And well talk about that. Youre also a lifelong advocate for survivors of abuse and you were hired by the Church Of England to be part of their independent Safeguarding Board, but youve been fired. Does all of that suggest to you that key institutions might talk the talk about protecting the vulnerable, but maybe theyre not so good on delivery . Absolutely, i would agree with that point. And specifically, my role was survivor advocate, so my role was specifically to be a voice for victims and survivors who had experienced spiritual abuse by the hands of members of the clergy across the board and to ensure that their views were not only heard, but embedded across policy and practice. So, from my perspective, i did thatjob. I sat with victims and survivors, i listened to the harrowing stories of abuse but, equally, those they went to who often looked the other way. And i shared those experiences with the highest of the highest, so the Archbishops Council members, made up of the most seni
although they initially welcomed my appointment, the two existing board members that is, you and reeves routinely ignored emails, failed to respond to reasonable requests, declined to have meetings. i was staggered at this unprofessional behaviour, particularly when it concerned such important issues. 0k. so, the first thing to say is that we re an independent body. after the first chair resigned because of serious data breaches, she resigned the second chair should have been somebody appointed in the same way we were appointed, openly recruited, and she wasn t. she was imposed upon us. this is nothing against meg munn, by the way. so, the point here is the archbishops council make a decision for the independent body to appoint a chair who, within 48 hours, 7a victims and survivors contact us to say, do not, under any circumstances, share data with this person because she s part of the church.
been somebody appointed in the same way we were appointed, openly recruited, and she wasn t. she was imposed upon us. this is nothing against meg munn, by the way. so, the point here is the archbishops council make a decision for the independent body to appoint a chair who, within 48 hours, 7a victims and survivors contact us to say, do not, under any circumstances, share data with this person because she s part of the church. she sits on the national safeguarding steering group, which we scrutinise, so we ve got a problem. well, i need to say, because the legal issues here are complex but they re quite important, that the first chair of your board, maggie atkinson, absolutely rejects the characterisation you ve just given as to why she left and she s described your views of why she left as partial, biased and deeply prejudiced against her, so we need to put that on the record. 0k.
0k. so, the first thing to say is that we re an independent body. after the first chair resigned because of serious data breaches, she resigned the second chair should have been somebody appointed in the same way we were appointed, openly recruited, and she wasn t. she was imposed upon us. this is nothing against meg munn, by the way. so, the point here is the archbishops council make a decision for the independent body to appoint a chair who, within 48 hours, 7a victims and survivors contact us to say, do not, under any circumstances, share data with this person because she s part of the church. she sits on the national safeguarding steering group, which we scrutinise, so we ve got a problem. well, i need to say, because the legal issues here are complex but they re
this is nothing against meg munn, by the way. so, the point here is the archbishops council make a decision for the independent body to appoint a chair who, within 48 hours, 7a victims and survivors contact us to say, do not, under any circumstances, share data with this person because she s part of the church. she sits on the national safeguarding steering group, which we scrutinise, so we ve got a problem. well, i need to say, because the legal issues here are complex but they re quite important, that the first chair of your board, maggie atkinson, absolutely rejects the characterisation you ve just given as to why she left and she s described your views of why she left as partial, biased and deeply prejudiced against her, so we need to put that on the record. 0k. surely, what really matters here is you, for good or ill, have now left the board, the board has been dissolved,