yeo OSB and Bishop John Arnold who visited and met with the community in September 2011. The effective safeguarding of children and vulnerable adults is a priority for the Catholic church and Ealing Abbey’s safeguarding policies and procedures formed part of the remit of the Apostolic Visitation.

The last sentence is a flat contradiction of what Bishop John Arnold told me in his email. Or perhaps it was just a lie by omission - they reviewed Ealing Abbey's procedures but not those of St. Benedict's School.

My reply to Bishop John Arnold

2011-10-26T21:14:00.000+01:00

This is the email I sent in reply to Bishop John Arnold.

Dear Bishop

In essence, it seems to me that you are saying that the only safeguarding improvements that you would expect to see made are those insisted on by the statutory authorities to bring to school to the minimum standards of regulation. Note that in practice, what you are suggesting might not actually meet the minimum statutory requirements, if it turns out that that the statutory authorities do not notice some noncompliance for some time.

In the circumstances, don't you regard this is being rather a weak approach? Would it not be better to make safeguarding policy at the schools a model of best practice, exceeding the minimum requirements of legislation and providing the best possible degree of protection to the pupils of the schools? Doing so does not require the intervention of the ISI or the DfE, and I understood that this was one of the stated objectives of the Cumberlege Commission, which both you and Abbot Richard participated in.

Doing this would not in the least bit interfere with the powers of the statutory authorities, and would in fact enhance the co-operation with them.

As for investigating individual instances, even if you intend taking no view about individual guilt or innocence, there are two things you can still do.

1. Forward any allegations to the police or social services

2. Establish whether the incidents reveal any shortcomings in child protection policies and procedures, whether those shortcomings still exist, and what changes need to be made to remove those shortcomings.

Of the two, the second is far more important for the future safety of pupils at the schools and the parish.

From your description, it seems to me that you are not looking to investigate child protection procedures, and you are not going to look into past allegations for any reason. So it remains something of a mystery to me what (if anything) you are trying to achieve. Your report will not be disclosed to parents, public or Ealing Abbey, so there is no means by which anybody can see whether it is going to achieve anything at all. So much for the transparency you have referred to.

Also, I consider it a matter of considerable discourtesy that the Visitation was started without me being contacted ahead of time by either the Nuncio or yourselves, despite the promise on this point made to me by the Nuncio. This discourtesy has been compounded by you in as many words telling me that in your view since my son was not a victim, the matter should be none of my business.

Might I remind you of the words of Edmund Burke "For evil to flourish, all that is required is for good men to do nothing."

Could you at the very least let me know whether the file of information I provided to the Nuncio at my meeting in July has been passed to you?

The Apostolic Visitation

2011-10-26T00:21:00.000+01:00

You'll see in the Times today (article behind paywall) that an Apostolic Visitation has been ordered into Ealing Abbey.

Not everything I do gets published in this blog, or at least not at the time. In June, I wrote to the new Papal Nuncio, Archbishop Antonio Menini, summarising the situation at Ealing Abbey as I then knew it. I described the situation with regard to Father David Pearce, Father Stanislaus Hobbs, John Maestri, Abbot Laurence Soper, Father Gregory Chillman and Father Kevin Horsey. I described the Statutory Inquiries by the Charity Commission, the inspections by the Independent Schools Inspectorate, the Parental Forum that occurred in September last year, the Carlile Inquiry, the conflict of interest by the school's solicitor, commissioning Lord Carlil'e inquiry into (amongst other things) Father David Pearce's criminal activities while at the same time acting as Pearce's defending solicitor in the forthcoming criminal trial. I described the previous "independent inquiry" where Abbot Martin Shipperlee quite deliberately misled the person he commissioned concerning the extent of the Father David Pearce's activities.

I also described the issues which have occurred at St Augustine's Priory School, the fact that Father Gregory Chillman remained a Governor even though he had been placed on restricted ministry. I described the criticisms of the school's safeguarding measures as described in the ISI report, and the school's decision to contest this in the High Court rather than make the necessary improvements immediately. I also described the school services conducted by Father Gregory Chillman while under restrictions which supposedly meant that he had no public ministry.

I said that in my opinion, Ealing Abbey was incapable of reforming itself unaided, and so to ensure the future safety of the pupils of both schools and of the children of the parish, I requested an Apostolic Visitation or other inquiry.

Archbishop Antionio Menini invited me to a meeting at the Nunciature on 29th July. At the meeting, he announced that he had been making inquiries following my letter. He had consulted with Rome, and Cardinal Levada, the head of the CDF, had decided that there should be an Apostolic Visitation into Ealing, that it would start in September, and that it would be conducted by Bishop John Arnold (auxiliary bishop of the diocese of Westminster) and Fr Richard Yeo (Abbot President of the English Benedictine Congregation).

So, it seemed as if I was hurling my whole weight against a door to force it open, only to find that it was ajar all the time. I provided a file of information to the Nuncio to pass on to the Visitators, and explained what each item was. I said that this was a small subset of all the documentation I had available, and that I would welcome the opportunity to meet with them to pass across the rest of the information and to explain my concerns in more detail.

I was requested not to make any public mention of the Visitation until it was announced by the church itself in September. The Nuncio promised that my information would be passed to the Visitation and they would be in touch with me in due course.

September came and went. No further word from the Nuncio, no contact from the Bishop or Abbot, no public announcement. So in October, I wrote again to the Nuncio. I told him that I wanted to pass the additional information I had to the Visitation, and asked if he could tell me when it was due to start, what were its terms of reference, and how I could make contact to provide my additional information.

The Nuncio replied saying that the visitation had already started, and said that in the circumstances I should direct my questions straight to them. He provided me with postal addresses, but no phone numbers or email addresses.

I managed to find an email address for John Arnold, and wrote to him asking the same questions. He provided a couple of "I will reply fully later" responses, before sending me the following more substantial email

Dear Mr West,

Thank you for your email of 20 October, and for your patience. Again, I apologise for not getting back to you earlier, but both Abbot Richard Yeo and I have rather heavy schedules at the moment. As you have been informed by the Nuncio in London, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has requested us to conduct an Apostolic Visitation of Ealing Abbey.

