Wellington College

Yesterday, Bruce Roth, a teacher and housemaster at Wellington College, began an 11 year sentence following his conviction in Reading Crown Court on 17 counts of sexual abuses against five boys, some at Wellington College and others at King's School Rochester where he previously taught.

The following is from today's report in the Times, written by Laura Pitel.

The trial exposed a series of missed opportunities to stop Roth’s pattern of abuse. On two occasions, the court was told, family members had raised concerns about his behaviour at King’s, where Roth worked from 1987 to 1994. The first of these came within months of his joining the school as a 21-year-old physics graduate from the University of Hull with no formal teaching qualification. A boy told his mother that Roth had touched him inappropriately after he was kicked in the groin. She complained to the school, the court heard, but was told that Roth had merely been explaining to the boy how to apply cream for a rash.

In 1989, the school received a second complaint. A boy told a relative that his teacher had put his hands down his pyjamas as he lay in bed. Roth was suspended while an investigation was carried out, but the headmaster chose to believe his denial and he returned to his post.

In 1994, Roth, who was born in Poole and grew up in Scotland, was appointed to Wellington College in Berkshire, where boarding fees are £30,000 a year and former pupils include the comedian Rory Bremner and the writer Sebastian Faulks. The school was informed verbally of the King’s investigation by the headmaster, the court was told, but chose to go ahead with the appointment.

Several years later, when he was being promoted to housemaster, Roth, who is also a talented musician, had a discussion with Hugh Monro, who was the school’s headmaster at that time. “He said, “I’ve got this one issue I would like to talk to you about’,” Roth told the jury. “We chatted it through.” Wellington College maintains that no suspicions about Roth were ever put in writing to the school, and that the present headmaster had no knowledge of the earlier questions over Roth’s conduct at King’s.

But in the years after those conversations are alleged to have taken place, the teacher would go on to sexually abuse three more boys.

Many of his victims were vulnerable: they had lost parents, were homesick or had just struggled to fit in. A classic grooming pattern emerged: Roth, himself a former boarding school pupil, would start by sitting on the boys’ beds after lights out, a friendly figure in whom they could confide when they were feeling alone. He would then progress, over a period of weeks or months, to sexual abuse.

This is all dreadfully familiar. The welfare of the abusing teacher and the reputation of the schools are prioritised ahead of the safety of the children in their care. At no point in all this did it ever occur to any of these highly qualified and even eminent gentlemen that a phone call to the police or social services might be in order, just in case they might be wrong to trust Roth. Instead, it was all handled in-house, Roth's denials were believed over the allegations and he continued to have trusted access to children. If they were ever trained in child protection procedures, all the lessons must have been as water off a duck's back to them. Sound safeguarding procedure is that you always report allegations to the authorities. But in twenty years, at two schools, they never did it.

The manner in which Roth selected his victims is also classic, choosing those who were most vulnerable and least able to defend themselves - children from broken families, those who were homesick or struggling to fit in. Anybody familiar with what  happened at St Benedict's will immediately recognise the techniques.

The school can take no credit for the way in which he was brought to justice. Here is the Times again:

Then crucially, in 2008, Roth picked the wrong victim. At first the boy did not protest and kept the matter secret. But in 2010 he called Childline and told a counsellor, who informed the school and the police.

Roth was immediately suspended and then arrested.

The Guardian, the Daily Mail, and the Independent have all covered the outcome of the trial, but nobody has addressed how Roth was able to get away with it for so long - his abuses spanned a period of over 20 years.

The headmaster of Wellington College, Dr. Anthony Seldon, has been quoted in the Wokingham Times.

Dr Seldon said: "This abuse is a terrible betrayal of trust - that Roth could have preyed on vulnerable boys who were in his care is unforgivable. As head of this school, which is trying to provide education and care of the highest standard, I am deeply sickened and appalled by what has happened.

"The whole staff team at Wellington College, who work tirelessly to nurture and protect the pupils at the College, are angered and saddened that a staff member could have committed these vile crimes.

"The very day a former pupil of the College came forward with his accusations, we immediately suspended Mr Roth and reported our concerns to the police and social services. During the subsequent investigations we have worked closely with the authorities to ensure that no stone has been left unturned and that the police managed to gather sufficient evidence to lead to a conviction. Indeed, the police have publicly acknowledged Wellington's actions and responsiveness throughout the course of their investigations.

