Seven survivors of abuse by disgraced former minister Jonathan Fletcher have said they feel they are ‘being weaponised for somebody else’s agenda’ and ‘used all over again’.
Their explosive claims came in an open letter to Justin Humphreys, chief executive of safeguarding charity Thirtyone:eight, which published a report on Fletcher a few weeks ago.
The survivors are deeply critical of a statement issued at the same time as that report from some of the members of the Independent Advisory Group (IAG), which was set up to provide guidance and scrutiny of Thirtyone:eight’s review.
Writing to Humphreys the survivors stated: ‘What has… 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.’
The reference to leaders is believed to mean William Taylor, Vaughan Roberts, Robin Weekes and Rod Thomas, who have come under pressure on social media to resign following the IAG statement, which focused on them in a way the official Thirtyone:eight report did not.
The members of the IAG who issued their own statement were an anonymous Fletcher survivor (not one of the seven writers of the letter), Sarah Smart, Graham Shearer and Dan Leafe. The survivors’ letter says Shearer and Leafe had both publicly stated they had issues with William Taylor prior to their appointment to the IAG, and documents some of them.
The letter says: ‘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 [Jonathan Fletcher] and the failings of Emmanuel Wimbledon [where Fletcher was minister]. 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 … But now is the time for our voices to be heard, alongside the voices that claim to speak for us but don’t.’
Referring to a ‘Twitter coalition’ that has been vociferous following the IAG report, the letter states: ‘One of the ironies in this whole tragic episode is that the very people who have claimed to be bringing down a “culture of fear” [within conservative evangelicalism] are themselves creating exactly that for any who have dared to challenge their narrative.’
It adds: ‘We repeat how grateful we are for the [Thirtyone:eight] report. The problem for us lies with the IAG statement … What it has incited has brought us misery and inflicted deeply personal further pain … 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.’
The survivors’ letter then sets out detailed questions for Humphreys to answer.
Replying, Thirtyone:eight said: ‘Our statement, along with that made by Emmanuel Church Wimbledon … are the only communications of which we have had prior knowledge.
‘Any other comment or statement that has been made publicly subsequent to publication of the report, whether by individuals, groups or organisations, are their views alone, and are not made on behalf of Thirtyone:eight.’
The IAG had been disbanded, having fulfilled its duties, before the Thirtyone:eight report came out, it added.
Responding in turn, the seven Fletcher survivors commented: ‘Although we recognise that 31:8 have been placed in a difficult position by the external members of the IAG, we confess to feeling disappointed by their response and bemused by the lack of any promise of a full reply to our questions.
‘We welcome 31:8’s clarification that the IAG statement is a not-IAG statement, with no official status, and that the focus should be on the Review report alone. However, almost everything else we raised remains unclear.
‘We respect that many people have wanted to express their views since publication of the Review report – the not-IAG group included. It is now for others to decide how to evaluate what the not-IAG group said, taking into account how they went about saying it. For our part, eight weeks of painful online discussion about the not-IAG’s personal views that go beyond the Review report feels more than enough.’
en contacted a representative of the four IAG members who produced their own statement and was told no comment would be made publicly.