You ask about our terms of reference. The role of Apostolic Visitors is to inquire into a given situation and report back to the Holy See. It is up to the Holy See (and in this case the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith) to decide when the Apostolic Visitation should be concluded. As visitors, we do not have the power to impose our views on Ealing Abbey. Rather, we make recommendations to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which then decides whether to implement those recommendations or not. For that reason, Apostolic Visitors do not publish their recommendations, either to the institution being visited or to outsiders. It may be that the Congregation will want to publish its decisions but that is not up to us to determine.

We cannot speak in the name of the Congregation. Nevertheless, in order to give a response to your queries, it may be helpful to give some thoughts of our own, even though I expect some of them will be obvious to you.

The general policy of the Catholic Church in this country in regard to safeguarding is that it is extremely important not to interfere with, nor in any way impede, the work of the statutory authorities. In making our visitation, we wish to be sure that the Church’s safeguarding policies are being properly carried out and that the Church’s safeguarding authorities are playing their proper part, and to be able to tell the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith that they are doing so. However, it is not for us to interfere in their work or take over their role. This, as you know, was the recommendation of the Nolan Report which was reinforced by the Cumberlege Report. By insisting on the role of the statutory authorities we have the best guarantee that there is transparency and accountability.

You mention that you have examined the child protection policies of St Augustine’s Priory School and of St Benedict’s School, and that they fall short of best practice, and that you wish to discuss with us how improvements can made. We understand that the Independent Schools Inspectorate is responsible for ensuring that these schools have appropriate policies. We would suggest that it makes more sense for you to approach this body. The Inspectorate is currently monitoring those policies with the schools. If you were to speak to us about this, there is nothing we could actually do except pass on your suggestions to the Independent Schools Inspectorate.

Given our role, it is not for us to judge whether allegations are well grounded. We would not be equipped to make such a judgment and we are not empowered to do so. Therefore it would be wrong for us to receive details of offences which are alleged to have been committed by the eight individuals you name; these should (indeed must) be given to the police.

All this means that we are not sure that a meeting with you would be helpful to us or to you. We fully agree that it is important that any restrictions imposed by the Church’s safeguarding authorities should be appropriate and should be properly observed, and this has been an issue which we have examined. You sent a long letter on the subject to the Nuncio on 11th October; a copy of that letter has been passed on to us. It contains some information that we did not previously have, and we are grateful for this.

We have asked at Ealing Abbey what is your interest in this matter, and we have been told that you are the parent of a former pupil in the school. However, when we asked whether your son was a victim of abuse, we were told that this had not been alleged. If this is correct, then we wonder whether we could say anything to you beyond what we have written in this letter.

I am sorry to sound rather negative but, while we are not ruling out a meeting, we would invite you first to reflect on what we have written in this letter. I believe, and think you would agree, that we share the same concerns for the proper implementation of best practice with regard to safeguarding at Ealing but I think that you will understand our particular role and our need not to appropriate the role of the statutory authorities and the Independent Schools Inspectorate.

Please let me know what you think

With all good wishes,

+John

So, he didn't answer my question about the terms of reference of the Visitation. He just talked about how visitations in general are carried out. Score 0/1 for transparency.

Then he explained that Visitiations don't publish their reports. The reports go back to Rome, and Rome decides what (if anything) to do. The public, parents and even Ealing Abbey itself doesn't get to see trhe report. Transparency score 0/2.

He then waffled a bit about the role of the statutory authorities, and how it is important not to interfere with their role. This seems to miss the point that good safeguarding practice should be pro-active and go beyond the minimum statutory requirements. It involves such things as education and institutional awareness.

The next bit is really troubling. I'll re-quote it in full.

You mention that you have examined the child protection policies of St Augustine’s Priory School and of St Benedict’s School, and that they fall short of best practice, and that you wish to discuss with us how improvements can made. We understand that the Independent Schools Inspectorate is responsible for ensuring that these schools have appropriate policies. We would suggest that it makes more sense for you to approach this body. The Inspectorate is currently monitoring those policies with the schools. If you were to speak to us about this, there is nothing we could actually do except pass on your suggestions to the Independent Schools Inspectorate.

WHAT!!!! They are conducting a visitation in response to serious safeguarding failings at Ealing Abbey, involving criminal activities that went unreported for decades. All John Arnold proposes to do in response to information about continuing shortcomings in policies and procedures is to pass it on to the ISI. If that is so, what on earth is the purpose of him being there? Because for sure it isn't to ensure that safeguarding is actually improved at Ealing!

Then the next paragraph is even worse.

Given our role, it is not for us to judge whether allegations are well grounded. We would not be equipped to make such a judgment and we are not empowered to do so. Therefore it would be wrong for us to receive details of offences which are alleged to have been committed by the eight individuals you name; these should (indeed must) be given to the police.

This betrays an illiteracy about safeguarding that should be shameful in any churchman. In somebody whi participated in the Cumberlege Commission, is it nothing short of an absolute scandal.

For Bishop John's benefit as much as anybody else, let me explain the real basics here. There are two entirely separate issues to be considered. The first issue is whether there is sufficient evidence that a crime has been committed, that a person should be convicted and punished. Once an allegation is passed to the authorities (a duty of the church and school), the investigation of this is the job of the police and courts.

The second issue is whether, on the balance of the available evidence, it can reasonably be concluded that a person may pose a risk to children, and that for the safety of children, it should be considered whether that person should still be permitted to supervise children. For instance, if a teacher makes sexually suggestive remarks to children, then you wouldn't want that teacher to remain in charge of children. It isn't a police matter, because no crime has been committed. Something less than a crime still needs to be reported to the authorities, because of the duty of care the school has towards the pupils.

If something less than a crime is not properly reported and investigated (generally by social services) then there is the risk that abuse may continue and escalate until a crime is committed. Nobody wants that. But if the school's policy is inadequately clear about reporting allegations and incidents to the LADO (Local Authority Designated Officer for child protection), and is unclear about what to do thereafter, then there is a risk that abuse will go unreported and escalate.

On the evidence of his email, the Bishop seems to think that nothing need ever be done except to pass on reports of crimes to the police.

