Uk: Victims And Survivors Of John Smyth Speak Out

John Smyth was indeed the Church of England’s very own Jimmy Saville (17.2)
We are a group of some of John Smyth’s UK victims comprising both survivors who are
active in the Church of England (C of E) today right through to those who lost their faith as a
direct result of John Smyth and how the C of E has treated us since 1982.
By way of introduction we deeply regret that the publication of the Review has had to be
advanced from next Wednesday 13 November, and the impact that advancement is having
on many.

Firstly we want to make it clear that it remains our belief that in many, but not all, dioceses
up and down the country, there is much excellent local safeguarding work going on, away
from all of Church House, the NST (National Safeguarding Team), Lambeth & Bishopthorpe
palaces & the C of E hierarchy of Bishops, Archbishops Council and General Synod. We are
actively encouraged by that local work, but utterly dismayed by the behaviour of the C of E
hierarchy, including the dismissal of the ISB (Independent Safeguarding Board) whose work
was highly valued by victims & survivors.

We note the full 27 recommendations on pages 249 through 251, many of which reflect
similar recommendations in dozens of previous safeguarding reports over 40+ years, that
the C of E has previously chosen to ignore or disregard. We urge readers to consider that
full list of these 27 recommendations because historically with respect to previous Reviews,
the C of E has sought to restrict focus to summary/key recommendations alone (here 1.14
on pages 2 through 3), presumably in an attempt to minimise its own culpability.

Regrettably we have little confidence that the C of E will take any more notice of the
recommendations of this Review than it has of all those recommendations of the many
previous safeguarding reports (Recommendation 6).

We note that publication of the Makin Review is more than 1630 days late. Justice delayed
is justice denied, particularly to all those John Smyth victims who have now died. We
attribute the vast majority of that delay to the deliberate under-resourcing of the project by
the C of E (See also 22.1.11 through 22.1.14). We have been making this point to the C of E
for the last five years.

We are concerned that in a report of over 250 pages and 29 Appendices of another 250
pages or so, the only examples of good practice the reviewer could identify with respect to
any C of E clergy were a single, now retired, individual bishop, see below, and two
behaviours of a 2017 Core Group (para 24).

One of the most pernicious lies of the last 40+ years of the Smyth saga is the claim repeated
by James Stileman (and Rev David Fletcher since 1982?) in Appendix 22, page 4 of 35, on
the page with subscript 2, that ‘when interviewed by Mark Ruston [in Feb 1982] the victims
defended John Smyth to the hilt’. This, and other similar equally false claims that are
debunked in the Review, have been used for decades by the likes of Titus Trust to justify
blocking any proper investigation. Several of us victims are keen to give evidence under
oath that the exact opposite was the case.

We are concerned that the Review demonstrates that entire Church hierarchy still has no
understanding of trauma-informed approach (22.1.8) despite this being established many
times previously, including most recently in the 2023 Wilkinson Review.

The 185 page Wilkinson Review was completed in 2 1/2 months from publication of the
agreed Terms of Reference in September 2023 to submission of her final report in
November 2023.

The Church continues to engage by utterly inappropriate means with victims & survivors in
2024. It has shown no interest in addressing this throughout the last 40 + years
(Recommendation 22).

We are particularly concerned that some Church leaders seek to characterise John Smyth
as a ‘lone wolf’. In fact he is part of a long and ongoing tradition of abusers, many of whom
have targeted the C of E as a ‘soft touch’ particularly because of the historic and current lax
treatment of abusers (18.4.1 through 18.4.3). Such abusers include the likes of Rev Colin
Pritchard, Jeremy Dowling, Bishop Peter Ball, Bishop Victor Whitsey, Dean Robert
Warrington, David Smith, Chris Brain, Rev Jonathan Fletcher, Rev Iain Broomfield, Canon
Andrew Hindley, Canon Mike Pilavachi and dozens more.

The Church hierarchy retains to this day a deeply ingrained culture of deference (17.1.11 to
17.1.13), cover-up (17.1.14 through para 20) and groupthink (para 21) that has allowed all of
these, and many more, perpetrators to “flourish”. The Church’s wider failings are
summarised in para 22.

We are concerned that the publicity given to the Church’s many ingrained historic and
current failings may encourage other victims to overcome their completely understandable
past reticence and come forward with new/additional information regarding John Smyth and
other cases. The C of E needs to commit today to produce a follow-up report in 18 months
time based on such future evidence, should that be necessary.

We are surprised at the extent of material (some of it in the public domain in places like
Andrew Graystone’s 2021 book, Bleeding for Jesus & Henry Olonga’s autobiography) not
included in the (main) report, including by way of a single example, Justin Welby’s notorious
2017 LBC interview.
Despite Archbishop Welby’s specific assurances during this broadcast interview in 2017 that
a crime was reported to the police, this Review confirms that this was NOT the case (18.1
through 18.4)

These omissions of material may have derived from an unwillingness to risk identifying
figures who are now senior figures in the C of E (3.19 through 3.21 & 18.4.9 through
18.4.12), or from an unwillingness to challenge the C of E’s very restrictive Terms of
Reference for this Review or the time period beyond July 2019, but those are matters for
another day.

