The Scottish Episcopal Church chose to unsuspend “bully bishop” Anne Dyer in October 2024. It did so despite its own senior lawyer, who had been tasked with assessing allegations against Dyer, finding that there was sufficient evidence to convict her of having bullied, harassed and discriminated against a disabled person.
The allegations against Dyer were due to be decided at a disciplinary tribunal. However, the SEC decided to end the disciplinary proceedings against Dyer and unsuspend her before the tribunal could take place.
SEC safeguarding policy required that the allegations of abuse and discrimination against Dyer be impartially determined. No such determination has been made. Neither of the SEC’s safeguarding officers were informed or consulted about the decision to unsuspend Dyer.
Top-level SEC officials were aware of Dyer’s abusive, discriminatory conduct but failed to refer the matter to the SEC’s safeguarding office. This includes when the SEC commissioned Professor Sir Ian Torrance in March 2021 to investigate allegations against Dyer.
Torrance’s report raised serious safeguarding concerns. These top-level officials attempted to supress the contents of the report from both the public and almost all other SEC clergy and officials, rather than refer its contents to the safeguarding office. Donald Urquhart, Head of Safeguarding for the SEC at the time, was wrongly assured by other SEC officials that there were “no safeguarding issues at play”.
It has also been reported that the same officials were aware that Dyer had been put on gardening leave before resigning from her previous post in Durham over allegations of bullying.
The SEC did not communicate anything to victims about Dyer’s unsuspension. They learnt of it through the media when they were approached for comment. The SEC was able to coordinate a nationwide media briefing but failed to communicate key information to victims.
It has also been reported that SEC officials are yet to explain how Dyer’s return is compatible with its own safeguarding policies despite having been asked to do so. Likewise, trustees in Dyer’s home diocese of Aberdeen and Orkney are also understood to have failed to answer the same question despite being Dyer’s employer.
The SEC central office sent a message to each Diocese asking clergy to read a preprepared statement to their congregations on so-called “Safeguarding Sunday”, 17 November 2024.
The statement claimed that: “Safeguarding in the Scottish Episcopal Church is a vitally important part of our life, and any concerns reported are passed, without fail, to the SEC safeguarding team in Edinburgh. Survivors are placed at the centre of any response, and any issue raised is dealt with in a necessary and proportionate manner, within the processes and Canons agreed across the SEC.”
This is untrue, as the SEC’s own staff have confirmed. Its safeguarding mechanisms have failed to address Dyer’s misconduct and its own officials have supressed or withheld key safeguarding concerns from its safeguarding office on multiple occasions.
A member of the Diocese of Edinburgh said, “The SEC has totally failed members of the church. It has put the interests of one of its own bishops ahead of those of victims and lay people and gone on to operate a grubby cover up to try and hide the truth. It’s profoundly unchristian behaviour and action must be taken.”
Comments
15 responses
I am a member of the SEC and I can state here that this write-up is full of lies. I have worked with +Anne for several months in my own local church, and she is the opposite of what is written against her here. Contrary to what is written above, +Anne was suspended for a long time to enable investigations. How then can someone claim that such investigations were not done? We have put her suspension behind us and are presently working with her to move the diocese forward in the work the church is called to. Everyone who loves the Diocese should pray for reconciliation and not be a party to further polarization of the church.
Thanks for your comment, Emmanuel – as you can see this site publishes views of any kind.
Can you name one lie in the post? If it’s “full” of them, it shouldn’t be too hard.
Investigations were carried out, but the SEC ended the Canon 54 process before the Tribunal could consider the product of those investigations and make a determination about Dyer’s conduct.
Emmanuel Ubochi’s silence is absolutely deafening. I assume he’s been fed a pack of lies by you know who.
Finally, some coverage of this.
The SEC’s behaviour is inexplicable. What on earth is it playing at?
Emmanuel’s comment is sick. I don’t see how he can expect people to reconcile with an abuser who escaped judgement at a disciplinary tribunal and is back in post.
The demonisation of Bishop Anne began before she took office and has escalated ever since. This is a witch hunt and aggravated bullying against a woman who has been doing her job. If she had been a male I suspect she would have been complimented on being decisive. My experience of Bishop Anne has been nothing but positive and she has supported me through an extremely painful part of my life.
