Search Results

I was planning to return this week to a more light-hearted consideration of the prospects of Premier League survival in London SE25 and whether the safeguarding steward will still have a job. However with the publication last week of the 710 page FA inquiry into sexual abuse in football dating back 25 years or more, the focus rightly swings back to a far more concerning topic. The inquiry report written by Brian Sheldon QC showed that football in general had, pretty much, no safeguarding measures in place to protect the thousands of boys in particular who were engaged with the sport at all levels. The report also addressed the fact that those who appeared to know or suspect what was happening also failed to take sufficient or any action at all to stop it. Starting this week and running over three nights, there is a BBC documentary series, ‘Football’s Darkest Secret’, that will retell the shattering experiences of some of those impacted and how football authorities collectively failed to make appropriate responses. It was only in November 2016 that the full extent of the issue came to light when ex footballer, Andy Woodward, felt able to share something of the mental anguish he had suffered since a youngster as a result of the abusive behaviour perpetrated by his football coach. Since then, in 2018, Barry Bennell, described by the judge as ‘sheer evil’, received a 30 year jail sentence and several other high profile court cases followed. Hundreds of boys came forward to tell their stories. Some of the more prominent survivors have recently spoken in public about how they have begun to find peace by speaking out about what happened to them. For them this has been part of a healing process to counter the wide range of mental health issues they have experienced through much of their adult life. Their courage in so doing cannot be overestimated. The documentary series has been described by one journalist as ‘devastating’. It promises to make for sobering and at times harrowing viewing. As always there will be lessons for all institutions that engage pro-actively with children and young people. Football’s Darkest Secret starts at 9pm on BBC 1 on March 22nd, then the series is available on BBC iPlayer

Since last week’s blog with its theme of femicide was published, we have very sadly learnt about the death of Sarah Everard. At the same time the national focus around how to combat male violence towards women and girls has got much sharper. Legislation currently making its way through Parliament will be scrutinised more than ever before to make sure it is fit for purpose and meets the challenges that we hear and read about far too often. If you are part of the safeguarding network of the Methodist Church in particular, you will have an opportunity to respond to this growing concern through delivering and receiving training that draws attention to gender-based violence, and making sure that information about keeping safe and sources of support are readily available to all those who worship or attend events on our premises. Our services and study groups also provide space to explore mutual respect within God’s creation. Midway through Lent, the London District ’Woven’ course focuses on our experience of darkness, and whether it actually helps us truly see. The image used in the study guide to illustrate the session is particularly poignant this week – a young woman walking alone through a dark subway but also bathed in light. A really relevant image for us to focus on this time. I know this blog is read by many people who are not directly connected to safeguarding work, so for me to wax lyrical about how good the London District conference was on Saturday will not have any immediate relevance. But it really was a great example of how, by using technology, our network can stay and learn together. The keynote speaker was Marcus Erooga, an academic and child sexual abuse consultant who focusses on promoting better organisational safety. His presentation was very stimulating and although majoring on child sexual abuse, there were messages in there about how to respond to ‘low level’ concerns about any behaviour that may raise questions in an observer’s mind. In the current context of addressing violence against women, it’s helpful, as ever, to remain vigilant and share any concerns, seen and heard, that suggest the possibility of inappropriate or risky behaviour. Your church safeguarding officer may well be the person who can help you make sense of what you’ve spotted.