"Unfortunately, no vetting system can ever guarantee that every paedophile is identified. I am happy that Wellington offers the greatest possible protection to its pupils. We have been praised in the highest possible terms by outside inspectors for our pastoral care."

Well, according to the Times, that's not quite how it happened. Dr Seldon is being a bit vague about who the former pupil actually came forward to.

That bit about having been "praised in the highest possible terms by outside inspectors for our pastoral care" caused my antennae to twitch a bit. So I took a look at the school's most recent inspection report. As it happens, Wellington College is one of the very first schools to have had its boarding provision inspected by the Independent Schools Inspectorate, since the task of inspecting boarding provision of ISC-member independent schools was handed over to ISI from OFSTED at the beginning of this year. Back in October last year, I expressed concerns about whether the ISI was competent to do this job. Alas, it seems that my concerns were entirely justified.


The report on Wellington is available on the ISI website. There was a 3-day inspection visit starting on 31st January this year. The report states the following concerning safeguarding.

Suitable child protection and safeguarding policies and procedures are in place and implemented. Links are maintained with the Local Safeguarding Children Board. Staff are regularly trained in child protection, as are pupils in Year 13. The school’s designated person is the Deputy Pastoral. Detailed records are kept of any concerns. A designated governor receives appropriate training. All visitors are checked in and receive safeguarding information on arrival.

This immediately struck me as fishy. The school's last OFSTED social care inspection visit was in July 2008. The school's last general inspection from the ISI was January 2009. Roth was arrested and suspended in 2010. The fact of his arrest was obviously known to the school, boarding pupils were among his (at the time alleged) victims. So, there was without any shadow of a doubt a "safeguarding incident" concerning the school's boarding provision and therefore subject to this inspection. It was the school's duty to bring this to the attention of the ISI, and the ISI's duty to inspect against it. The purpose would not be to determine Roth's guilt or innocence (that was a matter for the police and the courts) but rather to see whether the events had exposed any shortcomings in the school's safeguarding policies.

And yet there is no mention of anything on this in the report. It was a very serious matter, the allegations have merited a conviction and an 11 year sentence for Roth, but not a single sentence in the ISI report. This is the report that Dr. Seldon is frantically waving about to claim that all is now well with the school.

So the next thing to do was to take a look at the child protection policy of Wellington College itself and see what it says. As I understand it, by law all independent schools have to make their safeguarding policy publicly available on their website if they have one. So I went to www.wellingtoncollege.org.uk and had a look around. And lo and behold I found a page listing their policies.

That page says the following about safeguarding.

The Safeguarding policy is available to all. Our Child Protection Policy is an integral part of this Safeguarding Policy and can be accessed via intranet Safeguarding page.

So I clicked on the link. this took me to a page which said the following.

Safeguarding and Child Protection
Wellington College is committed to safeguarding and promoting the welfare of every pupil. More information about our Child Protection procedures are our recent ISI boarding inspection can be found here.

Policies
The College Safeguarding and Child Protection Policy can be found here.
The College cue card issued to all staff, volunteers and senior pupils can be found here.
The Safer Recruitment Policy can be found here. 

The execrable grammar is an indication of the priority given to this page. But more telling is that only one of the links indicated by the various repetitions of the word "here" was open to the public - the first one which provided a link to an extract from the ISI report. All the others ended up with the following message.

So much for "The Safeguarding policy is available to all." It isn't.

I would have liked to be able to say that the policy is sufficiently good to justify the ISI's glowing report. In the circumstances, I would have thought that the school would want to publicise the fact that it has an outstanding safeguarding policy and make it widely available to parents of both existing and prospective pupils. But instead I ended up with a demand for authentication. I have of course written to the school requesting the policy. I'll let you know if and when they reply.

Wellington is not a church school. Not a Catholic School, not a C of E school, though it is "a Christian foundation" according to the first paragraph of the ISI report. It is run by a secular and very eminent board of governors, not a single cleric among them! And yet, they have had a catastrophic failure of child protection that has resulted in one of their trusted senior staff being thrown in jail for 11 years. The case might not quite match the dreadful story of decades of unchecked abuse by multiple monks and teachers at St Benedict's, but it is pretty bad.

