Petition for welby to resign

[Chan9eusername]

Is here.

https://www.change.org/p/a-call-for-justin-welby-to-resign

The media are being quite quiet about this petition (someone's palm has probably been greased).

Bishops are appointed on merit. They all start as priests at the bottom of the ladder and work their way up. Very different from someone who takes his father's title and seat in the Lords.

Nope. I'm not accepting that angle at all. I'm truly disappointed. He was the vicar at my local church in his early days and I would also have said he was a good man. I liked that he didn't come from a traditional background and hoped he would bring positive change.

But you can't escape from the facts that he knew and he didn't do anything. Why not? Who knows. Too difficult? Hoped it would just go away? Whatever the reason. An appalling lack of judgement and leadership allowed an horrific person to escape justice.

I think your personal example is completely different.

He has maybe done some good in your eyes, however today all that goodness means nothing in comparison to his one glaringly obvious error in not reporting this paedophile in 2013 when it was brought to his attention.
You are one of the many reasons that I don't believe in the church. You sicken me with your defence of this man's attitude to the most heinous of crimes.

There should be no religious representative in the modern democratic legislature. I don’t want religious representatives, of any kind, informing, influencing or deciding on potential legislation that will directly influence me. And yet it still happens.

Totally agree. There should be no religious leaders in the HoL. There are 26 Bishops in there and there are only two countries in the world where unelected clerics automatically sit in a chamber legislating.

The other country is Iran.

Get them all out.

Signed

He resigned earlier

I'm not a Christian - you are assuming that I am.

Speaking as a lapsed Catholic, when church leaders do not expose such heinous crimes, they are putting the institution before people, and that does NOT make them good people.

So on principle are standing up for him?

Thatt makes your stance a hundred times worse. You are not even standing up for your Church. You are backing a man who you say has done lots of good things ... for no reason at all.

Here's some reading for you. One of Smyth's victims.

https://www.channel4.com/news/i-remember-a-man-who-used-religious-language-to-justify-violence-says-victim-of-john-symth

For those asking it wasn't reported to the police until 2017 wwlby knew about it from 2013

Well since you don't know who I am, and I know I have publicly condemned his previous failure to resign ... and I know many female clergy who have done the same... perhaps you aren't paying enough attention? It's disgusting that you would condemn an entire battery of hundreds of women based on .... actually, what exactly was that claim based on?

Not sure why it makes it worse? You don't have to be part of an organisation to see how effective its leader is. I don't attend my local church but I can see what the vicar does for the community and I talk to local people who are Christians. It's the same with the leadership of the Church of England but on a much larger scale. I know senior people who have seen the benefits of Justin Welby's leadership directly.

Welby reported the matter to the police in 2013 which was the year that he became Archbishop. By his own admission, he now says that he should have followed this up more rigorously. But you also have to question why the police chose not to pursue the case. Should the leader of an organisation, once they have handed evidence over to the police, then keep asking them what they are doing about it?

A close friend of mine has also been a victim of sex abuse, so I am only too well aware of the effect that it has on the individual. But there is a distinction between the perpetrators of abuse and those who knew about it, reported it to the appropriate authorities but then didn't follow it up as rigorously as they might. To me there is a world of difference.

I am saying that Welby did report the matter to the police in 2013 and then probably assumed that they would do their job and prosecutions would follow. By his own admission, Welby now says that he should have followed this up. But you also have to question the police's role in this matter.

I would be much more concerned if Welby had done nothing at all, but the evidence shows that he did take action.

So no, it's not 'a matter of principle'. I feel that Welby did what he thought was right but it turns out that it wasn't enough. Child abuse is such an emotive issue that anyone who comes within a hundred miles of a perpetrator, seems to be pulled into the whole demonisation of the individual - even though they did what they thought was right at the time,

I know senior people who have seen the benefits of Justin Welby's leadership directly.

And some people who haven't. He isn't popular with everyone. He is with you for some unknown reason as you aren't even a part of the Church.

Should the leader of an organisation, once they have handed evidence over to the police, then keep asking them what they are doing about it?

Yes yes yes. When you are the Head of that Organisation and young boys are still being abused for years after you so say, reported it, yes, you follow it up. If you don't you are doing what previous posts of mine have said. Sticking your head in the sand, hoping the survivors give up, protecting the Institution at all costs to the detriment of young boys.

But there is a distinction between the perpetrators of abuse and those who knew about it, reported it to the appropriate authorities but then didn't follow it up as rigorously as they might

A massive massive understatement there.

He didn't report it in 2013. See below

Last week's report concluded that Smyth "could and should" have been reported to the police in 2013, when Church leaders including Mr Welby, the leader of 85 million Anglicans worldwide, were presented with details of his abuse.
Inaction from the Church represented a "missed opportunity to bring him to justice," the report said.

The review said that from July 2013, "the Church of England knew, at the highest level, about the abuse that took place in the late 1970s and early 1980s," naming Mr Welby specifically.
It found that "several opportunities were missed" to formally report the abuse to police.

I am saying that Welby did report the matter to the police in 2013

No, he didn't.

See my previous post.

The Bishop of Newcastle has been publically very vocal in her criticism of issues relating to child abuse - there was the episode with the former Archbishop of York last year as well. Because of her seniority and her previous comments, her condemnation has received much publicity.

Other less senior clergy - male and female - have also been very critical of the Church's stance on child abuse. But the national press are not going to be particularly interested in what the Vicar of Little Dozing on the Wold has to say on the matter - unless they happen to be high profile.

Last week's report concluded that Smyth "could and should" have been reported to the police in 2013, when Church leaders including Mr Welby, the leader of 85 million Anglicans worldwide, were presented with details of his abuse. Inaction from the Church represented a "missed opportunity to bring him to justice," the report said. After a Channel 4 documentary broadcast in 2017, Hampshire Police opened an investigation into Smyth's abuse. At the time of his death, he was wanted for police questioning and was being considered for a request for extradition to the UK.

Perhaps 2010Aussie can stop twisting the truth. Not sure why they are so defensive about Welby.

Well the BBC has got it wrong then. This is on their website.

• 2013: Police were notified - Welby now says he "believed wrongly that an appropriate resolution would follow"

The BBC seem to think that it WAS reported to the police in 2013

• 2013: Police were notified - Welby now says he "believed wrongly that an appropriate resolution would follow"

I quoted from the Makin Report.

You do know that the House of Lords does not only contain hereditary peers right? Also, ironically it contains bishops!!

How can he simultaneously be (in your eyes, though I think you might be in a minority in that) a good leader and at the same time have presided over a large scandal and not dealt with this at all? The police investigate criminal offences, Welby was responsible for the HR side of things, and did nothing. That is not a witch-hunt.

An ex-synod member Jane Osan, literally telling the BBC now that the only Bishop to speak out was the female Bishop of Newcastle.

Obviosly, I should have written Senior clergy