He went on as follows:

All this means that we are not sure that a meeting with you would be helpful to us or to you. We fully agree that it is important that any restrictions imposed by the Church’s safeguarding authorities should be appropriate and should be properly observed, and this has been an issue which we have examined. You sent a long letter on the subject to the Nuncio on 11^th October; a copy of that letter has been passed on to us. It contains some information that we did not previously have, and we are grateful for this.

So, let me understand. He's received information in my initial letter which he didn't previously know, and which has been helpful. But he doesn't think there is any purpose in meeting me to see if there is anything further that I know that might be useful. The strong impression he gives is that he doesn't want to find out too much lest it require the church actually take some action!

The next paragraph is nothing short of a straight insult.

We have asked at Ealing Abbey what is your interest in this matter, and we have been told that you are the parent of a former pupil in the school. However, when we asked whether your son was a victim of abuse, we were told that this had not been alleged. If this is correct, then we wonder whether we could say anything to you beyond what we have written in this letter.

So, they are investigating Ealing Abbey, as a result of information I have provided. But they ask Ealing Abbey about my interest, but they don't bother to ask me about it! And they are saying that they think they can't say anything further to me. The idea that there might be something it would be worth their while to listen to has been dismissed out of hand.

I have been corresponding recently with another highly experienced campaigner against child sexual abuse in the Catholic Church, who has been chasing this issue for many more years than I have. His opinion is as follows.

I am most grateful for all of your information about the abbey and the so-called visitation. To be blunt but realistic, such ventures by the church are a total farce. I do not know of a single internal investigation that has been honest. The older and more established the entity the more dishonest the investigation and with some of the old English abbeys you can bet for sure that they have no intention of getting at the truth.

On the evidence of Bishop John Arnold's email to me, I have to conclude that this is quite correct. This visitation has no intention of getting at the truth, end even less intention of making any attempt to reveal the truth, and no intention of making any serious improvements in safeguarding at Ealing. The sole purpose is to impress that Catholic laity by showing that Something is Being Done. But because that something is being kept entirely secret, the laity have no way of knowing that it is designed solely to protect the reputation of the church, and will not in any way address the safety of children in the church's care.

I go by evidence. If Bishop John Arnold or Abbot Richard Yeo wants to contact me and demonstrate that my conclusion is wrong, I will be very ready to hear them.

But I'm not optimistic.

Chillman and St Augustine's

2011-10-22T18:52:00.000+01:00

This email has been sent to all parents of St Augustine's

Dear Parents,

Yesterday an article appeared in the Times (p.27) about Fr Gregory who was our chaplain for many years until he formally retired on October 3rd 2010. He had retired as Chair of Governors in June 2009. Fr Gregory was made aware in April 2010 of an historical accusation against him made by a past pupil of St Benedict’s School. He immediately informed this School and from that time on ceased to undertake any teaching activity at the School or to celebrate the regular weekly Mass. From that date on I had contact with the Independent Schools Inspectorate (ISI), Ealing Social Services, the Local Authority Designated Officer (LADO), the Independent Safeguarding Authority (ISA) and the Charity Commission regarding both this allegation and an historical allegation from St Augustine’s concerning inappropriate comments made by regarding Fr Gregory in 2004. Although we were advised by the authorities that he could have supervised contact and access to the School

I, together with the Board of Governors, decided for the sake of clarity to bar Fr Gregory from the premises while school was in session. He did participate in the School Carol Service and the Feast Day Mass both public events held at Ealing Abbey. The School has co-operated fully with all relevant authorities regarding these events and will continue to do so as required.

Please note the Central Register of Appointments (CRA), which includes all pre-employment checks and CRBs is regularly updated, is audited every term and was recently comprehensively and positively reviewed by the ISI at their follow up inspection.

Yours sincerely

Mrs F J Gumley-Mason MA (Cantab) Headmistress

This communication is more remarkable for what it doesn't say than for what it does. It was in March 2010 that Chillman resigned as a trustee of St Benedict's and was placed on restricted ministry because of allegations.

I would be very interested to see the minutes of the meeting of the Governors from that time at which it was decided that Chillman should be permitted to continue formally to act as chaplain and governor, and what for what reason they decided against a clean break by simply asking for his immediate resignation, as appears to have occurred with his role as a Trustee of St Benedict's. That hasn't been stated. I'm also curious about how it can be an assistance to clarity that the reasons for the measures taken weren't communicated to the parents at the time.

I also think parents have a right to know more about this incident in St Augustine's in 2004. Did Mrs Gumley Mason know about it at the time? If so, what was done about it at the time? When was a report made to the LADO? What was the advice of the LADO? The relevant correspondence should at a minimum be provided immediately tothe governors so that they can discuss it and decide what course of actionshould be followed.

As for the contact with the Charity Commission and everybody else mentioned,I can and will check that out. The Freedom of Information Act is a wonderfulthing. The Charity Commission and Ealing Social Services are both governmentbodies covered by the Act, and although the ISI is a private organisation, allits papers on St Augustine's have been passed to the DfE since the DfE wasadded to the court case where the school sought Judicial Review of the ISI'sreport. The DfE most undoubtedly is covered by the FOI Act. So if it turns outthat there has been a little bit of terminal inexactitude in that aspect of MrsGumley Mason's email, we will find out in due course.

This bit of Mrs Gumley Mason's email is fascinating: "Fromthat date on I had contact with the Independent Schools Inspectorate (ISI),Ealing Social Services, the Local Authority Designated Officer (LADO), theIndependent Safeguarding Authority (ISA) and the Charity Commission ...".Note that she "had contact with" them. She's not sayingthat she "made contact with" them. It leaves entirely unstated whoinitiated the contact. Did Mrs Gumley Mason contact theauthorities to report the issue and ask for advice, or did they contact her toask what on earth was going on? If Mrs Gumley Mason had initiated the contact,I'm sure she would have wanted to say so very clearly.

Again, it seems to me that the relevant correspondence should be provided immediately tothe Governors, so that the truth of the matter can be established.