So if you think that Lord Carlile's recommendation for a reform of governance at St Benedict's will necessarily prevent these sorts of events from happening again there, then think again.The problem is not the monks, the problem is the school's attitude to child protection, and there is not yet evidence that that has changed sufficiently.

UPDATE 26 July 2012

I have received an email from Wellington College in response to my request for a copy of the child protection policy, and the password protection has now been removed. You can view the policy here. 

The cost of Carlile

The "Annual Report and Accounts" for The Trust of St Benedict's Abbey, Ealing to the end of August 2011 have recently been published on the Charity Commission website. You can see the accounts for 2011 and the four previous years here.

They do make very interesting reading. The point that I most wanted to see was how much Lord Carlile's fees had been for his report issued in November last year.

The accounts don't have a separate heading for "Lord Carlile", but it is pretty clear under what heading his fees have been placed under. Page 35 of the report contains section 7 "Governance costs". This section contains just one item "Professional fees and charges". In 2010 these totalled £20,392, in 2011 they were a whopping £256,372, an increase of just under £236,000. The vast majority of this increase will have gone on Lord Carlile, with perhaps a modest additional fee for the school solicitors through whom he was engaged.

Of course, the total cost may be considerably higher. Lord Carlile didn't issue his final report until November 2011, so I'm sure his final bill will appear in the accounts for the current financial year, so we won't see those on the Charity Commission website for another 12 months or so.

But let's just consider the £230,000 that appears on last year's accounts. As the school has about 1000 pupils, that's the equivalent of about £230 on the fees, probably somewhat more since a proportion of the pupils are on scholarships and bursaries. Or it can be thought of as 70% of the parish collections and donations for the year, which were £341,322.

Back in September 2010, I estimated that the school wouldn't see much change out of a quarter of a million pounds.

They are spending a sum probably of the order of a quarter of a million pounds on an exercise in reassurance. As the headmasters comments at the safeguarding meeting amply showed, there is no evidence of any interest in actually improving safeguarding, but they want to give the impression that Something Is Being Done. Lord Carlile's name will of course appear on the cover page of the report in letters rather larger than the title. And of course a glossily printed copy will be sent to each parent. The aim is to provide a reassurance to parents that All Is Well Really, if with some minor tweaks to procedures.

I'm gratified that my estimate of the cost was so close to the mark. Let's have a look as to my estimate of the aims of the exercise back then, that it wasn't to improve safeguarding, but rather that it was an exercise in reassurance. 


A glossily printed copy of the report was of course printed and sent to all parents, and Lord Carlile's name wasn't merely larger than the title, it was the title, or most of it.


Recall that Lord Carlile made no new recommendations concerning safeguarding in the course of his report, he merely repeated recommendations which others had already made. His only new recommendation concerned governance, the proposal to split the governance of the school from that of the abbey and parish. The annual report includes just one paragraph from Carlile's report, as follows.

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.

The annual report also lists "Objectives for the year". The first of these is as follows.

Over the next year the School will be responding to the two main recommendations of the Lord Carlile Report (see above). Firstly, ensuring that its Safeguarding Policy is not only a model of excellence but that implementation of the Policy is given top priority by all those working in the School. Secondly, it will be working towards setting up a new educational charity, separate from the main Trust, for the School’s operations. This will ensure that the governance of the School is separate from that of the Trust of St Benedict’s Abbey, Ealing.

As far as the first of these points is concerned, "ensuring that its Safeguarding Policy is not only a model of excellence but that implementation of the Policy is given top priority by all those working in the School", the wording is so vague that no tangible and measurable objective can be obtained from it. There is no sign of any progress with regard to safeguarding. I have raised continuing concerns with the school concerning its safeguarding policy, and its latest version still contains language that is far too full of holes to give confidence that safeguarding really is a priority.


Looking to make the safeguarding policy "a model of excellence" is meaningless unless there is some external yardstick against which excellence is measured. None has been provided, so there is no means of telling whether this objective will have been met by the end of the year.


Looking see that "implementation of the Policy is given top priority" is also meaningless. Priority doesn't matter at all, what matters is tangible achievements, and none are stated.