Throughout the last eight years in particular we have continually regretted that the Church
has shown so little concern for or interest in John Smyth’s victims in Africa, who constitute
not only the vast numerical majority of his victims, but all of whom were believed to be
under-age. Apparently unlike the Church of England hierarchy, we believe that God shows
no partiality and that His concern depends neither on the colour of a person’s skin nor the
continent they live in. We are therefore particularly supportive of para 23 &
Recommendations 25 through 27.

We note that Jan Pickles’ Review of John Smyth’s involvement at Winchester College was
published almost 3 years ago in January 2022, and we commend that report for further
information.

We want to acknowledge the leadership and exemplary behaviour of Bishop Peter Hancock
(identified by Keith Makin (24.1.2)) and a tiny handful of others who prefer to remain
anonymous, not least for their own protection. However the Church Hierarchy have actively
persecuted us, particularly since 2017 and continue to do so in 2024. We continue to be lied
to in 2024, and numerous promises made to us continue to be broken. All of this has been
from the C of E hierarchy, including the most senior Bishops and administrators in the C of E
in 2024.

However many of us have received marvellous support from friends, family and others, from
both within the C of E and from outside.

We would like to think that delivery of this Review’s Recommendations in full would be some
small reward for their patience and love.

Above all else, we hope that when the next Peter Ball, John Smyth, Chris Brain, Mike
Pilavachi or whoever begins their abuse (as they most certainly will), the Church of England
will finally break the habit of a lifetime and take victims and survivors seriously, rather than
seek to ‘manage the Church of England’s reputation and protect their own’ as they currently
do to this very day.

Issued by Andrew Graystone on behalf of a number of victims and survivors of John Smyth.
andrew.graystone1@btinternet.com

John Smyth Review – Personal Statement by the Archbishop of Canterbury

07/11/2024

Following the publication today of the independent review by Keith Makin into the Church of England’s handling of allegations of serious abuse by the late John Smyth, the Archbishop of Canterbury said:

“The pain experienced by the victims in this case is unimaginable. They have lived with the trauma inflicted by John Smyth’s horrendous abuse for more than 40 years, both here in the UK and in Southern Africa, particularly Zimbabwe.

“I recognise the courage of those victims, including those related to John Smyth, who have come forward and relived their trauma through contributing to this review. I know their willingness to share their painful testimonies will come at great personal cost.

“I am deeply sorry that this abuse happened. I am so sorry that in places where these young men, and boys, should have felt safe and where they should have experienced God’s love for them, they were subjected to physical, sexual, psychological and spiritual abuse. I am sorry that concealment by many people who were fully aware of the abuse over many years meant that John Smyth was able to abuse overseas and died before he ever faced justice. The report rightly condemns that behaviour.

“I had no idea or suspicion of this abuse before 2013.

“Nevertheless the review is clear that I personally failed to ensure that after disclosure in 2013 the awful tragedy was energetically investigated. Since that time the way in which the Church of England engages with victims and survivors has changed beyond recognition. Checks and balances introduced seek to ensure that the same could not happen today.

“I repeat my apology contained in the review, that I did not meet quickly with victims after the full horror of the abuse was revealed by Channel 4 in 2017. As the report says, no Archbishop can meet with everyone but I promised to see them and failed until 2020. This was wrong. I am grateful to those like Bishop Peter Hancock and others who did meet with them, as said in the report. We now have a network of listeners and pastoral supporters to act.

“John Smyth’s abuse manipulated Christian truth to justify his evil acts, whilst exploiting and abusing the power entrusted to him. In the last 11 years much has been learned. This long-delayed report shows another, very important step on the way to a safer church, here and round the world.

“That does not reverse the terrible abuse suffered but I hope that it can be at least of some comfort to victims. I can only end by thanking them again for their courage and persistence and again by apologising profoundly, not only for my own failures and omissions but for the wickedness, concealment and abuse by the church more widely, as set out in the report.”

UK: VICTIMS AND SURVIVORS OF JOHN SMYTH SPEAK OUT
Archbishop Justin Welby Responds

November 7, 2024

This statement is issued at 1615 on Thursday 7 November on behalf of a number of victims
and survivors of John Smyth QC. It is a response to the publication by the Church of
England of the Makin Review. Bracketed references refer to that review.

We welcome the publication of the Makin Review into the physical abuse of between 115 &
130 known males since 1971 (2.4 & 16.21) and the mental suffering of many more. We hope
this Review will bring some form of, even partial, healing to all those impacted directly and
indirectly over the last 50 + years.