The true facts behind overdue Ecclesiastical Court review
I WAS extremely surprised to recently receive two letters from the Very Rev. T. R. Barker which had very kindly been forwarded on to me by Guernsey Press staff, whom I wish to thank. His first letter (25 July 2016) questions the contents of my letter printed in the Guernsey Press on 15 July and my statement that the Church of England's tactics had been the reason for the delay in the Treasury review into the Ecclesiastical Court not being able to arrive at a conclusion. He then exonerates himself by informing me he did not arrive in Guernsey until November 2015, which I already knew. This gentleman then informs me he did deal as quickly as possible with the problem and enclosed a copy of a letter from Gavin St Pier (7 April 2016) who confirmed that the Treasury and Resources Department has now concluded its review of the funding arrangements of the Ecclesiastical Court and a copy has also been shared with the Policy Council.
I did not at any time accuse or mention Mr Barker's name when I mentioned the long definitive delays caused by the Church of England clerics in Guernsey.
If he takes the trouble to get the true facts as to what has happened in the previous years before he was here, he will find many islanders are fully aware of the delaying tactics employed by two clerics no longer living in Guernsey. To confirm this in my reply to his second letter I enclosed a cutting from the Guernsey Press giving clear and precise details of how a member of the Parochial Ecclesiastical Rates Review Committee was barred from entering the offices of this court.
Can I suggest, Mr Barker, you contact the member yourself who will doubtless be only too happy to give you knowledge of what was said to him by the two clerics he met during his inquiries into the dealings of the Ecclesiastical Court in 2007.
In my letter (17 July) I made reference to the Church of England as a business, which I feel they are. Mr Barker did conclude his first letter by offering to meet me, at my convenience, for a conversation about matters of mutual concern. I regretfully declined the offer, as I have no intention of having behind-closed-door meetings for any reason. Being a Guernsey donkey, I prefer my comments to be aired and not withheld from the public as both deputies and clergy do.
His second letter was, as expected, giving details of being a registered charity etc. What I found most amusing was that not one financial figure was given for the grants that are made, and giving a grant for humanitarian work in Calais, which I assume most people realise is nothing less than a staging post for young adults and criminals to force their way into the UK.
Evidently the Church of England Guernsey charity has not realised that even recently rioting and fighting has taken place at
Calais, with the participants being all young men.
E.MAUGER,
Address withheld.
Editor's footnote: The Very Rev. Tim Barker, Dean of Guernsey, responds: Thank you for giving me the opportunity to respond to the most recent letter you have received from E. Mauger. I have offered and remain willing to meet E. Mauger with any colleagues whom he or she wishes to attend to discuss their concerns. To date this offer has been declined. I always seek to respond as openly and honestly as I can to any reasonable questions.
As I do not know the identity of the person mentioned by E. Mauger, it is difficult to 'contact that person' as requested (notwithstanding what your correspondent has stated, I have not received a reply to my second letter to him or her). But if the member concerned of the (now disbanded) Parochial Ecclesiastical Rates Review Committee wishes to contact me, I will gladly respond.
In relation to the grant given for humanitarian work in Calais, I remain convinced of our responsibility to support highly vulnerable people, including the young children in the camps of Calais. Violence is always unacceptable, but I cannot accept that the recent unrest in Calais indicates that vulnerable people are unworthy of such assistance.