I already have reason to think that Mrs. Gumley Mason's account may bemistaken on certain points. Here is the relevant part of a letter sent by theISI to Mrs Gumley Mason on 6th December last year, part of the letter describing the outcome ofthe school's complaint against the ISI.

We would point out that, during the period between the end of the inspectionvisit and the issuing of the report on 29th September, concerns relating to therole of this individual and the school and the correct reporting of these wereraised with ISI by more than one individual. It was necessary for ISI toconsider these alongside the issues which arose during the inspection, asagreed with DfE. ISI liaised with Ealing Social Care on these matters, andattended a strategy meeting.

We agree that during the period of time in question, it was not necessary torefer Father GC to the Independent Safeguarding Authority. As Father GC has nowresigned rather than resume his posts as Chaplain and Governor, the schoolshould consider whether a referral is now required in line with its ownsafeguarding policy and the ISA's published guidance.

That indicates that, according to the ISI, it wasn't the school who raisedthe issue of Chillman with the ISI, but instead it was "more than oneindividual". I was one of those individuals. It also indicates that theschool did not make any reference to the Independent Safeguarding Authority(ISA) at the time.

I'llprobably find out anyway via the FOI requests I intend to make.
And when I do, I'll publish it here.

The ISI

2011-10-20T19:03:00.001+01:00

From today's Times

The Department For Education was asked by the Independent Schools Council (ISC), the current owners of ISI, for the extra powers to be transferred to the private school inspectors.

The change would allow ISC boarding schools to have a single inspection of their education and welfare instead of two separate visits by inspectors from the ISI and Ofsted.

This change would hand over the job of doing welfare inspections on ISC boarding schools from OFSTED to the ISI. The article says:

Ofsted, which monitors the work of the ISI in day schools, said ISI inspectors needed more training on reporting of safeguarding.

The watchdog said more evidence was required in ISI reports to “explain convincingly why aspects of a school’s work have been judged ‘excellent’ or ‘good’ despite the presence of regulatory failures which have the potential for significant impact on pupils’ welfare”.

The conclusion, in a recent report on the work of the ISI, has raised fears about the inspectorate’s capacity to take over the inspection of welfare in independent boarding schools from Ofsted, a transfer planned for January.

This proposal to extend the powers of the ISI is a section of the Education Bill currently going through Parliament. This is the ISI that inspected St Benedict's School in November 2009 and said the following about safeguarding at the school.

The trustees and advisers are fully aware of, and diligent in discharging, their responsibilities for the welfare, health and safety of pupils, including taking proper steps to review and evaluate the effectiveness of their child protection policies and procedures.

And in saying this, ISI managed not to notice that since their previous inspection there had been

Three criminal convictions of John Maestri, all for indecent assaults against pupils at the school, dating from the time he was a teacher there.
The conviction of Father David Pearce for a series of indecent and sexual assaults on pupils of the school over a 36 year period.
A civil court judgement against the Abbey and Pearce in favour of an abused pupil, to the tune of £43,000.
Two Statutory Inquiries by the Charity Commission.

And that at the time of the inspection, there was:

A central register of appointments (where the CRB and other background checks on all staff are supposed to be recorded) which was incomplete.
A safeguarding policy that was one long excuse for avoiding reporting incidents or allegations of abuse to the authorities.

This is a failure on a truly epic scale. And we know that abuse, known to the Abbot of the time has been going on for a great many years and has gone unreported all this time. If it weren't for the failure of the ISI and its predecessors over decades, the abuses at St Benedict's would in all probability have come to light a great many years ago, and many boys would have been saved much suffering.

I'm particularly troubled by the fact that one of the inspectors on that November 2009 visit to St. Benedict's was Mr.Gino Carminati, the headmaster of Worth School. Yes, that's Worth School attached to Worth Abbey, also run by the Benedictines!

There was no mention in the report of the connection between Mr. Carminati and the school he was inspecting. I'm not suggesting any wrongdoing by Mr. Carminati. I don't suggest that he in any way deliberately contributed towards the school getting a better report than it deserved. It is just that if the reports are to be regarded as independent, then the inspectors must also be independent of the setting they are inspecting. In this case that was patently not so, and Mr. Carminati should quite frankly have been nowhere near St. Benedict's School for the purpose of inspecting it.

If you have children at private boarding school, may I suggest that you get in touch with your MP immediately, and lobby him or her to vote for the proposed amendment to the Education Bill that will remove the provision for ISI to take over welfare inspections of private boarding schools.

I have severe doubts about the competence of the ISI to do adequate welfare inspections even on day schools. To give them additional responsibility for welfare inspection of boarding schools is the sheerest folly. Perhaps if you have a child at an independent day school, you should also lobby your MP on this subject, with a view to ensuring that an effective welfare inspection scheme is put in place for all independent schools, both day and boarding.

Father Gregory Chillman

2011-10-20T14:00:00.003+01:00

The Times has an article (behind paywall) about Father Gregory Chillman. Banned monk investigated over school services.

The essence of the article is that Father Gregory Chillman was put on restricted ministry and barred from access to children in the spring of last year. Despite this, he remained as Chairman of governors of St Augustine's School for a further six months.

Abbot Martin Shipperlee is saying that the allegation which led to Chillman being barred was withdrawn, and so the restrictions were lifted in July. (This is how Shipperlee was able to tell the Parental Forum in September last year that "almost all" the restrictions had been lifted, and so there was no need for Chillman to be removed from the Abbey.) According to Shipperlee, Chillman apparently agreed to avoid unsupervised contact with children and to visit St Augustine’s only to conduct mass.

There are a number of things about this that are deeply fishy.

The first is that I know for a fact that the diocesan safeguarding authorities knew nothing of the lifting of restrictions on Chillman. I have quite a recent email from Peter Turner, the diocesan safeguarding adviser, which quite unequivocally states that the restrictions on Chillman remain in force on the same terms as they were first applied. I suspect this is why the diocesan spokesman was so keen to distance the diocese from the Abbey in last week's article about Abbot Laurence Soper being on the run from the police. The diocesan spokesman said "Abbot Soper, a member of a Religious Order, is not a priest of the Diocese of Westminster. On safeguarding issues his Religious Order retains primacy in dealing with the police". The diocese is doing a serious Pontius Pilate job on the Abbey.

