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

Anyone heading up an organisation where safeguarding is paramount has to have "professional curiosity" when it comes to safeguarding concerns or allegations.

"I thought someone else was dealing with it" simply isn't good enough.

This was wilful ignorance and preferring to cover things up so as not to tarnish the church.

He absolutely should have resigned. Years ago.

I hope they dig deeper and see if others also knew and did nothing

It depends who you mean by "they", @caringcarer
As we've seen with Meg Munn and the so called Safeguarding Board the church clearly isn't going to do it - not least for fear of what else might be discovered - so that rather leaves the police, and though they may pretend to I can't see them genuinely welcoming any investigation from that quarter

https://anglican.ink/2023/07/13/statement-by-meg-munn-on-her-resignation-as-acting-chair-of-the-independent-safeguarding-board/

King Charles has worked hard to get where he is now, a monarch who people now like and respect. He’s not going to let some paedo enabler upset his reign.

I reckon KC has told him to resign, or be sacked. On Sunday the snivelling Archbishop of Wokebury said he wasn’t resigning, and yesterday he did. He’s been pushed. Simples.

Time for a woman in that job, one with the balls this one didn’t have.

Indeed.

I have a similar type of responsibility - data protection. My reporting obligations sit outside of the organisation that employs me, and I can't be disciplined for fulfilling my legal duties accurately.

At the same time I have a responsibility to the organisation to ensure that we're proactively preventing issues, as well as reacting appropriately when they occur.

It's not a position that makes you popular with management!

this vile man should be arrested and locked away alongside a number of others. He wasn't the only one involved in the cover up.

The same King Charles who supported paedophile Peter Ball?

Prince Charles told Ball in a letter in February 1995, two years after the bishop had accepted the police caution, “I wish I could do more. I feel so desperately strongly about the monstrous wrongs that have been done to you and the way you have been treated.”

He doesn't have a strong history of rooting out abusers in the church. Quite the opposite, in fact.

It’s not his job to root out abusers in the church. That’s what senior clerics are for. It’s interesting that the King comes in for so much criticism when Thatcher and numerous other people in the public eye were equally guilty.

@Blossomtoes - I agree that it's not particularly his job. My comments were in response to @AngsanaFlower who stated, "King Charles has worked hard to get where he is now, a monarch who people now like and respect. He’s not going to let some paedo enabler upset his reign" - I was pointing out that in the past he has actually supported a "paedo enabler" (and it didn't upset him, or his reign).

It got even worse than that, @Zimunya, when Charles told the child abuse inquiry he could not “shed any light” on who he was referring to in a letter to disgraced bishop Peter Ball when he wrote: “I will see off this horrid man if he tries anything again”

So on the one hand he felt "desperately strongly" about this, but later claimed not to know who he'd been referring to ... and then there are still some prepared to believe him

And that's quite apart from what he was planning to do to "see off" Ball's victim, begging the question of what powers he enjoys in order to do exactly that

I agree KC has supported well dodgy blokes in the past. I just think he’s being more careful now and has realised the monarchy is on thin ice.

I’m not sticking up for KC.

Is that you, Mrs W?

All religions have abusers, doesn't mean their top honcho should condone it, which is what they do

@Puzzledandpissedoff - that is interesting (and frightening!) I had been totally unaware of the "seeing off" element of this case. How absolutely shocking and appalling. Thank you for sharing.

Should have been arrested.

Amazing, the blind faith in religious institutions.

Paula Vennells was considered for the Bishop of London post, unbelievably!

Yes and looking at her "church" CV, it struck me as being rather flimsy for such a position. Even if her PO headship had been a spectacular success rather than the utter disaster it was, I think Church appointments need rather more than management skills. Although I can see they'd be helpful if used well, there are other things that are as or more important.

Saying that as someone who would dearly love to see a woman AoC in my lifetime.

I think he is right to resign. Ensuring that abuse is properly investigated should be at the forefront of his priorities. Leniency cannot be tolerated in this respect and his resignation demonstrates this.

That said, I think it is a pity if he was told in good faith by credible colleagues that it was in hand because it is probably impossible to personally fact check everything and still function. But he r still has to go because the buck stops with him.

There's more on it here if you're interested, @Zimunya - though I think I have a more extensive piece bookmarked which I'll try to find for you:
https://www.itv.com/news/2018-07-27/charles-told-accused-ex-bishop-he-would-see-off-this-horrid-man

Note in particular "The prince says he did not know about the nature of the complaint against Ball and had not appreciated the meaning of a caution", claiming illogically that he felt "so desperately strongly about the monstrous wrongs that have been done to you" without even knowing what that "wrong" concerned, and that despite his countless resources he didn't even ask what a caution meant

Call me exacting, but this really isn't the sort of man I'm happy to have as Head of State - not that a damned thing can be done about it of course

@Puzzledandpissedoff - thank you - I am interested (as well as outraged!) Wilful blindness indeed. Thank you so much for providing this link. It seems Andrew isn't the only royal who suffers from convenient memory loss, and remains friends with convicted paedophiles. What a messed up family. How absolutely awful for the victims.

Yeah, there is that.