Dear Editor,
In their letter in the June issue of en, do Simon and Kathy Manchester mean that the accusations against Jonathan Fletcher should be played down when they ask for the process of dealing with them to be ‘kept in proportion’?
I ask as one who met Jonathan Fletcher when I was 13 and was (in the opinions of, among others, a professor of psychiatry, two practising therapists, a leading abuse lawyer, and investigating officers from two police forces) groomed and then systematically abused in a variety of ways for 30 years.
The Manchesters should be sensitive to the fact that their experience of ‘only blessing by his friendship and ministry’ has been happier than that of others.
Yours sincerely,
A survivor By email
Dear Editor,
With reference to Mr and Mrs Manchester’s letter in the last edition, I have known Jonathan Fletcher for around half a century. I have never been a direct victim of his either. I’m not sure what the relevance of this is: as a child, I adored Jimmy Saville.
Nor what is meant by ‘in proportion’, when he left at least one victim suicidal.
Yours sincerely,
Anne Atkins By email
Dear Editor,
The revelations regarding Jonathan Fletcher’s abuse, as well as the complicity of the wider Conservative Evangelical constituency in creating a culture to keep a lid on the abuse, have rocked many of us. In this moment when it is important to listen to survivors, believe that they have been abused, and think deeply about how the culture needs to change, en chose instead to respond by airing Simon and Kathy Manchester’s defence of an abusive ex-vicar.
The 31:8 report is very clear on the areas that the wider Conservative Evangelical community, as well as the Church of England, should consider in order to create a safer environment for those entrusted to it.
It is clear that EN has either not read the report; has not understood it or has not taken the time to reflect on its implications for its own approach. I therefore highlight a number of areas in the Independent Lessons Learned Review concerning Jonathan Fletcher and Emmanuel church Wimbledon by thirtyone:eight you should prioritise reading:
• Section Cl, page 38 to 45. This section sets out in detail not only details of the abuse, but also highlights the real harm caused to many individuals by Jonathan as well as the system that suppressed the abuse becoming known. Re-read the paragraphs dealing with the severe impact on victim, their families and congregations. And then do it again. This was not a victimless crime. Not everyone was "blessed" by contact with Jonathan.
• Section C3.2 and C3.3, page 51 to 52 and C3.5, page 53: where the impact of positive experiences and the myth of homogeneity in keeping any reports of the abuse from being considered seriously. When you have read this, please consider whether publishing Simon and Kathy Manchester's letter would be doing exactly what is described in this section of the report. Their letter is a case study in minimising abuse.
As a media organisation with influence within the Conservative Evangelical constituency, reflecting on your own culture would be appropriate. The following section of the report is particularly relevant: Leadership, page 97 – ‘Placing leaders on pedestals and enabling them to develop “celebrity status” is unhealthy and can lead to unsafe practice. The status of leaders can be enhanced when they lead across a constituency.’
Before you published Simon and Kathy’s letter, was their celebrity status a consideration in publishing the letter? Or were you really in agreement with the sentiment? How are you reflecting on how you use your power and influence in light of the report? How are you prioritising victims? Or are you prioritising abusers?
To Simon and Kathy – your friend has made a victim of many people and has caused real harm. Instead of trying to minimise his behaviour, use your friendship to help him see the harm he has caused and help lead him to apologise to those he has hurt.
This would be putting victims first.
Your sincerely,
Isobel Hill Address withheld
We are happy to respond to your very thoughtful questions, Isobel.
Before publishing Simon and Kathy Manchester’s letter, was their celebrity status a consideration in publishing the letter?
No. We simply published the only two letters responding to our coverage of the 31:8 report that we had received that month prior to publication. The lack of other responses surprised us. We had also recently rejected for publication another ‘celebrity’ leader’s letter on another matter as too unpleasant.
Were you really in agreement with the sentiment [in the Manchester letter]?
No. Neither personally (as editor) nor editorially (as a newspaper).
How are you reflecting on how you use your power and influence in the light of the report?
We have for some time been interacting behind the scenes both with quite a few survivors of Jonathan Fletcher's abuse and with others who have written on these issues, including survivors of other abuse, which has been and is helpful, as well as other evangelicals including those with professional safeguarding expertise.
How are you prioritising victims?
By ongoing contact with ten or eleven of them; and by covering what they say in some depth, as seen in this issue (p2 and p7); in June’s issue (pages 1 and 6); May’s issue (p6); and March’s issue (p1). We have also printed first-hand accounts from two survivors of other abuse (May, p7) and a second-hand report in a letter (May, p11). From March this year we have published more than 2,000 words directly from UK abuse survivors, compared with 29 from Jonathan Fletcher (and those 29 were historic rather than recent). We also had a double-page spread on the diaries of the Chibok girls (June), who endured horrific abuse during their captivity.
Are you prioritising abusers?
No. en has received two letters from Jonathan Fletcher since the publication of the 31:8 report and declined to publish either of them. The editor, who recalls only having ever spoken to Fletcher once, during a coffee time at a conference, and has never attended Iwerne camps, publicly and strongly criticised Fletcher’s attitude in a letter in en in November 2019. The sentiments expressed there continue to be his strongly-held view. Fletcher sent a personal letter in response which was subsequently passed to the 31:8 inquiry, along with other information, documentation and evidence that had been acquired - Editor
See also comment, p7