The second is that if the allegations against Chillman were sufficient to justify his resignation in March 2010 as a St Benedict's trustee and for him to be placed on restricted ministry, they were surely sufficient to justify requiring his resignation at the same time as chaplain and chairman of governors of St. Augustine's. Do the girls of St. Augustine's matter less than the boys and girls of St. Benedict's? After all, if he's a danger to children, then he is the greatest danger to the children with whom he has an active pastoral role. That is at St. Augustine's.

The third point is that there seems to be a discrepancy between the stated and actual reasons for Chillman's final retirement from St Augustine's in September 2010. Either he retired for reasons of ill-health (the reason given by Shipperlee to Peter Turner and passed to me), or he resigned because of further allegations concerning his conduct at St. Augustine's, which apparently is the reason Shipperlee has now given The Times for the resignation and re-imposition of restrictions.

The fourth point is that the withdrawal of an allegation (which essentially means that the alleged victim no longer wishes to press criminal charges) is no justification for considering the allegation no longer to be a piece of evidence to be taken into consideration when assessing whether a person forms a risk to children.

The ISI Supplementary Report into St. Benedict's doesn't name Chillman (it doesn't name anybody), but I have had it confirmed by Peter Turner that the following passage refers to Chillman.

A monk who had taught in the school a long time ago has recently come under investigation by social services. At the time of the follow-up visits he was living in the monastery under a restrictive covenant barring him from contact with children.

Note "barring him from contact with children". Not "barring him from unsupervised contact with children" which seems to be how Shipperlee has interpreted it.

This all reminds me very much of Shipperlee's modus operandi with respect to the restrictions placed on Father David Pearce. Few people knew that he had been placed under restrictions at all, and those who did know were told that it was "to protect Father David from unfounded allegations", when in fact the allegations were all too well-founded, and had resulted in a civil court judgement against the Abbey and for a victim of abuse to the tune of £43,000.

And we see the same techniques in use again. Chillman resigned as a Trustee of St. Benedict's in March 2010, but no reason for the resignation has been given in the Trustees' report to the Charity Commission. He wasn't required to resign as Chaplain or chairman of governors of St Augustine's - that would have been too noticeable. As soon as the ISI were safely off the premises, the restrictions were lifted and the parents told there was no need for Chillman to live away from the Abbey.

And even after Chillman's resignation as chaplain and chairman of governors of St. Augustine's in September 2010, he still officiated at the school's Christmas Carol service in December 2010 and the school's Centenary Celebration Mass in February 2011. I know he was there, I have copies of the order of service for both occasions. Both of them mention his name, and witnesses have told me he was there. He read the 9th lesson at the carol service, and he gave the homily at the mass. This is after the restrictions were supposedly re-imposed by Shipperlee in September last year following allegations of misconduct in St. Augustine's School itself.

Those services both took place in Ealing Abbey, clearly with the knowledge and consent of Shipperlee. The terms of the restricted ministry, according to the information from Peter Turner were "no public ministry". Saying Mass in Ealing Abbey in front of several hundred parents and pupils of St. Augustine's is most definitely public ministry.

The ISI Supplementary Report into St. Benedict's contains the following recommendation.

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.

The reason for insisting on this was as follows:

the use of restrictive conditions is not altogether convincing, since the restrictions were not adequate in the case of Fr DP and the failure to implement them occasioned serious criticism in the Charity Commission report of 15 December 2009.

To put it bluntly, the ISI noticed that restricted ministry while a monk remained at the Abbey wasn't in fact an effective safeguard.

It is now high time that the Abbot implemented the ISI's recommendation. He should remove Father Gregory Chillman from the Abbey, and place him in a location which is not associated with an educational institution. This has already been done with Father Stanislaus Hobbs, who now lives in a care home outside the diocese.

The Carlile Report

2011-10-19T23:40:00.000+01:00

The following has appeared in the latest edition of the Headmaster's Newsletter.

The Carlile Report
Fr Abbot expects to receive the final report in the next two weeks. Initially, he will be sharing the report with both the Monastic Community and the Board of School Advisors, but he is keen to publish the report in full as quickly as is practical.

The report will be presented to parents at the next Parental Forum on Tuesday 8th November at 7.15pm. Fr Abbot and I will set out the main findings of the report and its recommendations and how we will go about implementing them. We will be happy to take questions at the meeting.

The report will then be made public on Wednesday 9th November. A Clarion Call will be sent to parents alerting them that it will be available on the School’s website. It will also be sent to the ISI, the DfE and the Charity Commission. An official press statement will be made at this time.

Please note that the Parental Forum will be a closed meeting and entrance will be restricted to current parents and members of staff. Refreshments will be available from 6.45pm, so do come along early.

This is all rather dreadfully transparent. The report will be provided to parents at the Parental Forum on 8th November. They won't have had time to read it and so won't know what questions need to be asked. But questions will be invited at the forum, and then the report will be made public. The Parental Forum is going to be a closed meeting. What this means is that there will be security on the gates with the specific intention of keeping me out so I can't ask awkward questions and embarrass the Abbot. And the wine they will serve at 6.45 and which they encourage you to arrive early for will put you in a good mood and dull the edge of your concentration.

No subsequent meeting has been scheduled, or at least no subsequent meeting has been announced. As far as we know, there will be no opportunity for parents to ask questions once they have had an opportunity to read and understand the report. It seems that you're going to have to accept the Abbot's proposals for how they are going to implement whatever reforms they intend, and then you're supposed to shut up and accept it without further ado.

I can think of lots of very good questions that need to be asked. The most obvious and important one is to ask whether there will be a further opportunity to discuss the report with the headmaster and Abbot and ask questions about it once parents have had a chance to read and understand it.

I don't think the Abbot or headmaster should have too many of the questions telegraphed to him in advance. If you are a concerned parent and want to be as well-prepared as possible for the meeting, feel free to email me, and I can provide you with a few more questions to ask.

Abbot Laurence Soper

2011-10-14T01:16:00.000+01:00

The efforts to address the child sex abuse scandal at St Benedict's School yesterday descended from tragedy into farce.

