Miriam Cates

[CassieMaddox]

New report says she was trustee at a church while gay conversion therapy was happening. The kind of conversion therapy that involves exorcism of demons.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4ngprp5xdvo

As a director and trustee at the charity behind the church, external from September 2016 to September 2018, Mrs Cates, had safeguarding responsibilities for those who attended

Thought this might interest some posters on here. Not sure I would trust her with safeguarding after this, if indeed she retains her seat.

Is this a purity spiral? Or "guild by association"?
The diocese asked Barnardos to investigate, not me. This is the result of the investigation. Interesting you are ignoring it because you don't like what it says.

Here's a link to to the diocese statement:

https://www.sheffield.anglican.org/barnardos-independent-investigation-statement/

CassieMaddox

One person made a formal complaint, in 2019, about being subjected to conversion therapy practices. The complaint was upheld after the CofE instructed Barnardo's to carry out a full independent investigation. Another person reports being given a book which talked about "deliverance from homosexuality".

Miriam Cates left the Church in 2018 and nowhere in the BBC report does it say she was aware of the practices reported.

She is clear about her opposition of gay conversion therapy. As someone who claims to be GC you must know why many of us were concerned about the conversion therapy ban. Gender questioning minors who are supported through puberty but do not receive "gender affirming care" and many of the detransitioners are same sex attracted.

A poorly thought out conversion therapy bill which included trans people could easily have been a charter for gay conversion therapy. No one agrees with conversion therapy but the law needed to be very specific about what qualified as conversion therapy for gender questioning minors to makes sure that talking therapy was not criminalised.

I'm not sure what her views on abortion have to do with conversion therapy.

First para of the report:
"Safeguarding all children and adults and protecting them from harm is everyone’s responsibility, and all organisations, including church and faith communities have an important role to play in addressing these responsibilities. Charity trustees are responsible for ensuring that those benefitting from, or working with or on behalf of their charity, are not harmed in any way through
their contact with it."

That's why this is a news story.

The transgender conversion therapy ban is nothing to do with this. Except that if Miriam Cates thinks Christian homosexual conversion practices are necessary, then there is an added incentive for her to vote against the conversion therapy bill (using GC concerns as a figleaf for homophobia).

You are right that there is nothing in the report to prove she knew about it and condoned it. But it is clear she should have done given the period they are talking about and her role. So either she condoned it or she's incompetent at safeguarding. Neither are particularly good.

I don't think you would be dismissing this if this was an equivalent story about organisations encouraging transition.

The only thing her views/activism on abortion have to do with it are indicating she's not a friend of women. As if she was, she'd support women's bodily autonomy regardless of her own beliefs.

Here is a timeline of stuff that happened while Cates was trustee. MD is the person who made the complaint:

Apr 2016 MD is informed by a Senior Church leader that as he is continuing to challenge and criticise the church’s position, he cannot attend any student events and if he does so he will be asked to leave.

Dec 2017 MD writes to [redacted] asking for Churches position around LGBTQ+ Christians.

Jan 2018 MD contacts saying he had no reply to previous letter

Mar 2018 Email from [redacted] to [redacted] ‘my understanding was that MD was told he could not be [on leadership team] if he was in a gay relationship

Apr 2019 MD submits formal subject access request to the Church

Apr 2019 [redacted] sends email to that in line with church policy all records pertaining to MD were destroyed two years ago. 🤔

If Miriam Cates didn't know about this she wasn't doing her job. Like I said, it's all a bit Post Office enquiry.

So you've come on a thread I started to tell me I'm not wanted here? How novel. Scroll past next time. Plenty of people so appear interested.

It was not released until yesterday The diocese sat on it, and have apologised in the statement I linked. Which doesn't help really as it gives the impression they didn't want to release it.

There’s nothing in that list that is a safeguarding concern, is there? Have I missed something?

A friend was told she couldn’t be in church leadership after she moved a man into her home. They didn’t marry for some time, when she had moved church.

Being in church leadership means working within church structures. You can’t be actively pursuing a different agenda and remain in church leadership.

And yes, documents are supposed to be destroyed after a period of time. We have a privacy statement and GDPR policy to that effect.

What is the issue you see here? Not replying to a letter and deleting personal data? Or that someone who doesn’t follow the church’s teaching is asked to leave?

Saying she didn't know about someone that 1) potentially had a safeguarding concern and 2) was kicking up a fuss.

I don't believe her personally. But if she is telling the truth, the church (and her as one of the trustees) are incompetent.

So I think that's noteworthy. YMMV which is fine but I think the "it's a smear/hit piece" is ringing hollow.

You don't want to set a precedent where findings of investigations into safeguarding failures are ignored because you agree with the politics/values of the people being investigated do you? Seems dangerous

Thats the stuff that happened while she was trustee. Full timeline in the report. Go and have a look.

I think that shows the senior leadership were aware of all this while she was trustee so I'm not convinced she didn't know about it. Just my opinion but repeatedly telling me "she can't be held responsible for this safeguarding failure" isn't cutting it for me and I doubt it would be for you in different circumstances.

Churches should be held to different standards on safeguarding? Is that the point here?
Seems dangerous. Given various church scandals I think they should be even more careful around effective safeguarding.

If people want to understand the harm caused by existing as a gay man or woman in an evangelical Christian culture and being constantly told something fundamental about you is wrong and sinful and needs 'exorcising' then read Undivided by the brilliant Vicky Beeching. Sadly Vicky now has significant physical health issues thought to be caused by the stress and trauma of all she has been through. How much Cates was or was not involved in what happened in Sheffield I don't know. However I can't get my head around the dismissive attitudes on this thread to gay and lesbian Christians who have experienced trauma at the hands of evangelical churches.

This thread isn't about conversion therapy at all. It's about finding a any stick to add to a bonfire to burn Miriam Cates on.
I'm against conversion therapy absolutely which is why I'm concerned at all the Wpath and Tavistock stuff. I'm also against witch burning.

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5109200-wpath-again-full-document-disclosure-via-legal-challenge

Outrage and condemnation is an appropriate response to this.

No one is dismissing that. No one should be traumatised in church.

Straight kids have a pretty rough time in Those kinds of churches too. They teach girls to ‘save themselves’ and avoid tempting men. It’s screwed up, they don’t like sex outside of marriage. That said, I’m not sure it’s worse than some current sex ed in schools- kind of the opposite problem.

Please stop trying to derail this thread. People can pay attention to more than one thing

I agree, where the mention of this on the BBC, let alone the condemnation of MPs who promoted WPATH or Stonewall?

It is also notable that once again a Christian MP is being targeted, yet nothing is said of Muslim MPs or candidates. Look at all those MP candidates promoting Hamas in Palestine despite the treatment of LGBTQ+ there. Where is the LBGTQ+ safeguarding there?

wow! what a shit show.

This is a rerun of the attacks on Kate Forbes whilst ignoring the misogynistic beliefs of Humza Yousef. An attack on Christians.

The thread is about the fact she didn't manage safeguarding when it was her responsibility as trustee of a church.

It's relevant because she's an MP that talks a lot about safeguarding.

It's not the same as "promoting WPATH and Stonewall".

And stop being anti-Muslim. Completely unnecessary.