So the objectives for safeguarding are so woolly that they can be declared as having been met more or less at any time and with no actual changes having been made. It is noticeable that the school's other objectives for the next year are far more tangible. They include:

• setting up the new educational charity separate from the main trust
• continuing the improvement in exam results
• continuing to recruit girls and boys as pupils to the school
• investment in facilities, including specific named building projects
• increases in the number of bursaries available, including some 100% scholarships.

All of these are sufficiently well-defined that it is possible to look at what has happened over the year and see whether the aims have been met. Not so with safeguarding.

Anybody who wishes to see what a really good safeguarding policy ought to look like can take a look at the policy for Welbeck Defence Sixth Form College. Just compare the language between that and what St Benedict's has.


A good written policy is the foundation of effective procedures on the ground. Without a good written policy, nobody knows what ought to be done in the event of an incident, and so you have no chance of effective implementation. But a good written policy has to be backed by a determination to ensure it is effectively implemented. I have noticed the conspicuous lack of attention given to safeguarding improvements in recent Headmaster's Newsletters. For instance, when the new policy was brought out in February 2012 (just after my article in The Tablet about safeguarding in the school), there was no mention in the headmaster's newsletter as to why the new policy had been brought out and what changes had been made. All the signs are that they want the safeguarding issue to be quietly forgotten.


Well, it might have been addressed long ago - without the Abbey spending £230,000 on the subject. They could have taken some notice of my concerns about the school's child protection policy when I raised them in the autumn of 2009.


Remember that the same Abbot and the same headmaster are still in place now as then.

An apology to a victim

Last month, one of the many cases against Ealing Abbey was settled, and Abbot Martin Shipperlee, as part of the settlement wrote the following apology to the victim.

Dear [name withheld]

Following the settlement of your claim, I am writing to offer you an apology.

I am deeply sorry that you suffered abuse when you were a pupil at St. Benedict's School. Such abusive behaviour was wholly wrong, offends all our values and is indefensible. It should never happen.

I apologise for any decisions taken in the past and any mistakes, failures or lack of knowledge on the part of those who held positions of responsibility. I acknowledge  that this matter has caused you distress and suffering and for that I am sorry.

I can however assure you that Ealing Abbey and St. Benedict's School's practices now, together with recently introduced statutory procedures, including Criminal Records Bureau checks and much closer collaboration between agencies, make it as certain as possible that such unacceptable behaviour does not occur. Our own procedures are under constant review. I am committed to doing all I can to put in place best practice for the future.

Please also be assured that we are doing, and will do, all in our power to seek to ensure that no-one else suffers as you did. Anyone who suffers abuse by employees or anyone else for whom the Ealing Abbey and St Benedict's School is responsible is assured of prompt and compassionate attention, in conjunction with the police and other statutory authorities.

Yours sincerely

Abbot Martin Shipperlee OSB

The problem with this letter is that the available evidence suggests that the last two paragraphs aren't true.

Let's take to start with the "recently introduced statutory procedures, including Criminal Records Bureau checks and much closer collaboration between agencies". The first point to make is that CRB checks, had they existed in the days when this victim was at the school, would have provided no protection from his abusers as they did not have prior criminal records. As for closer collaboration between agencies, the victim of Stephen Skelton (who was convicted in December 2011 of two indecent assaults on boys, one of them a St Benedoct's pupil) stated  in an interview for BBC London News that the school had been extremely unco-operative during the police investigation.

Then Shipperlee goes on to say that he is committed to doing all he can to "put in place best practice for the future".

But best practice involves (amongst many other things) a commitment to make a prompt report of all incidents or allegations of abuse to the authorities, specifically to the local Authority Designated Officer for Child Protection (LADO). As I previously pointed out, the school had a huge hole in its commitment to make such reports. Since my article in The Tablet, the school's policy has in fact been modifed, and the wording of paragraph 30 (c) has been modified. But it is still weasel words. The previous version (which lord Carlile thought was as good as any policy in the country) included the following as paragraph 30(c)

The Desginated Teacher shall:
...
(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.

The new wording, in a version published a week after my article in The Tablet, now says this.

The Designated Teacher shall:
...
c) where practicable, discuss concerns with the parent and seek agreement for a referral to LA children’s social care unless such discussions or agreements are likely to place the child at risk of significant harm through delay or the parent’s actions or reactions. Where the school decides not to seek parental permission before making a referral to LA children’s social care, the decision will be recorded in the child’s file with reasons, dated and signed and confirmed in the referral to LA children’s social care.