Abbot Laurence Soper has gone missing.

He is wanted by police in respect of allegations of child sex abuse. He was due earlier this year to return to the UK for a police bail appointment. He did not make that appointment. According to The Times (article behind paywall) prosecutors are preparing a European Arrest Warrant for him.

So we have a monk on the run. Where's Robbie Coltrane when you need him?

The Times article is full of quotes from eminent churchmen, all saying that they don't know where Soper is, and that they are giving all possible assistance to the police. But consider this: Soper is in his 80s. He has been a monk for most of his adult life, he hasn't lived independently for at least 40 years. He's going to need help, and he's going to need an income. The only possible place that help could be coming from is within the Catholic Church. So somebody in the church knows where he is. Somebody, somewhere, is protecting him. Somebody within the church is knowingly shielding a fugitive from justice. Somebody in the church is putting the welfare of an abusing priest ahead of his abused victims.

The police are certainly of the opinion that he is an abuser. You don't go to the trouble of issuing European arrest warrants without a pretty good case. This is far more serious than Father David Pearce. Soper was Abbot of Ealing from 1991 to 2000. It is one thing for there to have been a paedophile monk at the Abbey, it is quite another for there to have been a paedophile Abbot running the place.

It is inconceivable that there would have been no rumours at all within the monastery concerning Soper when he was a teacher at the school, inconceivable (if the evidence in the hands of the police is strong enough to justify a European arrest warrant) that there were no complaints at all from parents or pupils at the time. And yet, even though there almost certainly were these rumours, the monks elected him in 1991 to be their Abbot. What on earth were they thinking?

As Abbot, Soper was in a position to shield other abusers. He was Abbot when David Pearce "retired" as Junior School Headmaster in 1993 as a result of complaints about abuse, Pearce being appointed Bursar instead. Soper was also Bursar when John Maestri quietly departed the school in 1984, ostensibly on grounds of ill health, but in fact because of complaints of abuse. It's not conceivable that he didn't know the real reason for Maestri's departure. Maestri was Soper's deputy when Soper was Master of the Middle School.

There is a name for a group of two or more paedophiles who know of each other's activities and protect each other. That name is a paedophile ring. It looks increasingly as if there has been a paedophile ring in operation at Ealing Abbey for many years.

Things are still not right at the school. I have had a detailed look at the latest version of the school's safeguarding policy, which came into effect in September this year. I shall be blogging about it over the next few weeks, going through it paragraph by paragraph, as I did the May 2010 version. It has been tweaked here and there, but it is not the comprehensive start-all-over-again rewrite that is necessary. It still contains weasel words concerning whether and how abuse will be reported to the authorities.

Over the last 18 months or so, the school has had fairly unremitting publicity and official attention on its safeguarding, both in terms of its past failures and its present procedures. And yet, they still haven't managed to come up with a written policy that actually makes it clear how allegations and incidents will be reported. In the circumstances, I have to say that there could still be abusers at the school or the Abbey, with the abuse going unreported. I don't know whether there is any abuse happening now or not - if I knew there was abuse going on, I wouldn't be blogging about it, I would be telling the police, without delay.

Mr Cleugh has written to all parents, pointing out that in his prizegiving day speech he had said that "it was likely that further allegations would be forthcoming about historical safeguarding matters here at St Benedict’s", knowing that Soper had missed a police bail appointment. You might care to recall that at the same time last year, Mr. Cleugh in his prizegiving speech had this to say about the publicity surrounding the scandal.

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 think Mr. Cleugh owes me an apology. I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for it though.

Fr Kevin Horsey

2011-10-11T10:24:00.000+01:00

John Burke (OP 1949-56) has been in contact with me and has provided me with some recollections concerning St Benedict's School. He has given me permission to publish them with his name attached.

I was at St Benedict's from 1949 to 1956, and even then one of the monks was odd. Dom Horsey once made a remark round about 1952 when I was in running-gear that could have been suggestive, but he never did more than beat me among others.

In my time, a boy who was (a) in Powell House (b) did geography (c) played Rugby (d) was in the Cadet Corps (e) was in the Fifth Form (f) lived in Ealing (g) was a Boy Scout ... would never get away from Dom Horsey at all!

In about 1968, one of my many cousins there later told me that Horsey had been moved from the school to parish work for an alleged sexual assault.

According to his obituary on the OPA website, Fr Kevin Horsey was transferred from the school to the parish in 1965. But he continued his work with the Scouts (supervising young boys) until 1970.

The school has a building named after him. When I told John Burke this, he was highly unimpressed.

Buildings should be named only after saints anyway - quote me on that. Otherwise, it does no good to the dead or the living.

In our correspondence, John Burke initially put the blame for the abuse scandal on the loss of discipline in the priesthood following Vatican II. But I pointed out that Fr Kevin's abuses had largely predated Vatican II, the same could be said of much of the abuse in Ireland that has come to light in recent years, and that I doubted that reversing Vatican II would do much to reduce abuse. He was gracious enough to write and concede the point.

You are right that there was abuse before Vatican II - reading the papal encyclicals of last century, it is obvious that there was a rebellious climate that then used Vatican II to put through its liberalism. ... Use this information as you wish, and even to the present monks at St B's. I wish you well with your campaigning.

I thought that very fair of him. John Burke is obviously a good man who is horrified by the abuses that have occurred.

This is by no means the first I have heard of Fr Kevin Horsey's transgressions. Another former pupil has given me permission to describe his experiences in 1965. And I have received an account of abuses of boys in the scout troop dating back all the way to 1949.

We can now tentatively reconstruct the sequence of events of 1965. I suspect that some parents complained about an assault on their son. The matter would have come to the attention of the Abbot of the time, Dom Rupert Hall. Only he would have had the authority to move Fr Kevin from school to parish work.

I expect that it was an extremely credible account (possibly including physical evidence) of quite a serious assault. In those days, the authority of the clergy and especially the Abbot and monks among the laity was even greater than it is today, so anything less than wholly credible could easily have been suppressed with a threat to the effect that the family risked excommunication if they persisted in an "unfounded" complaint against such a distinguished monk.

