The Synod\u2019s failure to vote for such an approach, but to prefer more time to explore the legal and logistical barriers to outsourcing diocesan safeguarding teams while simultaneously creating a new, independent scrutiny body, was, Mr Myer said, \u201cdeeply disappointing\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The decision, he said, \u201cdid not follow the recommendation from Professor Jay and many other specialists and professionals, or the preference of many survivors\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Two separate surveys have suggested that about three-quarters of the victims and survivors questioned supported Professor Jay\u2019s recommendations; but her advice was not supported by all safeguarding professionals.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Jim Gamble, the head of the INEQE Safeguarding Group, which is auditing all Church of England dioceses and cathedrals, was among those to disagree with Professor Jay. In a report published the day before the Synod\u2019s debate, he wrote: \u201cWhen it comes to delivering effective safeguarding practice \u2014 practice that genuinely works and makes a difference \u2014 it is most effectively delivered from within, not imposed from without\u201d….<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Read it all<\/a>.<\/p> In a House of Commons debate on Monday evening, MPs criticised the General Synod\u2019s decision last month not to outsource all safeguarding functions immediately to an independent body https:\/\/t.co\/phh7IAy7FJ<\/a><\/p>— Church Times (@ChurchTimes) March 6, 2025<\/a><\/blockquote>