But this is still not the "no exceptions" clear wording that is required, because the wording still suggests that there are occasions where parental permission will be sought before making a referral, and this implies that if permission is withheld, the referral will not be made. The wording is a bit more subtle, but the wriggle room is still there. This just isn't good enough, and it makes a mockery of the assurances given in Shipperlee's apology to the victim.

I could have helped make the wording watertight. Back in November, when the Carlile Report was published, I wrote to the headmaster offering to meet to discuss my continuing concerns, so that the school's safeguarding arrangements could finally be put on a sound basis. The offer was initially accepted, and then they went back on their word before a meeting could be arranged. Here is the correspondence.

From: Jonathan West
Date: 10 November 2011 09:53
Subject: The St. Benedict's Child Protection Policy
To: Chris Cleugh, Martin Shipperlee
Cc: Lord Carlile, Peter Turner

Dear Abbot Martin and Mr Cleugh,

I welcome Lord Carlile's recommendations regarding the governance of the school, and I especially welcome his recommendation concerning the child protection policy, stated in paragraph 63 of the report.

"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."

You might recall that I tried to raise concerns about the safeguarding policy in emails to both of you in the autumn of 2009. I received no reply from Abbot Martin and a fairly dismissive one from Mr Cleugh. Subsequent events have shown that my concerns were justified.

As was pointed out during yesterday's press conference, the newly updated child protection policy still offers significant cause for concern. I share those concerns, and I would like to adopt a constructive approach in this matter. I think it is very much in the interest of the school, the Abbey, the Catholic Church as a whole, and most especially the pupils that any remaining shortcomings are addressed as soon and effectively as possible.

To that end, I would like to meet you both, bringing with me a small number of colleagues who are expert in this area, so that we can address our concerns to you, go through the policy together and agree on any changes needed. I have copied Lord Carlile on this email, and would welcome his presence at such a meeting if you and/or he desire it. I would also welcome the presence of Mr Oliver and any other staff, trustees or school advisers whose presence you think would be helpful.

I suggest that we arrange to meet at the start of the school Christmas holiday, when the day-to-day distractions of running the school are absent. This date would give me and my colleagues time to prepare a detailed submission concerning the current version of the policy, which of course we only obtained yesterday. It would also give you the opportunity to make any agreed updates the policy and have it ready for use by the beginning of the spring term.

I have no wish to spend the rest of my life publicly criticising the safeguarding shortcomings of the Abbey and the school, but I will continue to do so if that is necessary. As soon as I am satisfied as to the present and future safety of the pupils of the school, then I shall publicly wish the school well and cease to take an active interest. I suspect that this event will be greeted with a sigh of relief by all of us.

I do not wish to hide from you my current opinion that your past and present approach to this crisis merits the resignation of both of you. However I am always ready to change my mind in the light of new evidence. A positive response to my request would be significant in this respect.

Yours sincerely

Jonathan West


From: Chris Cleugh
Date: 10 November 2011 14:27
Subject: FW: The St. Benedict's Child Protection Policy
To: Jonathan West
Cc: Abbot Martin, Catherine de Cintra, Lord Carlile, Headmaster's PA

Dear Mr West

Thank you for your email. We all have the same objective, which is to ensure that child protection and safeguarding at St Benedict’s should be as good as it possibly can be.

As I stated at the Press Conference we are confident that the current policy is both DfE and ISI compliant and includes best practice. However, we are committed to keeping it under review by the governing body.

With this in mind, Fr Abbot and I would be happy to meet with you as you suggest at the start of the Christmas holiday and hear what you and your advisers have to say. We shall also ask a member of BSA and Mr Oliver to be present.  We can then take your contribution back to the governors with the other independent advice we receive on safeguarding matters and allow them to make an informed decision on how the policy can be further strengthened.

Yours sincerely


Chris Cleugh
Headmaster

There was a delay for a bit of time, as I compared diaries with the others I wanted to bring to the meeting. I then tried calling Mr Cleugh and left a couple of messages. He never called back. Eventually I received the following email from him.