Well, I suppose I should write a comment or two on that interview that’s been hitting the headlines. But I think not. Instead, this is about the 278 older women, 60 plus, who have been killed by men between 2009 and 2018. On Sunday March 7th the Observer newspaper launched a campaign to end femicide, citing these horrifying statistics as the reason for starting it. The campaign aims to ask the government formally to name this serious issue as men killing women, to know and understand the data, and to stop it happening through developing a long term strategy to tackle femicide and all forms of men’s violence against women and girls. The Femicide Census reported in the paper tells us that in 195 of the 278 cases, the women were killed by a partner or relative including 66 sons. This focus on older women is telling as I have written before about one of the most common profiles of an adult safeguarding referral – a woman aged 65, living and abused at home. In spite of this, the Observer article suggested that police and other organisations’ assessment tools are modelled on the experiences of younger women and then described how, as a consequence, many cases were dismissed as accidents, or were not fully investigated. One commentator said: ‘Once a woman reaches 60, the response from agencies and families to abuse is completely different. That’s a violation of older women’s human rights. It denies them justice.’ The concern is that some deaths are going unnoticed and attributed to causes other deliberate killing. The wrong medication, the denial of food and drink, keeping windows in winter, general frailty and vulnerability. Shockingly a survey in 2020 commissioned by Hourglass (previously Action on Elder Abuse) found that 30% of respondents from the general public did not view harmful behaviour towards older people such as hitting, as abuse. The campaign is concerned that ageism, stereotyping, underfunding and ignorance is contributing to this growth in the number of older women killed by men. As a church with a membership demographic that propels us to the heart of this issue, we would do well to see what contribution we could make to furthering the aims of this campaign. If you want to know more here is a link to the feature: End femicide: 278 dead – the hidden scandal of older women killed by men | Society | The Guardian

So spring sprung at the weekend it seems. A glorious day of sunshine and ambient temperature, at least in SE England. With the road map before us it seemed like a time to start thinking again about future projects. So I reminded myself that in June last year, as we emerged from lockdown mark 1, I had written in similar vein about a new dawn emerging and how we might respond positively as church safeguarders to what might have happened to people during that first three month closedown. So this is going to sound a bit like a broken record. I do hope though that this will be the last time, but never count your chickens. In my circuit, churches are looking to resume in person services from around Easter time. So that’s just four weeks away. Things may well have changed dramatically for many folk since we were last together in early December and so, as before, I’d like to encourage churches as they plan their worship, to spend some time also thinking about their safeguarding work – keeping eyes and ears open for those signs that say all may not be well, and for those who need to refresh their training, how best to take advantage of new online opportunities that are being rolled out. It would be great if we can continue to harness that huge amount of voluntary effort that has been so evident across the country and channel some of it towards sustaining what many churches have done so well over the last year – keeping in touch, looking out for the vulnerable and generally being alert. This is all in addition to the practical steps that we will need to take to make sure our church buildings and the ways we use them are safe. We probably need to dust off the plethora of guidance that was published last year by Public Health England, local authorities and the Methodist Church. So although the spring weather made the world suddenly look a better place, there is still much to do. The recent webinar about domestic abuse, an upcoming one next week about self-harm and then, in May, one describing ‘contextual safeguarding’ which is about risky and harmful behaviour between young people, all show that there remain vital issues for us to address, however bright the sun shines. If you want to join one of these informative webinars, contact your District Safeguarding Officer, which in London is Becky Skinner. The weather forecast today tells me that it’s going to get colder this weekend, with the chance of snow in some places. What’s that about chickens?

A street sign near where I live tells me that the average council taxpayer’s contribution to safeguarding children in our borough is 43 pence a week. So that’s £22.36 per annum from my annual council tax payment that’s around £2500. The sign told me that the council ‘could not protect children at risk without you’. I don’t think I’ve seen this type of advert before, and so I found it intriguing. Should I be proud that my council is spending this amount of money, or should I be concerned that it’s not enough? How does this figure compare with other nearby local authorities or the national average? What are the safeguarding services that this sum pays for? Are children in my borough any safer as a consequence of this level of spending? Is just under 1% of my council tax being spent in this field about right or should it be more? Is this good value for money? Because I used to work for my local authority, and still have some access to journals and know where to look for relevant reports, I can probably find out the answers to my questions. But since the simple poster at first glance raised more questions than provided re-assurance I think I’ll embark on some municipal detective work. So of course it got me thinking about our Church’s level of spend on safeguarding work. Our structures of local church, circuit, district and the Connexion probably make it difficult to aggregate all the financial details so as to arrive at any indicative weekly amount per member, and besides, most local safeguarding effort is delivered by volunteers anyway, making such a calculation virtually impossible. Each level of the Church has its own budget that covers a myriad of vital lines of expenditure, and in these difficult times we know these are under pressure. But, in recent years, certainly at a district level, there has generally been a pattern of extra investment to pay for more professional safeguarding officer time. Some circuits have started to employ circuit coordinators to manage local training and safe recruitment processes. As we start to think collectively about our financial and safeguarding plans for 2021/22, in whatever place, are we content with the level of our investment in safeguarding work that aims to protect children and vulnerable adults in our churches? Its a useful question to ask.

