Farewell and good riddance

Twat of the highest order !

lemsip I stand corrected. I shall endeavour to do so on any future posts.

Thank goodness he has gone - his speech showed clearly that he has totally failed to grasp the seriousness of all this - that he is totally out of touch and simply does not give a toss. We are all to feel sorry for him as he has been the fall-guy. Well, let him fall, say I.

And his chuckling mates need to go too. These people are shaping our laws purely by virtue of their religious affiliation - how wrong can it get? It is frankly sickening.

Sarnia I wonder why you didn't put Justin Welby's name after 'Farewell and Good riddance' so we can know who it's about before clicking on it!

Rant alert - I attend CofE. But you are SO right. The idea that we 'sort it out ourselves' (as in medical error, police failures etc) is a recipe for doing nothing!... also known as lessons will be learnt - I don't want to hear that. I want to know what has changed. Any problem, suspicion etc - tell The Police and any other relevant authority - all out in the open. The particular problem that brought Welby to go concerns a bloke who brainwashed boys and youths into feeling guilty and 'needing' punishment - his victims were, in the main willing (until it was all too late to back out and then they thought they would be in trouble if they complained). Very similar to what is done to women who have been trained to know that if they are abused - it was their fault. Also, the church looked away for years as he was only a voluntary helper - had no actual church job - we all know how hard it is to get people to volunteer. Yes we badly need more women at the top (and getting equal respect). We need openness in all meetings, no quasi courts, and all parents need to tell their youngsters the basics - don't be on your own with an adult, keep yourself nearer to the door than any lone adult. Never fear to run shout.

Unhappily, all religions have a lot of abusers existing within their range of “employees”.

So, this won’t change much.🤷‍♀️

Parsley3

I saw it too and was astonished by his lighthearted tone. He more or less said that he a scapegoat. There was much chuckling in the male ranks but the Bishop with her head in her hands said it all for me.

I didn't see it, but heard brief snatches, the man is an utter disgrace, should be defrocked, to his calling.
After reading from those who did see it, it is rather telling that the disgraceful male bishops tittered at him, the only one showing remorse and disgust at him was a female Bishop.
The old boys Club should be ashamed of themselves they don't deserve their title.

Welby has issued a 'heartfelt apology' for the crass and insensitive final speech he gave in the House of Lords. What a sad apology for an Archbishop. I hope a woman is elected to become the next one because the female Bishop of London was the only one who looked discomfited by Welby's words whilst the all male row of Bishops behind her were finding then very amusing.

And the Charity Commission should have been informed.

www.churchofengland.org/safeguarding/safeguarding-e-manual/safeguarding-serious-incident-reporting-charity-commission

Valdavi, the Church of England safeguarding policies will include the need to refer to Children’s Services

I'm suprised that the designated safeguarding officers don't have to report any concerns outside the church, ie to Social Services. I would've thought not to do so would be failing in their legal duties.It certainly would in any other organisation.

I too was horrified by the tone of JW speech. No contrition by a so called head of the protestant congregation. As I was brought up to believe in the saying "never mix religion and politics", I fail to understand, why such bishops are automatically made Lords, (or Dames if female) and therefore a seat in the House of Lords?

For so many Christians the fact they claim to be Christian makes them arrogant which helps to make religion less and less attractive

But why is he still in the House of lords can't they take a lordship away and what use are all those bishops in the lords dressed in their ridicolous robes Sack them and let the public vote for new lords why do they make deciçions with so little life experience

He's an intelligent man. He knew what he was saying was totally inappropriate but he said it anyway.

I saw it and the woman looked very uncomfortable.

fancythat

He has now apologised.

But he should think several times before even opening his mouth, in future.

He will go away and live in luxury.

His speech confirmed he has absolutely no idea what damage the abuse caused
It’s frightening to think someone in such a powerful position has no idea what constitutes abuse, even less about his own responsibility for the failure to investigate so enabling the abuser to continue

Spot on fancythat ego and arrogance in abundance. Thinks he is above the role he has and the church he supposedly serves.

Bridie22

Why do these men have to be shamed into apologising?

A huge amount of ego and arrogance?

There's little point in those with safeguarding training within the C of E reporting their concerns to the designated safeguarding officer, so those concerns go on up the line if those further up, shirk their responsibilities.

Therein lies the rub.

And it is not just the C of E that has these problems.

He has now apologised.

But he should think several times before even opening his mouth, in future.

What is it about some men and apologies?
That's 2 this week alone who have been forced to apologise for their absence of an apology .
Reading the room should not be beyond their capabilities

Last bit. There was a pic of JW amidst the text.

“The Makin Report into the Church’s failure over Smyth, which precipitated the resignation, found that the Archbishop had a responsibility to pursue concerns further in 2013, “whatever the policies at play at the time”. Smyth, a barrister and Christian youth camp leader, abused up to 130 boys across three countries before his death in 2018 in Cape Town.

The Bishop of Newcastle said after the speech that she was “deeply disturbed” by the Archbishop’s language, calling it “unwise to say the very least”.

The Rt Rev Helen-Ann Hartley, who was the only bishop to call publicly for the Archbishop’s resignation last month, said: “It was, in my view, unwise to say the very least. To make light of serious matters of safeguarding failures in this way yet again treats victims and survivors of church abuse without proper respect or regard.”

Found it.

“On Friday, he said: “Yesterday, I gave my farewell speech in the House of Lords, as part of a debate on housing and homelessness. I would like to apologise wholeheartedly for the hurt that my speech has caused.

“I understand that my words – the things that I said, and those I omitted to say – have caused further distress for those who were traumatised, and continue to be harmed, by John Smyth’s heinous abuse, and by the far-reaching effects of other perpetrators of abuse.

“It did not intend to overlook the experience of survivors or to make light of the situation - and I am very sorry for having done so.

“It remains the case that I take both personal and institutional responsibility for the long and retraumatising period after 2013, and the harm that this has caused survivors. I continue to feel a profound sense of shame at the Church of England’s historic safeguarding failures.”

Welby’s jokes branded ‘tone deaf’
In his final House of Lords speech on Thursday, the Archbishop implied that the institution’s failure to stop Smyth, a serial predator, would have warranted his resignation regardless of his own personal culpability.

He said: “When I look back at the last 50 or 60 years, not only through the eyes of the Makin Report, whatever one takes one’s view of – however one takes one’s view of personal responsibility – it is clear that I had to stand down, and it is for that reason that I do so.”

He added: “The reality is that there comes a time, if you are technically leading a particular institution or area of responsibility, where the shame of what has gone wrong, whether one is personally responsible or not, must require a head to roll. And there is only, in this case, one head that rolls well enough.”

The Archbishop also took the opportunity to crack several jokes at his own expense, commenting that he hoped, unlike his predecessor Simon of Sudbury, his head would not roll “literally”.

He explained that the unfortunate Archbishop “had his head cut off” in 1371 by some “revolting peasants” who then “played football with it at the Tower of London”. “I don’t know who won, it certainly wasn’t Simon of Sudbury,” he said.

On Thursday night, one of Smyth’s victims branded the Archbishop’s comments “tone deaf”.

The victim, who asked to remain anonymous, told The Telegraph: “Tone deaf. Does he not realise he has resigned in disgrace? The Makin Review states that the Archbishop had a moral and personal ‘responsibility’ to have done more to stop John Smyth, the most prolific abuser the Church of England has ever known.”