The authorities were not called in, and Fr Kevin was quietly moved to parish work. Of course, this didn't remove him from contact with boys, and the Abbot didn't take the trouble to require Fr Kevin to retire from his activities as a scoutmaster.

And later, once memories of these events had faded, the school named a building after him. St Benedict's School has a building named after a known paedophile monk.

The Catholic Church is good at symbolism. I think it would be an appropriate symbolic gesture for there to be a ceremony at which the Horsey Building is renamed and rededicated.

Ealing Abbey Trustees' Report

2011-10-10T17:29:00.000+01:00

The Accounts and trustees' Report for the year to 31 August 2010 is now available on the Charity Commission website.

I have no doubt that the financial figures are all justified, having been through the auditors and all. But other aspects of the report are thoroughly dishonest, although the lies are mainly lies of omission.

Lets start with the list of Trustees on page 1.

Rt Revd Martin Shipperlee OSB – Chairman
Rt Revd Francis Rossiter OSB (resigned 30 April 2011)
Revd Alexander Bevan OSB
Revd Gregory Chillman OSB (resigned 29 March 2010)
Br Matthew Freeman OSB (appointed 30 April 2011)
Revd Timothy Gorham OSB (appointed 29 March 2010)
Revd Thomas Stapleford OSB
Revd Dominic Taylor OSB

Nowhere in the report is it mentioned why Revd Gregory Chillman OSB resigned as trustee - i.e. that he had been placed on restricted covenant, and barred from public ministry and from access to children. I would regard that as a significant lie by omission.

The report mentions the following about inspections carried out during the year.

The School was inspected in November 2009 and the results were highly successful. The published report stated that the School was highly successful in achieving its aims of providing good quality education and “teaching a way of living”. The pastoral care and personal development of the pupils are excellent. Teaching is strong, often excellent and at times inspirational.

No mention is made of the Supplementary Inspection carried out by the ISI in April 2010, which highlighted severe shortcomings in safeguarding procedures. Nor is any mention of the report of the Charity Commission's own two Statutory Inquiries, published in December 2009, which was highly critical of the trustees. This is a disgracefully partial report.

Then, the report makes this passing mention of safeguarding issues.

The School community was saddened for those affected by historical safeguarding issues. There were failures in the past and the School co-operated with the relevant authorities to help expose or punish those involved.

To be blunt, this is an insult to the victims and to the intelligence of all those associated in any way with Ealing Abbey or St Benedict's School. The failures resulted in the conviction of Father David Pearce during the year being reported on, and this is apparently not considered worthy of any mention in the report at all. Second, it suggests that the abuse is "historical". Not so, incidents occurred during the year, which resulted in Social Services investigation, albeit not in any prosecutions. Thirdly, I notice weasel words in "the School co-operated with the relevant authorities", without mentioning whether the co-operation was pro-active, continuous or voluntary.

Later on, the report makes mention of the "Independent Review"

Independent Review
As a result of the historical safeguarding issues mentioned above, and due to the hurt and damage that they have caused and continue to cause, the Abbot commissioned a full independent review of the Monastery and School by Lord Carlile of Berriew QC. As well as looking at the history of abuse allegations, the review is considering policies for dealing with such allegations and other reassurance. This is likely to include a recommendation to strengthen the governance of the School by separating it from the overall governance of the Trust. It is hoped that this review will report in the summer or autumn of 2011.

The report is dated 24 June 2011. It seems that even back then, they had seen which way Lord Carlile's mind seemed to be working, and they have as a result resigned themselves to a split in the governance between the school and the rest of the trust, as I recommended in my evidence to Lord Carlile.

But the paragraph is still lying by omission. It has neglected to mention the other "Independent Review" commissioned by the Abbot during the year being reported on, and especially has failed to mention the circumstances under which it was prepared.

It seems as if the Trustees are still operating in denial mode. They are minimising the extent of the problems, omitting as many inconvenient facts as they think they can get away with, and seem still to be liberally throwing whitewash in all directions. In view of the huge scale of the failures and the widespread damage to children at the school which has resulted, this is a pathetically inadequate report.

Abbot Francis Rossiter

2011-10-05T09:45:00.000+01:00

I've been in correspondence with the police concerning certain aspects of the recent trial of Pearce and Maestri. I'm not in a position to disclose the entire correspondence, but the following piece of information can be published.

According to the police, the circumstances of John Maestri's departure from the school in 1984 were as follows: A parent made a complaint to Fr Francis Rossiter, who was Abbot at the time, concerning alleged sexual abuse by John Maestri. Rossiter arranged for John Maestri to leave the school "on health grounds".

This is a classic case of what is known as a "covert departure". The parents are not informed of the true reason for the departure, there's no investigation to find out whether there are any other victims. The authorities are not informed - even in 1984, it was against the law to make an arrangement like this and not report the circumstances of the departure to the Teacher Misconduct Section of the Department of Education.

And worse still, we know from his own evidence in court that John Maestri went on to teach elsewhere, at a school in Berkshire. I find it hard to believe that he was not given a reference by St. Benedict's. I sincerely hope that Maestri did not abuse at the school in Berkshire. If he did, then a large part of the responsibility would lie squarely on Rossiter's shoulders.

Had the Teacher Misconduct Section of the DoE been informed, it would have been their duty to decide whether Maestri should have been placed on List 99, the list of those considered unfit to work with children. It is reasonable to think that Maestri almost certainly would have been placed on List 99 had the proper report been made. In that case, reference or no reference, Maestri would have been unable to obtain another teaching post anywhere in the UK.

Fr Francis Rossiter remained Abbot until 1991. He has remained a Trustee of Ealing Abbey (and therefore of the school) until his retirement from that post earlier this year. I have no doubt that even in old age he continues to wield considerable influence within Ealing Abbey.

I understand from Lord Carlile that his report will be published "very soon". It will be interesting to find out whether any mention is made of this incident, and if so, the circumstances under which Lord Carlile was made aware of it.

The ISI Supplementary Report's Recommendation 1 is as follows.

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 think that arranging the covert departure of an abusive teacher counts as "misconduct related to safeguarding". It is for Abbot Martin Shipperlee to decide the proper course of action.