Sunday nights of late have involved watching the BBC TV series ‘The Serpent’. It tells the true story (with imagined dialogue) of a serial killer of young people on the hippy trails in the Far East in the early 1970s. His name was Charles Sobhraj, born in Vietnam with French parentage on his father’s side. His modus operandi was to befriend, groom and lure unwary young travellers to his accommodation, principally in Bangkok, and then drug, rob and, in some cases, kill them. Although suspected and arrested on a number of occasions he managed to escape custody until 1976 but in the 1980s he escaped, was recaptured and served another 10 year term, before returning to Nepal in 2003 where he was wanted on a murder charge. Aged 76, he is now serving a life term. Sobhraj was depicted as being manipulative, unemotional and lacking empathy. He was also brazen in his contempt for the authorities that tried to apprehend him. He worked with two accomplices who also demonstrated cold detachment from the horror that they became part of. He was in part brought to book by the unceasing work of a Dutch diplomat who, in his consular role, was concerned about the disappearance of two Dutch nationals in Thailand. The TV series suggests that he was the hero of the piece, putting family happiness, career progression and his own sanity at some risk as a result of his dogged determination to track Sobhraj down and make the relevant authorities take action when they seemed slow or reluctant to do so. His persistence over a lengthy period of time clearly paid off. There are some lessons here for us about how to follow up concerns when we feel we are banging our heads against a wall of disbelief, official indifference or snail like progress as we try to navigate labyrinthine procedures. No doubt we have all been there at various times in our lives and sadly our experience of church may be one of these times. We don’t recommend compromising health and happiness to pursue issues but not giving up and seeking allies to share the load remain critically important. But don’t start chain smoking. If you’ve watched the series, you will know what I mean.

We are often encouraged to listen for, hear and respond to the voices of those who are seldom heard. But it can sometimes be difficult to determine to whom those voices may belong. Looking around the world there is probably a fair cross section of opinions as to who has or hasn’t been heard. As an example, looking at Burma, or Myanmar, as it is now titled, there are some interesting and shifting dynamics to add to this debate. The recently ousted democratically elected leader Aung San Suu Kyi received the Nobel Peace Prize fin 1991 for speaking up on behalf of the powerless, pressing for democracy against army rule. But more recently she has been criticised for not hearing the voices of the Rohingya people many of whom escaped to Bangladesh to escape state violence. For seeming not to listen and respond to the voices of that minority group, she turned, almost overnight, from hero to villain in the eyes of the international community. Now, again, the crowds are on the streets calling for the army to release Aung San and a return to democratic government. Within our safeguarding world we have focussed a lot in recent years on listening to the voices of survivors of abuse, aiming to learn from their experience. To this end the Church has published the ‘Respect and Respond’ study guide, written by a group of survivors themselves, which we trust is making its way through to churches so that plans can be made for its use. This is a good example of how the church has responded well to a group who have previously felt ignored or at best side-lined. In a very real sense, the Church realised that survivors were a seldom heard group and decided to do something about it. But it still requited some brave individuals to step forward and make the case for it to listen with care. That sense of listening to survivors of abuse in a wide variety of settings is now getting well embedded, getting traction from movements such as #Metoo. But we still hear examples where voices may be heard, opinions aired, reports written but then nothing is done. What we need to avoid is perpetuating perhaps the new equation of ‘often heard but seldom done’.

We had an outbreak of what’s been described as ‘vaccine nationalism’ last weekend. Although the immediate matter between the UK and the EU was resolved fairly quickly, the issues at stake here will no doubt rumble on as the vaccination programmes of nations across the world roll out. Accessing a precious and scarce commodity, where there is competition between countries or individuals, has always been a concern, especially where that commodity is vital to life. At times we have heard about the possibility of ‘water wars’ when one country diverts or stems the flow of an essential river system. The bible supplies examples of how people sought out emergency supplies of food from a neighbouring country in a time of famine. More prosaically, our first lockdown saw competition for toilet paper. Safeguarding, as a process, is not necessarily in short supply in the Methodist Church, and I’m not sure that I’ve heard of competition between circuits and districts to secure more resources in response to a specific set of circumstances. We have sound policies, well developed training programmes, and a growing professional network of District Safeguarding Officers. But the need for the process of safeguarding to keep healthy, through having enough local and engaged volunteers, is critically important. The pandemic has not reduced the incidence of safeguarding concerns, just changed their immediate appearance, and we will need to be ready for new challenges ahead. One new years’ resolution that many will have made is to undertake some voluntary work. Could this be the year when you look around your church and see that the safeguarding officer could do with some support? Or maybe with your knowledge of the digital world you could be the church online safety champion? Whatever you think you could offer, don’t be shy in coming forward. Your time is a precious and valuable commodity. Safeguarding, in all its forms, would welcome a little bit of it!

