Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[mongers]

What, no excited post from Shelf on the resignation of the Archbishop of Canterbury. 

[HVC]

What'd they do wrong?

[Sheilbh]

What'd they do wrong?

He had to go - as I think his position was untenable.

But I also can't help but think there is a bit of accountability here that's missing from other walks of life. The CofE did report this to the police in 2013 - the criticism of Welby and (some) others was that they did not follow up. He was told that the police had been informed and it was being pursued and basically accepted that.

I think the police have questions to answer about why they basically didn't seem to act on those reports - but also according to the report the police advised Welby not to meet with survivors.

He is responsible, he's at the top and he should go but in terms of what he personally did wrong, I don't think much. and I think it would be helpful to see a similar approach with, say, ministers, police chiefs etc

Justin Welby to quit as archbishop of Canterbury over handling of abuse scandal
Leader of Church of England had faced pressure since damning report on cover-up of John Smyth's abuse
Emine Sinmaz, Harriet Sherwood and Sally Weale
Tue 12 Nov 2024 14.24 GMT

The archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, is to step down amid intense pressure over his handling of one of the church's worst abuse scandals, he announced today.

The decision came after mounting demands from victims and members of the clergy for Welby to quit.

Pressure on him had been intensifying since the publication last week of a damning report on the Church of England's cover-up of abuse by John Smyth in the UK in the late 1970s and early 80s, and later in Zimbabwe and South Africa.

About 130 boys are believed to have been victims of Smyth, a powerful barrister who died in 2018.

The independent Makin review into the abuse concluded Smyth could have been brought to justice had the archbishop formally reported it to police a decade ago.

Welby's announcement came hours after Keir Starmer, the prime minister, refused to publicly back him. A petition started by three members of the General Synod – the church's parliament – had amassed more than 13,000 signatures calling for the archbishop to quit.

In a statement posted on social media, Welby, who is the spiritual leader of 85 million Anglicans worldwide, said: "Having sought the gracious permission of His Majesty the king, I have decided to resign as archbishop of Canterbury.

"The Makin review has exposed the long-maintained conspiracy of silence about the heinous abuses of John Smyth. When I was informed in 2013 and told that police had been notified, I believed wrongly that an appropriate resolution would follow.

"It is very clear that I must take personal and institutional responsibility for the long and retraumatising period between 2013 and 2024."

The king approved the resignation on Tuesday morning.

Welby said the exact timing of his departure was yet to be confirmed, adding: "I hope this decision makes clear how seriously the Church of England understands the need for change and our profound commitment to creating a safer church. As I step down I do so in sorrow with all victims and survivors of abuse.

"The last few days have renewed my long-felt and profound sense of shame at the historic safeguarding failures of the Church of England. For nearly 12 years I have struggled to introduce improvements. It is for others to judge what has been done.

"In the meantime, I will follow through on my commitment to meet victims. I will delegate all my other current responsibilities for safeguarding until the necessary risk assessment process is complete."

Welby said last week he had considered resigning over his "shameful" decision not to act on reports of abuse by Smyth when he was informed of them in 2013.

But Lambeth Palace had said in a statement on Monday that Welby had "apologised profoundly both for his own failures and omissions, and for the wickedness, concealment and abuse by the church more widely", and did not intend to resign.

Starmer is not believed to have spoken to Welby before he announced his resignation but Downing Street said the prime minister "respects the decision".

Welby, who had public roles at the funeral of the late Queen and the coronation of King Charles, will have consulted his team of close and trusted advisers on whether or not to quit.

Key among them will have been Stephen Cottrell, the archbishop of York, whose judgment is widely respected. Welby's personal chaplain, Tosin Oladipo, will have offered spiritual guidance.

The views of his wife, Caroline, will also have been critical in his decision-making process, it is believed.

Cottrell said on Tuesday that it was "the right and honourable thing" for Welby to have "decided to take his share of responsibility for the failures identified by the Makin review".

The bishop of London, Dame Sarah Mullally, said the move provided "the urgent impetus we need to change the face of safeguarding".

But Andrew Graystone, author of Bleeding for Jesus, a book about Smyth's abuse, said the church needed "a wholesale change of culture at the top of the organisation" with other clergy taking responsibility for failing to act.

He said: "At least 11 bishops knew about John Smyth's abuse, but failed to stop him. In addition there were literally scores of rank and file church leaders and members who stood by, feeling it was someone else's job to act. This is not about the incompetence of one man. It is a deep-seated cultural issue about the privilege in the church."

