To think Justin Welby shouldn't have to resign?

[Gatecrashermum]

It sounds like he was told the police had been informed. I'm not sure he's personally responsible for this.

YABU he is right to resign
YANBU he didn't need to resign

I never understood how he came to be chosen for Archbishop in the first place. He'd been an executive for Big Oil. How that translates to relevant experience for the big hat job is anyone's guess. I always felt he was trying to absolve himself of the guilt of having been a fossil fuel kerchinger.

I'm sure he takes comfort in the knowledge that God is his only judge. FFS.

Even if he somehow didn't realise earlier, you'd have thought that he'd have remembered the warning he'd had about smythe, and then done his utmost for the victims.

As it was, I seem to remember from a while back he tried to minimise his involvement with the camps, didn't he say he wasn't there at certain dates till a secretary at Elf Aquitaine dug out the diaries showing he was?

However, the process used to be that the church referred priests to the police, and then police referred them back to the Bishop to make a decision (which was usually to move them to another parish). Smyth was referred to the police twice. It's not unreasonable for the church to think that they have done their part. The church isn't there to hold the police to account.
You're surely not suggesting that the correct course of action for someone referred twice to the police is simply to move them ?

130 children were abused so badly, beaten so badly that they ended up having to wear nappies. The man who did it was a monster, the man who kept quiet is a monster!

Good point.

It does not reflect well on him that he held out against resigning for so long. In fact nothing reflects well on him at all.

He absolutely should go.

I left a church where the clergy were more interested in someone having used the email chain to out someone who was assaulting adult women than they were in making it stop.

The only way we stop abuse happening is to investigate properly all reported incidents and acting on those that are abusive. There's a huge difference between still providing pastoral care for those who've done things they shouldn't and physically stopping abuse from happening.

Of course he should resign. He should be investigated by police for not following up reports of CSA by a church member.

He was welcomed as someone who had had a career outside of the Church. Most previous Archbishops had not had that sort of experience, particularly those from academia, and it was felt that having lived in the real world for a long time, he would be an asset.

Nowadays, many senior clergy have done other things before becoming priests. The current Bishop of London, Sarah Mullally, is the former Chief Nursing Officer and had an extensive nursing career before becoming a bishop.

Context is important here. The CofE has form for not reporting priests suspected of abuse. In one of many cases Archbishop Carey actively supported an abuser (Bishop Ball), telling a congregation he was sure he was innocent and not disclosing the full facts to the Police. Given the CofE had these historic issues I would expect that its leadership would have a focus on this area. I have sat as a trustee for a couple of large charities and standard practice is that all legal and abuse cases are subject to detailed tracking. Movements in cases are reported to Senior Managers and Trustees and any cases where there has been mow movement are also flagged. Given the CofE’s historic failings these basic controls should have been in place.

Either the processes were not in place (given historic failings a resigning matter), or alternatively the culture of the CofE remains determined to frustrate the investigation of abuse cases (also a resigning matter). Given this case was definitely established in 2013 the failure was material. As a result many many abuse victims did not get justice.

I didn’t say having a woman Archbishop would solve the issue. You only need to flip over to another thread to see how a woman trying to stand up against domestic violence is being pulled apart by mumsnetters because of her personal history and her absolute audacity to try and speak out for those who don’t have a voice.

Everyone, literally everyone, needs to take allegations of CSA way more seriously.

I'd missed this...
However, the process used to be that the church referred priests to the police, and then police referred them back to the Bishop to make a decision (which was usually to move them to another parish). Smyth was referred to the police twice. It's not unreasonable for the church to think that they have done their part.

wtf? How the hell was that ever allowed to be 'the process'? As excuses go that has to be the worst one possible.

It sounds like he was told the police had been informed. I'm not sure he's personally responsible for this If you ran a business dealing with people in potentially vulnerable situations and one of your managers told you that allegations of csa had been made against one of your employees that had been reported to the police, would you seriously just say ‘oh, ok then’ and never think about it again? Would you not want to be kept up to date? If you received letters from a victim of csa at the hands of your employee, would you not ensure that these were actioned by the police? If you didn’t have the legal power to sack him, would you carry on sending him out to work with children? Would you not ensure that he wasn’t given access to anyone else he could victimise? If you would do all that, why wouldn’t he?

Smyth was referred to the police twice. It's not unreasonable for the church to think that they have done their part. The church isn't there to hold the police to account No, of course they’re not. They are there, however, to ensure that the men they are entrusting to look after the spiritual welfare of children and young people aren’t suspected paedophiles. To pinch a previous poster’s analogy, would you willingly send your child to be taught by a man with a history of abuse allegations made against him because the head teacher had been told by the deputy head that those allegations had been forwarded to the police? Would you consider the head’s actions to be sufficient? The church had not done their part. They hadn’t done anywhere near their part and it’s bloody terrifying that anyone would think otherwise.

He is not a good man. I doubt he’s acknowledging his role in that monster’s ability to abuse children, but I hope it eventually occurs to him that Judgement day might not be a walk in the park for him.

It is absolutely right that he has resigned.

The issue is that these days it not so usual for those at the top to resign. Normally it is that "lessons will be learned". So many seem to try to hang on to their position whatever has happened.

If you have the power and salary that comes with being the head of a large national organisation then you should also be prepared to carry the can for the failings of that organisation. I haven't read about the case in detail but it seems that in this instance he also had personal knowledge of what had happened which makes it even worse.

Maybe he was at Pizza Express.

Yes, but that was how it worked. It happened to my own parish back in the day.

The film Spotlight covers this period of history (and the efforts of a group of journalists to expose it) very powerfully.

Link here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spotlight_(film)

Of course he should resign.I was surprised that it took so long.

That was the correct process - that was just what happened in the past. It was obviously wrong! But that was the process.

Men protecting men. He'll probably walk into a 6 figure salary at the BBC off the back of this last gig. He was a big fan of the horror show that ran the post office too wasn't he?

@2010Aussie I can understand the move from nursing to the church. There is definite overlap. To the church from Big Oil, not so much. He should never have had the job in the first place

He should have resigned years ago, he’s a drip who puts politics above religion.

Whilst that process sounds crap, if it's been referred to the police and no action taken, call me naive but what was the church as an employer supposed to do? I thought in this country we believed in the concept of innocent until proven guilty? Or are we saying that anyone who has been accused of anything, ever, can just lose their career?
Or have I just misunderstood the process as described above?
Regardless, as effectively the CofE's CEO, this happened in his watch, their Safeguarding processes are (still) poor and need improving, so the buck stops with him, hence he needed to resign.

OP I hope as more information has been discussed you are realising you are quite in the wrong and very naive

He should have been sacked.