I am sad and angry that the church I have been proud to be part of for over 45 years has shown a total lack of compassion which is the opposite of the teachings of Jesus, and am seriously thinking that there is no place for me in it any longer.
Unlike the author of this piece I am happy to sign my name
What, you mean when she had to be removed from her last post in Durham for the same type of bullying? Unfortuntely for Dyer, the NDAs didn’t reach far enough to stop the story leaking out.
I’m genuienly sorry that you feel you have no place in the SEC. I feel the same, actually. We just can’t allow a bully to stay in post, we can’t allow the SEC to ignore its own rules and we can’t allow it to lie about what’s been going on to cover things up. Surely you agree, at least with the latter two points?
The Procurator indicated that Dyer did bully multipe people. Why should she be allowed to stay in post?
It’s good to hear that you’ve got a positive experience of Dyer, but that doesn’t undercut the idea that she bullied others. Read the posts on the website if you have any doubt about that – I found them very helpful and there is documentary evidence to back them up.
For my part, given the abuse Dyer subject complainers to, I think the author’s anonimity is pretty fair game.
The SEC need to grip this so that people can move on.
Wow, this is really disapointing. How can the SEC just let Bishop Dyer back without even a proper hearing? And not telling the safeguarding team? Thats just not right. Feels like they’re more interested in protecting their own than caring for the people. Really makes you wonder about their priorities.
As a long-time member of the SEC, I am deeply troubled by this decision. Our faith teaches us to protect the vulnerable and uphold justice. By bypassing the tribunal and neglecting to involve safeguarding officers, the church appears to be failing in these fundamental duties. I hope the leadership reconsiders this approach and takes steps to rebuild the congregation’s trust.
Ah, the SEC—a beacon of transparency and accountability! Who needs tribunals or safeguarding protocols when you can simply sweep allegations under the ecclesiastical rug? Bravo for setting such a divine example of how to handle misconduct allegations.
This is an absoulte disgrace! How can the SEC ignore such serious allegations and not even consult their own safeguarding team? They are failing their congregation and the victims. Shame on them…
The SEC’s termination of disciplinary proceedings against Bishop Dyer, despite sufficient evidence for a realistic prospect of conviction, raises significant legal and ethical questions. The decision not to consult safeguarding officers appears to contravene established protocols, potentially undermining the integrity of the church’s disciplinary processes. A thorough review is warranted to uphold accountability and justice within the church.
And so it goes on, a few sad people determined to destroy a good woman – a dedicated bishop. In the process, also destroying what could be a great diocese. +Anne’s installation was canonically correct, priests promise to honour and respect her. Yet this hasn’t happened, just a small cabal refusing to accept her, attempting to bully her relentlessly since before she even started. Why? None of this is christian, compassionate and appropriate. I’ve known +Anne for 13 years, worked with her, been taught by her, delighted to accept her ministry.
“I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken”
I’m glad you have a good experience of working with Anne Dyer.
As we know the church generally continues to struggle to address bullying and other forms of abuse. There are always people, often many people, who have good experiences of people who bully and abuse some others. How else could a bully or abuser possibly get away with it?
So, while you have a good experience of Anne Dyer, the SEC concluded after spending £100,000s on legal fees that there was sufficient evidence to convict her of all charges of misconduct against three women. Including, most shockingly, the bullying, harassing and discriminating against a disabled woman.
Your good experience does not diminish from what has happened to other people or the SEC’s findings.
How could sweeping this all under the carpet as you suggest and leaving victims without justice, be compatible with the God who requires justice for the poor and the oppressed? How could it possibly be honouring of God’s name? Why would people who don’t yet belong to our church communities want to give us a try if we can’t do the basics to ensure church is a safe place for all ?
The SEC’s actions seem to contradict its own safeguarding promises. Allowing Dyer back without a tribunal decision shows a disturbing lack of accountability and raises serious ethical questions.
So much for safeguarding! The SEC’s actions scream, “Protect the institution at all costs!” Victims left in the cold and a bishop reinstated without accountability – what a farce.