Our Object All Sublime

When looking at the issues around Grace I started to consider in more detail the questions of appropriate sanctions and how to decide what is appropriate in what circumstances. This is something that has not been properly covered in our own proposals and we don't think it has in either current guidance or the SSB proposal. This is a brief summary of a much larger document that I'm working on to define the rules that our proposed National Ministry Council would work to.

I'll be proposing a hybrid of two alternative approaches.

From ChatGPT, which I used to help build the model: "The real test would be whether the system strengthens moral courage and survivor trust—or quietly replaces them with procedural comfort." Wish I'd thought of that as a headline to any comparison of approaches to Safeguarding.

COMMONLY USED APPROACHES

There are two obvious methods of deciding sanctions:

1. A Points Based System, as used for driving offenses + It's clear, consistent, unemotional and not influenced by personal opinions + It can deal with the steady drip-drip of poor behaviour instead of waiting for a disaster before action is taken. - No consideration of Survivor experience. - The main problem with a Points-Based system isn’t technical—it’s cultural. If safeguarding is framed primarily as managing penalties rather than preventing harm and protecting the vulnerable, even a well-designed system can fail.

2. A Case-by-Case system (effectively as current) + Survivor needs are addressed in codes that are relatively flexible. + Enables more nuanced and thus potentially defensible decisions. - Imposes a greater burden on the decision makers. - At risk of accusations of bias. - No mechanism for tracking low-level concerns, especially where the person is moving between dioceses (Faithful Responsibility does include this though it's only in outline form in a diagram).

Is it possible to create a hybrid model that uses the best of both. I believe it is:

THE HYBRID MODEL

This is a summary of 10 pages of detailed guidance (so far - I'm still testing it!)

1. Is there a "red-line" offence? (e.g., a prison sentence conviction)

   → Yes: permanent restriction from relevant ministry

   → No: proceed

2. What cumulative indicators are present? (low level concerns)

   → Logged to inform pattern and escalation (in FR via the National Register)

3. What does the qualitative risk assessment show? (Yes, one would be needed!)

   → This drives the decision

4. Which response band best protects others right now?

   → Apply with documented rationale

5. How is survivor safety and dignity protected throughout?

   → Checked explicitly at each step and before final decision

6. Decision communicated to all parties

7. Appeal process if requested

WOULD IT HAVE STOPPED PETER BALL?

I asked ChatGPT to assess whether the (10 page) process would have stopped Peter Ball's abuse. Again, a very brief summary:

Process Step	Input	Model Result	Actual Result
1. Red Line Offence?	2015 Conviction	Red Line - Barred	Barred
2. Cumulative	1970s on Concerns 1993 Caution	Investigation. Probable Red Line - Barred	No action. Resigned as bishop but given PTO
3. Risk Assessment	1970s on Concerns 1993 Caution	Risk Assessment. If not Barred, Risk Assessment	None
4. Response	1970s on Concerns And/or1993 Caution	Min Safeguarding Agreement. Likely removal of Certificate of Ministry	None Resigned as bishop but given PTO
5. Survivor s	Survivor Accounts would be major input into Risk Assessment	Risk Assessment requires removal of Certificate of Ministry	Survivors Ignored. Welfare of perpetrator prioritised. Powerful people listened to.

The summary from ChatGPT was: "The Peter Ball case was not a failure of information, theology, or even law.

It was a failure to accept this truth:

Some people are not safe to hold power in the church, ever again.

The hybrid model exists to make that truth structurally unavoidable."

I've also done an analysis of the David Tudor case, which I'll add here when time allows.