The Governors' letter

2011-09-25T23:17:00.001+01:00

A letter was sent by the governors of St Augustine's to all parents on 19 September, and it seems that some changes are afoot.

Just before I proceed to the meat of the letter, let me just address some comments that have been made over the last few days speculating as to whether any governors have resigned. According to the Accounts to July 2010 as they appear on the Charity Commission website, the following governors were in place as of that date.

Brigadier D Cantley OBE (deceased December 2010)
Dr M M Dowling-Branagan BA, MBBCh
Mrs H Grewal BA
Prof A Hemingway
Mrs A B Kendall
Prof G Bennett

Apart from Brigadier Cantley, all the governors listed have signed the most recent letter, and in addition we now have Dr M Barnard, Mrs F Carey, Deacon A Clark, and Mrs C Phillips. So it seems that no governors have resigned.

The letter starts, as one might reasonably expect, by thanking Mrs Gumley Mason for her service. It then goes on to explain that an appointments committee has been set up to manage the appointment of a new headteacher, and that they may work with "external agencies" to get the highest possible calibre of candidate. All very good. The interesting thing is the composition of the appointments committee: Professor Bennett, Dr Barnard, Deacon Clark and Mrs Carey. All new governors appointed or elected within the last year or so. It would appear that there has been something of a changing of the guard, Professor Bennett being the longest-serving governor on the committee having been appointed during the 2009/10 academic year.

They then talk about the transition period. It seems that the announcement of Mrs Gumley Mason's departure has caught the governors somewhat by surprise, since they don't yet have a set of transitional arrangements to announce. It seems to me that the transitional arrangements will need to address two separate phases of the transition. Firstly, whether there are any particular arrangements that need to be made for the remainder of this term while Mrs Gumley Mason works out her notice, and then they will need to consider separately the period between the end of the calendar year and the appointment of the new permanent headteacher.

There are a few things that will need to be sorted out: the appointment of an acting head, the arrangements for support of the acting head by the governors and senior staff, the arrangements for safeguarding, since Mrs Gumley Mason is also the Designated Teacher for Safeguarding. But by and large, there should be no great difficulty over this - a school can manage without a headteacher for a short period in the event of the illness or absence of the head. Any strategic decisions can be deferred, or taken by the governors. And in the meantime, the heads of department and the heads of year get on with the tasks that they already know need to be done.

Then the governors go on to address the governance structure of the school. It is very interesting that they have mentioned this now. The ISI report published earlier this year mentioned shortcomings in governance, but it has taken until now for a committee to be set up to look at this. Again, the composition of the committee is instructive: Professor Hemingway, Professor Bennett, Mrs Philiips, Deacon Clark and a Trustee. Mostly new governors for this job as well, particularly including Prof Bennett, a professor of law. In my view, one of the first things that needs to be addressed is the frankly unhealthy arrangement of separate boards of Trustees and Governors. There seems to be far too much scope here for differences of opinion leading to one body attempting to impose its will on the other. It seems to me that a school of only 500 or so pupils doesn't really need two separate governing bodies.

Then there's a bit of motivational stuff about the future, where they at one point say that it is an opportunity for the school to move forward, and also say that it is a turning point for the school, which seems to be a bit of a contradiction - you can't be moving forward if you perceive the need to make a turn. Quite what they mean is anybody's guess, but I don't think we need worry greatly. It's common for letters from school governors to contain a bit of this sort of thing.

Lastly, the governors promise that this letter is the first in a series of more detailed communications aimed at keeping pupils, staff and parents as informed as possible. And that is very much to be welcomed.

Overall, this is a positive letter, it looks as if the governors are beginning to get to grips with the problems the school has had over the past 18 months or so concerning the ISI report and the school's woeful response to it. Much clearly still needs to be done, and I wish the governors all the very best in their efforts to achieve it.

Let me add one final point. The reason I have written about St Augustine's Priory School on this blog is solely because gross shortcomings in its safeguarding policies and procedures came to my attention. As soon as I am satisfied that this has been rectified, that the policies reflect best practice and are being thoroughly implemented, then I will wish the school well and cease to have any interest. On the other hand, if I think that the governors are backsliding in their efforts to ensure proper safeguarding at the school, then I will say so. My sole objective in all this has been the safety and welfare of the pupils

But it shouldn't have required all this bad publicity from me. Parents, staff and governors shouldn't have allowed the school to get into this situation in the first place. Once the school is made safe, you all have a responsibility to be vigilant in order to keep it that way. That job never ends.

New Safeguarding Policies

2011-09-08T08:28:00.000+01:00

I've noticed that in the last week or so, both St. Benedict's and St. Augustine's have published new Safeguarding policies on their websites.

Here is the new St Benedict's policy.

Here is the new St Augustine's policy. (In case the block against links from here is still in force, here the the link address which you can paste into your browser. http://www.saintaugustinespriory.org.uk/index.php/component/docman/doc_download/14-safeguardingpolicy092011)

I haven't had an opportunity yet to give either of them more than the most cursory glance. I do hope to review them in the next week or two and will report here. But if you are a regular reader of this blog, and have been through my review of the previous versions of the St. Benedict's policies, you should be able to read these new ones and come to an informed opinion of your own.

If you are a parent of a pupil at either school. then I very strongly recommend that you do read through the policy for that school. It is the safety of your own children that is at stake after all. Better still, I suggest that you read through both policies, and compare them with the policies of other local schools, so you can get a sense of their quality in comparison to others.

Of course, it is one thing to have a good policy, it is quite another to ensure that it is followed. In the past, both schools had policies which required sending notifications to the ISA (or before 2009 to the Teacher Misconduct Section of the DfE or its predecessors) when a teacher left and the school considered him or her to be unsuitable to work with children. But we know that both schools in the past have failed to make those notifications in accordance with their own policies (and for that matter as required by law).

So it isn't enough just to have a good written policy, it needs to be effectively implemented as well. It is perfectly reasonable for parents to ask questions about how the implementation of the policy will be monitored, and whether some kind of external audit will be carried out to check whether it is all working right.