Alan Collins, a partner in the sex abuse team at the law firm Hugh James, who represents a number of Smyth's victims, said Welby's resignation was a side issue. He said: "The spotlight must be on how the Church of England failed its victims so dreadfully for over 40 years, and the immediate priority is the Church of England addressing the needs of its victims."

Welby had faced calls to resign from Smyth's victims, members of the General Synod and Helen-Ann Hartley, the bishop of Newcastle, who said his position was untenable.

Smyth sadistically abused private schoolboys who attended evangelical Christian holiday camps in the late 1970s and early 80s. Across five decades, he is said to have subjected as many as 130 boys and young men in the UK and Africa to traumatic physical, sexual, psychological and spiritual attacks, permanently marking their lives.

When the abuse was discovered, Smyth was allowed to move abroad with the full knowledge of church officials, where he continued to act with impunity.

He died aged 77 in Cape Town in 2018 while under investigation by Hampshire constabulary, and was "never brought to justice for the abuse", the Makin review said.

Welby volunteered at the holiday camps in the 1970s but has denied any knowledge of concerns about Smyth. However, the report said this was "unlikely".

It added: "[Welby] may not have known of the extreme seriousness of the abuse, but it is most probable that he would have had at least a level of knowledge that John Smyth was of some concern ... It is not possible to establish whether Welby knew of the severity of the abuses in the UK prior to 2013."

[HVC]

The problem with him stepping down, without having done anything personally wrong, is that the next guy down the chain holds just as much responsibility, don't they? They know what he knew.

But I guess there's no right answer, and symbolically he has to pay.

[Admiral Yi]

No, the bit that says the right to claim asylum is a human right and signatories of the convention guarantee this right, which says that people have the right to claim in any of those signatories.

https://www.asileproject.eu/the-right-to-choose-country-of-asylum-the-1951-convention-and-the-eus-temporary-protection-directive/

That international law on refugees is outdated and in need of reform is a very valid argument to make. Though that countries should just unilaterally decide to go against it and stop accepting refugees is not.

We were debating whether the UN Convention grants the right to choose your destination and you give me a link explaining why Ukrainian refugees can move anywhere they want in the Schengen zone because of the Schengen treaty. 

There really isn't a big gulf though.
As you say there's nothing stopping someone being poor AND oppressed by the state.

Its pretty inarguable that having fled the government hit squads you might feel safer in one country where you've family who understand the ins and outs and can look after you, than in another where you'll be basically a prisoner, only with less torture than home, and could be sent back at any moment.
Its also a reality that countries which are richer also tend to better follow the rule of law, have press freedom, LGBT rights, etc... and other things that might make someone need to become a refugee. Again, can't really blame genuine refugees for making the treck to Europe.

You could also go on to defining how much oppression is enough. What about those folks in the USSR who weren't disappeared but were forbidden from practicing their professional roles and relegated to being cleaners?
None of this is a simple black and white situation. Everything in a person's life is interlinked.
Its precisely that it is a messy and complex situation which allows pure economic scammers to try and pass themselves off as refugees. Contrary to what the nutters of the world say nobody serious actually wants total open borders for anyone. They just want the law followed and under this its quite a complex matter to tell apart the real refugees and those pretending.

You keep substituting "safe" for "well founded fear of persecution."  They have different meanings.

[Gups]

Disagree strongly Shelf. He wasn't interested, showed a lack of curiosity, didn't follow through. This happened in the organisation that he was head of. 

Something that serious, you expect regular discussions with the police, you should have a review of your own procedures, your own investigation as to how this happened. Not just shrug your shoulders and say, not my problem any more.

[Josquius]

We were debating whether the UN Convention grants the right to choose your destination and you give me a link explaining why Ukrainian refugees can move anywhere they want in the Schengen zone because of the Schengen treaty. 

It discusses Ukrainian refugees as that was a group at the top of the news a few years ago
In the very url of the link it refers to the UN convention....that's a pretty prominent part of what it discusses.

You keep substituting "safe" for "well founded fear of persecution."  They have different meanings.

If you're going into picking over words some legal experts pick up on the word "enjoy" being frequently used in the text of the 51 convention to underline that the refugees absolutely do have choice and shouldn't just be locked away in camps.

Quickly ctrl+f'ing the text I'm not seeing "well founded fear of persecution" popping up often enough to say its the one term. Quite a few different phrasings of the situation pop up. Again though the same would apply here. Define persecution. Obviously if the government regularly tortures you that's pretty clear cut, but if they hinder your career opportunities but otherwise let you live normally?...

[Sheilbh]

Disagree strongly Shelf. He wasn't interested, showed a lack of curiosity, didn't follow through. This happened in the organisation that he was head of. 