The other day on my daily walk I met a camel. It’s not every day you come across a camel on a muddy track on the fringes of SW London. It was all rather unexpected. Admittedly it was behind a fence next to the track, but there it was, sat on the ground with its legs tucked underneath, chewing in that circular way that camels do. As if that wasn’t startling enough, another one suddenly appeared, ambling over towards the first one. One camel was surprising; two was mind-boggling on a soggy January day. “Ah yes”, some will say that know me. “You’re quite near Chessington World of Adventures, so they must have been in a paddock that’s part of the original zoo”. Well no, they weren’t. I could, though, see the tops of the structures over at Chessington poking above the trees across the valley. Thinking about it, I suppose valley is a bit grandiose – more a slight dip! No, the camels live on a farm that keeps some rare breeds for visitors to admire and in some cases stroke. I’d forgotten it was there, but 20 years ago it was a destination of choice for children’s birthday parties. You may not meet a camel on your walk, but the Council for British Archaeology may have the answer if you want to inject some interest into your daily tramp around the streets. Last year as part of the 2020 Festival of Archaeology – yes I missed that one too – they produced a bingo card with 25 building or landscape features for you to look for. It challenges you to find graffiti (not difficult) to bench marks, water troughs to stained glass, cobbled surfaces to horse mounting blocks. The latter prompted letters last week to the Guardian newspaper about where you could find one. There’s one in Greenwich evidently. If you want a go here is the link: https://festival.archaeologyuk.org/events/local-explorer-bingo-challenge-1601911002 Happy spotting. Those of us from an earlier generation may also remember I spy books so the card brought back a few, probably rose-tinted, memories. Oh yes. The connection to safeguarding? Keep your eyes open and you never know what you might see.

This week marks 40 years since a fire in New Cross tragically took the lives of 13 young people. They were celebrating the birthday of one of the victims. In the face of seeming official indifference to getting to the root cause of what happened, people took to the streets in an early manifestation of the Black Lives Matter campaign. Forty years on the scars remain whilst Steve McQueen in one of his recent Small Axe films broadcast by the BBC before Christmas carefully, joyfully and respectfully recreated the atmosphere of a 1980s house party. A running theme in this column is a general concern about the wellbeing of young people and in the current pandemic, the way that ambition is being thwarted and dreams shattered. For the victims of the New Cross fire they never got to see what the future would have held for them and those who survived are likely still to be carrying memories that can’t be easily erased. One survivor took his own life two years later. Even in my mature years I cannot imagine how it would have felt 50 years ago to be suddenly cut off from most direct human contact with friends and having so much uncertainty about the future. True, today, there is some compensation via social media on a scale unimaginable to us boomers in the late nineteen sixties and early seventies. We were contending at times with rationed electricity and three day weeks but we could still go out and our exams, however hard, could still be taken. Life was there for the taking. Often in beige and vibrant orange. Every week there seems to be a fresh report published warning about the children’s mental health time bomb that is ticking away unchecked as a result of now almost a year of various stages of lockdown. The issue seems overwhelming. The Church has therefore been doing its best to mitigate the worst effects by actively promoting safe means of enabling young people who are linked to it to engage with each other. As this year evolves into whatever shape it takes, the thrust of our safeguarding work will need to keep pace. One key challenge for the Methodist Church will be to determine how best it responds to the external scrutiny offered by the IICSA process. At the same time our approach to safeguarding vulnerable adults in a tentative post-pandemic world will need to take account of the huge growth in reported safeguarding concerns with regard to domestic abuse, financial abuse and neglect. All in all, this shows some careful need to set out our strategic priorities so we are well equipped and resourced to meet the challenges of our changed world. So how can the deaths of 13 young people in south east London 40 years ago help us shape what we do now? We can also ask how the deaths of 72 people in Grenfell Tower should impact on our thinking. What about the 50% increase in reported mental health concerns amongst children between 2017 and 2020 as reported in the Lancet last week? Challenge indifference and inactivity, and become a safeguarding activist for something better.