From: Chris Cleugh
Date: 2 December 2011 16:02
Subject: Safeguarding Policy
To: Jonathan West
Cc: Headmaster's PA

Dear Mr West

Since our recent e-mail exchange, Abbot Martin has received a letter from [Mr P] offering some advice on how our policy might be improved.  Given [Mr P's] training as a barrister and informed interest in child protection policies, Abbot Martin and I both feel that meeting him rather than you will be more constructive and we will be arranging to do so in the near future. We will listen to his advice and then consider possible further change to the policy with our advisors.

Yours sincerely


Chris Cleugh

Chris Cleugh
Headmaster
St Benedict’s School
Ealing
W5 2ES

I've redacted Mr P's full name, for reasons which will become obvious at the end of the correspondence. I replied immediately.

From: Jonathan West
Date: 4 December 2011 16:17
Subject: Re: Safeguarding Policy
To: Chris Cleugh
Cc: Headmaster's PA, Catherine de Cintra, Martin Shipperlee, Lord Carlile

Dear Mr Cleugh

It is excellent news that you intend to meet and take advice from [Mr P] on this matter. He and I have discussed the St Benedict's policy at some length and have much the same view regarding areas for improvement. He is one of the experts I intended to bring with me to the meeting.

I have discussed your email with [Mr P], and he is very keen to meet you. He agrees that it would be helpful for us to meet you together, as you and I had already agreed to meet. In an earlier email to me you stated that we have a shared objective in making the child protection policy a model of excellence. [Mr P's] view is that combining our understanding in one meeting would best achieve that objective

[Mr P] will be writing to the Abbot to this effect.

Therefore I suggest that the meeting proceed as originally agreed, including you, Abbot Martin, a member of BSA and Mr Oliver, as previously proposed by you. I suggest that the meeting take place on the afternoon of Monday 19th December at the school.

In addition to [Mr P] and myself, it is our intention to bring [Mr. TP], who is a close colleague of [Mr P] on child protection matters, and also Mr Jeremy Harvey, former president of the OPA. Some of these people will be travelling a considerable distance to the meeting, and so I would appreciate it if arrangements could be made for us to park at the school.

Regards
Jonathan West

Cleugh was by now looking for any excuse not to meet me.

From: Chris Cleugh
Date: 8 December 2011 11:01
Subject: Meeting
To: Jonathan West

Dear Mr West

Thank you for your email of 4th December.

I regret we are unable to make the meeting on 19th December.

We remain committed to meeting with [Mr P] but this will likely now be in the New Year. As yet, Abbot Martin has not heard further from him, but if he does not, he will contact him in due course.

We request that your other colleagues and yourself present your thoughts about possible further improvement in our Safeguarding Policy in writing to [Mr P].  He can then present them to us at the meeting and  if  we require any clarification we will direct this through [Mr P].

Yours sincerely

Chris Cleugh

Chris Cleugh
Headmaster
St Benedict’s School
Ealing
W5 2ES

I discussed this with with Mr. P, who had been carrying on his own correspondence with the Abbot. We agreed that since I had knowledge of what had happened at the school which he lacked, the greatest benefit in terms of improving the safeguarding policy (which Cleugh had claimed was his intention) would be for us to meet the school together, so the our combined knowledge could be brought to bear. He agreed to write to the Abbot to this effect. He did so, and received no reply. Eventually I wrote directly to the Abbot myself.

From: Jonathan West
Date: 18 March 2012 21:49
Subject: Safeguarding at St Benedict's School
To: Martin Shipperlee

Dear Abbot Martin,

Following publication of the Carlile report, I wrote to Mr Cleugh requesting a meeting to discuss further improvements to the school's safeguarding policy which I believe to be necessary if it is to be made fully effective and a model of good practice.

After initially agreeing to a meeting, he went back on his word, stating that he intended to meet with [Mr P] instead, since he is a barrister with experience in the field of child protection.

I have been in regular correspondence with [Mr P] for some significant time, and we have already discussed the St Benedict's safeguarding policy in considerable detail. It had been my intention to bring [Mr P] along to any meeting with the headmaster.

Mr Cleugh suggested that I should provide my input to [Mr P] and that [Mr P] should meet with him (and also with you) without me. I discussed this with [Mr P], and we formed the view that that we should attend a meeting together, since we each have knowledge of the situation the other lacks, and having our combined knowledge available at the meeting itself would best serve the obective of ensuring that the school's child protection policy is made as good as possible.