Something that serious, you expect regular discussions with the police, you should have a review of your own procedures, your own investigation as to how this happened. Not just shrug your shoulders and say, not my problem any more.

Fair point - and as I say I think he needed to step down because he is accountable as the head of the organisation.

But he was being told by people below that this was happening and being handled by appropriate teams. He also basically followed whatever the safeguarding teams or police told him so, for example, was advised by the police not to meet with survivors as it could interfere with their investigations. His personal failure was in thinking that the safeguarding teams in the CofE had given him correct information and were handling it.

That wasn't happening and I think it's a fair point that he should have been demanding regular updates and meeting with the police etc. It's right he steps down as the head of the organisation because he is accountable and responsible for it - but I also think it should be raising questions about the police who didn't pursue it very vigorously (this was in the middle of historic child sexual abuse allegations so it may have just not been a priority v the world of celebrity and politics) and others in the organisation who were basically reporting up that it was being handled.

[Admiral Yi]

It discusses Ukrainian refugees as that was a group at the top of the news a few years ago
In the very url of the link it refers to the UN convention....that's a pretty prominent part of what it discusses.

My apologies.  I didn't read far enough.  That was lazy.

So here's what I'm thinking is the relevant text:

"The 1951 Convention does not require the right to seek asylum to be used in a specific country. Moreno-Lax suggests that, as the conception of a right inherently consists of the negative right not to use it and a degree of freedom of choice as to how to use it, it naturally follows that an asylum seeker cannot be forced to exercise their right to seek asylum in a particular country."

First problem with this is there are rights for which we limit freedom of choice as to how to use it.  The US Constitution guarantees the right to travel between states.  Sovereign citizens claim this means they don't have to have a driver's license nor register their cars.  Everyone else says they do.

Second is even if true, it doesn't negate my argument.  No one is compelling anyone to do anything.  Signatories are obligated to provide a hearing to determine if the claimant is fleeing well founded fears of persecution.  A claimant crossing the Channel is prima facie not fleeing well founded fears of persecution.  The grounds for their claim have been eliminated.

If you're going into picking over words some legal experts pick up on the word "enjoy" being frequently used in the text of the 51 convention to underline that the refugees absolutely do have choice and shouldn't just be locked away in camps.

Quickly ctrl+f'ing the text I'm not seeing "well founded fear of persecution" popping up often enough to say its the one term. Quite a few different phrasings of the situation pop up. Again though the same would apply here. Define persecution. Obviously if the government regularly tortures you that's pretty clear cut, but if they hinder your career opportunities but otherwise let you live normally?...

If you've found text in the Convention that a reasonable person would interpret as signatories have an obligation to grant asylum to those fleeing a well founded fear of unhappiness, by all means please do share it with me.

My belief is the signatories were motivated to create this treaty by the fact that Jews fleeing Germany were often blocked from entering safe haven countries.  We totally fucked that up, let's do it right next time. Thus persecution to me is something like what the Jews faced. 

Yes, it is a term of art, and can mean almost anything you want it to.  However I believe my interpretation is closer to the text of the treaty than your interpretation.

[Sheilbh]

I return to the bat shed.

Apparently the bats don't live in the forest HS2 (and the shed) is going through. They live in other nearby forests. This is about protecting the bats in case they forage in those woods.

It is also £100million on a community of about 300 bats (1% of the nationwide population of that species). As IPPR North have calculated in their North-Bat Divide work, that means we are spending about £4,500 on a per bat basis. Which is more than we spend per person on public transport in London (about £3,500) or the North (about £1,000)

Truly it is just a mystery we'll never be able to solve why productivity is so low in this country...

[Syt]

I return to the bat shed.

Better than returning to the shat bed.

[Tamas]

I return to the bat shed.

Apparently the bats don't live in the forest HS2 (and the shed) is going through. They live in other nearby forests. This is about protecting the bats in case they forage in those woods.

It is also £100million on a community of about 300 bats (1% of the nationwide population of that species). As IPPR North have calculated in their North-Bat Divide work, that means we are spending about £4,500 on a per bat basis. Which is more than we spend per person on public transport in London (about £3,500) or the North (about £1,000)

Truly it is just a mystery we'll never be able to solve why productivity is so low in this country...

I am willing to believe this insanity came to be because this is England and nobody wanted to risk their career by making a stand for the sane option of risking a tiny portion of that 1% of bat population in the interest of this project.

But if this was in Hungary (there are examples like a giant viaduct compensating for some gently rolling hills for a motorway or tunnels cutting through similar non-issue hills because of reasons) I'd be certain the root cause was corruption.