Right now it’s hard to escape the lockdown and Donald Trump’s last days as president. It’s getting harder to avoid the virus and maybe some of us have even had it without realising. In the States the latent divisions in American society seem to be coming to the fore and appear more ominous. All in all the world is a tough place to be just now. So how to inject a bit of joy into our safeguarding work is also a bit of a stretch. We speak about doing safeguarding as an elemental part of being church. What we mean by being and doing church at the moment though is open to wide interpretation but there is an evident sense of joy about any online contact we can generate through worship, house groups and coffee mornings. Just being together in this way is good for body, mind and soul. The church has invested time and energy to provide advice and guidance so we can do this in safety too. Locally we have experienced a good range of YouTube and zoom services that seem to meet most people’s expectations and aspirations. These are backed up by written service sheets for those who either don’t have the video technology or simply prefer quiet personal reflection. And it’s having the space for reflection that can make safeguarding feel rewarding. We can’t have the automatic face to face chat about something that’s concerning or niggling but out on the daily permitted and often solitary walk there is plenty of time for contemplation. Last week saw a BBC4 series about five individuals winter walking alone in glorious Yorkshire scenery, and they all testified to the boost this gave to their emotional wellbeing, giving themselves that valued space for just thinking. In safeguarding it’s generally about seeing and hearing something that concerns you, but it’s also about thinking and feeling your way through the issues, before you respond – except in an emergency of course! I’m not absolutely sure this will always bring you unalloyed joy, as you may need to take some unwelcome action. But you may feel more at peace if you’ve had the space to take stock and come to a reasoned decision. Remember to think, though, is your journey really necessary and what is meant by local? Not for me to adjudicate on these weighty matters but getting outside to think can really make a difference all round. As ever, take extra care.

Well this was supposed to be the upbeat new year one, lifting eyes to the sunlit uplands of a less Covid-impacted world. A short-lived expectation, that, to be frank, was probably doomed despite the vaccine rollouts. This hardly seems the time for forecasting but, for Methodist Church safeguarding, 2021 will be an important year as we draw lessons from the IICSA report about historic child abuse in faith communities and how it’s now being tackled. This is due to be published in the late spring. Likewise, our commitment to meeting better the needs of survivors of church-context abuse will become very real this month as the study guide and information leaflet is distributed to every church in the Connexion. We have also started to work on an ambitious plan to deliver more topical webinars to the wider safeguarding community in the Church following successful events in November that focussed on Domestic Abuse and other adult safeguarding issues. So watch this space! But Covid cannot be ignored. Our approach to safeguarding will need to continue to be nimble and creative, as the issues we are concerned with will not diminish even if we are not meeting as church in the way that we usually know it. In fact as we enter 2021 our need for vigilance and being responsive is probably greater than ever. Domestic abuse, financial abuse, neglect, self-neglect and on line safety have been highlighted in much of our published and posted guidance and I recommend re-visiting this as churches plan their work for the next few months. But I want to draw attention to the plight of young people whose future plans today again lie in some doubt. The Methodist Church has a proud history of youth work – many of us owe a debt of thanks to MAYC for helping us come to faith and live on a large map of broad horizons. But the national press reported at the weekend that 2/3 small youth projects won’t survive the present crisis and this will have a significant impact on young people’s health and emotional wellbeing. The weekend also saw the murder of a 13 year old boy in Reading and it’s been reported that several other teenagers are being questioned about it. Sadly serious youth violence remains a key and critical issue, and later this year we will be focussing on this area of safeguarding policy and practice that is now termed ‘Contextual Safeguarding’. Covid makes tackling this even more of a challenge, but there is perhaps an opportunity here for churches and their safeguarding champions to restate their commitment to young people by looking for as many safe and possible ways of engaging with young people in their communities. Oh, and by the way, happy new year and take every care.