As I understand it he wrote to you to this effect, and proposed that there be two meetings, one attended by both [Mr P] and me where general issues could be addressed, and a further meeting with him alone where specific past cases could be reviewed under conditions of legal confidentiality to see whether they highlighted any remaining weaknesses in the policy which needed to be corrected.

[Mr P] advises me that he has not had the courtesy of a reply to his last letter to you. I am therefore renewing my request for a meeting with you, Mr Cleugh, the Designated Teacher for safeguarding, and any other designated trustee or member of the Board of Advisors who has a responsibility for safeguarding.

Allow me to repeat what I wrote to Mr Cleugh when I made my request. I have no wish to spend the rest of my life publicly criticising the safeguarding procedures of St Benedict's School. However, I shall continue to do so until such time as I am satisfied that the school's written policies are the model of excellence which the safety of the pupils deserves, and that the policies are diligently and effectively implemented. As soon as I am satisfied of that, I shall make an announcement to that effect on my blog and promptly cease to take an active interest in the affairs of the school. I am sure that this is a state of affairs you would welcome.

It is my intention in the near future to conduct another detailed analysis of the school's current child protection procedures, for instance describing the means by which it would be possible to comply with the policy and still avoid making a prompt report of all incidents or allegations of abuse to the Local Authority Designated Officer for Child Protection. This analysis will be published in parts on my blog.

If you wish to have a truly effective child protection policy and make all possible efforts to ensure the safety of the pupils of the school, then it seems to me that you should be willing to take advice from anybody with knowledge of and interest in the subject.

I must say that I believe Lord Carlile's report was a waste of a considerable sum of the school's money, since Lord Carlile made no recommendations concerning safeguarding which had not already been made already, either by the Independent Schools Inspectorate, the Charity Commission or by Mr Philip Wright when he conducted the earlier independent review. Lord Carlile's only new recommendation concerned governance. I have no objection to his proposed governance changes, but lay leadership of the board of governors is not a guarantee of good safeguarding practice, as can easily be shown by the number of independent non-religious schools which have had child abuse scandals, including as it happens Caldicott school, which was attended by [Mr P] in his childhood and from where two teachers will be standing trial later this year on child abuse charges.

Regards
Jonathan West

I have had no reply.

So the situation is that not only is the school not wishing to meet me, they appear to have decided that they won't meet with Mr. P either - a person whom they have in fact already previously invited in to the school as he is an acquaintance of a member of the Board of School Advisers.

Since neither Cleugh nor Shipperlee will meet me in order that we can go over the policy in private, I'm going to start all over again with the latest (February 2012) version of the policy, and analyse it paragraph by paragraph again in public. Since a change to the policy was made following my criticisms as published in The Tablet, clearly this approach does work, albeit very slowly. 

I shall continue to do so with each successive new version until I am satisfied that the policy is the model of good practice which Cleugh claims is his aim. It would be quicker for them to meet me and get it over with.

Julian Clary on St Benedict's

In an interview in the Times Magazine today (behind paywall), Julian Clary has spoken out about his time as a pupil at St Benedict's School.

Like the parents of so many comedians, his too are Catholic. They were delighted when young Julian won a scholarship to St Benedict’s – they wouldn’t have been able to afford it if he hadn’t. The burden of his good fortune weighed on him, however, when life at school began to take an unpleasant turn. “School was very, very tricky.” Years later, he told them what really went on, although the truth could not have escaped them for ever. In 2009, Father David Pearce, the school’s former head, was jailed for eight years for abusing five students. Then, last October, it emerged that the Vatican had ordered an inquiry into similar allegations involving other staff. Father Laurence Soper, the now 80-year-old former Abbot of Ealing Abbey, was arrested, but jumped bail. He is still being sought by police.

Julian Clary lives, he says, “in a village”, but even in his Lexus 4x4 with blacked-out windows it would take ten minutes to reach the nearest pub. Which is fine by him. “I’m not one for mixing and mingling,” he says in his tart, poised, quiet drawl, a soothing voice honed over many months as a young teenager in defiance of some of the monks at St Benedict’s, Ealing Abbey. They used to come after Clary and his best friend, Nick, with canes and miniature cricket bats. “Each one had his weapon of choice,” he says, with quiet disparagement.

