Letter to the Editor: Response to the Last Editorial

Letter to the Editor Response to Last Edition’s Editorial Dear Editor, Thank you very much for your Christian charity and spirited editorial, Friday 8th October 2021, ( E.C. No.8090).  Also thanks are due to you for reprinting so much excellent reformed evangelical...

Letter to the Editor: The Murder of Sir David Amess

Murder of Sir David Amess Dear Editor, I grieve at the loss of a friend and former Party colleague Sir David Amess, MP who was murdered in an increasingly dangerous world. In the 70s I worked with David in the Young Conservatives before he became an MP and he was...

Reformation Sunday Advert

LETTER TO THE EDITOR:                        15 October 2021. My ‘Advert’ titled “Reformation Sunday 31 October” said, “The Church of England should still celebrate this 500th year since Martin Luther declared at the ‘Diet of Worms’ in 1521, “Here I stand. God help...

Leicester Diocese Illogical

Letter to the Editor Leicester Diocese Illogical   Sir, Leicester Diocese’s decision on 9 October to replace its traditional Parishes with ‘Minsters' is both spiritually and financially illogical.  The Church of England’s own growth report ‘From Anecdote to...

Barnabas Fund Reports: Turkey Escalates Airstrikes Against Christians in Syria & Iraq

Barnabas Fund Reports Turkey Escalating Airstrikes Against Christians and other Minorities in Syria and Iraq Turkey has escalated a supposedly anti-terrorist military campaign in Syria and Iraq which appears to be targeting Christians and other minorities. A spate of...

Should I Stay or Should I Go? Gospel-Driven Anglicanism Part 4

Should I Stay or Should I Go? By the Revd Dr Mark Pickles Part 4 Gedaliah is appointed governor and we read that Jeremiah purposely chooses to live amongst “those of the poorest of the land who had not been taken into exile in Babylon” (40:7). Things have taken a turn...

466th Anniversary of the Martyrdoms of Latimer & Ridley

466th Anniversary of the Martyrdoms of Latimer & Ridley Saturday, 16 October marked the 466th anniversary of the martyrdoms of Bishops Hugh Latimer and Nicholas Ridley.   They were burned at the stake after being found guilty of heresy due to their refusal to...

Clive West Memorial Trust Lecture: John Yates III to Speak

Clive West Memorial Trust Lecture  Revd Dr John Yates III to Speak The annual Clive West Memorial Lecture will be held on Thursday, 11 November at 19:30 at St Nicholas’ Church, Lisburn Road in Belfast.  This year’s speaker is the Revd Dr John Yates III, Rector of Holy...

Book Review: Bleeding for Jesus

Bleeding for Jesus John Smyth and the cult of the Iwerne Camps Andrew Graystone Darton, Longman and Todd, 2021 (ISBN: 9781913657123, 250pp, £12.99) This book is the latest instalment of a long-running tragedy. It comes six years after the author was first made aware...

School Pupils Across the Country Memorise Passages from BCP for £1,000 Prize

School Pupils Across the Country  Memorise Book of Common Prayer Passages  £1,000 Prize for Winner By Tim Stanley Hundreds of school pupils across the country are busy this term studying prayers and readings from the 1662 Book of Common Prayer in a bid to win a prize...

Seven Fletcher Survivors Pen Open Letter & Rebuts IAG

Seven Fletcher Survivors Pen Open Letter
& Rebuts Independent Advisory Group

The Jonathan Fletcher matter has grown stranger and stranger. A thirty page open letter addressed to Justin Humphreys of the safeguarding charity, Thirty-one:8, was purportedly issued by seven unnamed survivors of Fletcher’s abuse. The letter was placed in the public domain on 12 May. It says that the IAG Report showed an “apparent willingness to weaponise our experience of abuse for their own purposes.”

After touching on the already widely disseminated allegations against Fletcher, the authors then took the IAG report to task.

“However, what has also wounded us – indeed, profoundly deepened our pain – is the IAG
statement and the Twitter response its authors have incited. It has left us profoundly hurt
and confused. It has left us dismayed and angry – because of the unjustified erosion of trust
in leaders we know acted responsibly, promptly and kindly.

“Compared with your 31:8 report, the IAG statement seems to speak with a different voice
pursuing a different agenda. It feels like our abuse has become a convenient launching pad
for its authors’ and their supporters’ real interest.

“We have been left hurt and frustrated that the focus has been allowed to be taken away from
our suffering, the sin of JF and the failings of Emmanuel Wimbledon. We have been left
wondering: why did the IAG take advantage of this moment to pursue their other interests
instead of allowing the report to speak with its own voice?

“Having been used once we find ourselves being used all over again, indeed we feel we are
being weaponised for somebody else’s agenda.

The explanatory text portion of the rebuttal was some six pages in length. The remaining 24 pages were a lawyerly series of questions and statements.

The anonymous authors concluded the textual narrative by stating:

“We repeat how grateful we are for the Review report. The problem for us lies with the IAG
statement in the way it removes the focus from JF, Emmanuel Wimbledon and our suffering.
JF is the man who wronged us and harmed us. JF is rightly the focus of the Review. It is right
that broader questions are raised where there are opportunities for wider learning – indeed,
this is one way we pray good can come out of survivors’ suffering. But the IAG statement
does not merely raise broader questions – it removes the focus from JF and from the issues
that really caused our suffering. But worse, what it has incited has brought us misery and
inflicted deeply personal further pain.

“We will listen carefully to what you say in response to us, but on the face of it the IAG
statement looks like a political and/or personal agenda that some members of the IAG are
determined to pursue.

“What hurts and confuses us so much is their apparent willingness to weaponise our
experience of abuse for their own purposes. And, respectfully, what hurts and confuses us
even more is why you allowed them to do it, and then stayed silent when they had done it. If
we are wrong, please help us and tell us why we are wrong. Or disavow the IAG statement
publicly, so everyone can set it aside and get on with the serious and vital cultural reflection
we all desire. We praise God for the clear evidence that this necessary reflection is already
beginning to take place in our constituency.”

At press time, none of those involved in the IAG Report have responded to the assertions of the Survivors’ Group. Likewise, no one has been publicly identified as a signatory of the open letter.