His schooldays were horrible. How satisfying it must be to see one of the monks, David Pearce, getting his comeuppance for crimes committed at the school – very serious crimes, of child abuse. We will return to the monks and Clary’s wretched schooldays later. Suffice to say for now that Clary believes the high camp of his act and, more importantly, his urge to succeed, was a retaliation: “It’s my revenge on being bullied at school and on the monks and on that repressive situation [to become] the most outrageous, amusing character, that people actually like.”

“Even though I was only 12 and I was never molested, we knew something funny was going on. We knew there was something strange about this monk [Pearce]. He used to sort of waft around and had this grin on his face. And he was always hanging around outside the boys’ toilets. I’m fascinated that it went on for so long. And the damage that has been done to these boys who are now men is… unforgivable.”

One can imagine that his immunity to all this lay partly in his angry exhibitionism. Quentin Crisp inspired the teenage Julian and his friend Nick to camp up their voices. They became deliberately provocative, effeminate, homosexual; “mincing around. And I quite enjoyed that.” The monks did not, and often said so. Clary’s tutor would frequently take him to one side and utter the ominous phrase, “You bring it on yourself.” “But he would never say what ‘it’ was.” What does Clary think “it” was? With disdain, he replies: “The persecution.”

It is this kind of oppressive atmosphere which provides a cover for the crimes that Pearce and others committed.

£50,000 settlement

A former pupil has reached a settlement with Ealing Abbey concerning abuses committed against him by Father David Pearce. The victim, whose identity is protected by court order, is one of the five whom Pearce admitted abusing when he pleaded guilty to 10 indecent assaults and 1 sexual assault in August 2009. The former pupil will receive £50,000 in compensation.

The website of Bolt Burdon Kemp has more details. The story has also been covered in The Times (behind paywall).

In my view it doesn't reflect well on Ealing Abbey that this former pupil has had to wait two and half years for compensation since Pearce pleaded guilty to the offences against him.

I've heard that there are still a considerable number of claims against Ealing Abbey still outstanding concerning sex abuses committed by Pearce and others.

Father David Pearce

Yes, at the time of writing he is still Father David Pearce. He's due out of prison fairly shortly, having served half of his five year sentence. If he hasn't been laicized by the time he leaves prison, the church will have a responsibility to house him, since he will still be a priest.

I asked Peter Turner whether Pearce had been laicized yet, and if not, whether he would be by the time he left prison. He has written the following in reply.

It is anticipated that by the time of his release from prison Fr David Pearce will be laicised.

Anticipated. Not certain. Especially as it is up to Rome, not the church in the UK. I have a sneaking suspicion that he will still be a priest on the day he comes out of prison. I'll keep you posted on anything I learn on the subject.

UPDATE 10 February
I have just received an email from Peter Turner in which he says "I can now confirm that the laicisation process regarding David Pearce is now completed."

Good.

Father Gregory Chillman

Time for a recap. Paragraphs 57 and 58 of the Carlile report stated the following.

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.

Simple enough. Monks on restricted ministry because of behaviour towards children can't stay at the Abbey.

It isn't just Carlile who made this point. it was previously made by the ISI in its April 2010 supplementary inspection report, and Carlile reported that the issue had attracted high-level interest in the DfE. This is paragraph 68 of the Carlile report.

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).

One of the monks mentioned by Carlile as having substantiated allegations against him is Father Gregory Chillman. It indicates that the outcome of an allegation against him was "Deemed inappropriate behaviour, restrictions imposed." At the press conference for publication of the report, the BBC caused a great deal of confusion when they asked where Father Gregory Chillman was now living. It was subsequently clarified that he was away from the Abbey at the time.

Well, he wasn't away for all that long, just long enough for the dust to settle. He has continued to be listed on the abbey website among the monks resident at Ealing Abbey. I thought that might be an error, so I wrote to Peter Turner (the diocesan safeguarding adviser) and he replied as follows.

Fr Gregory Chillman is still residing in the Monastery under restrictions and is not allowed to partake in any public ministry.

So, despite the inspection report of the ISI, despite the recommendation of Lord Carlile, despite the assurances made to the Minister of State for Schools, despite the Abbot being "alert to the inevitability of a change from previous practice", despite Lord Carlile's belief stated in the report itself that "the practice no longer continues", Chillman remains at the abbey under restriction.

What on earth is going on there?