Here are some more interesting documents for you to read:
The Evidence of the Weaponisation of Safeguarding which was presented to the Church of England’s Independent Safeguarding Board (before the Church of England closed it down)
Here is some more evidence of the deliberate weaponisation of safeguarding against Prof. Percy. Again, the Archbishops have declined to act or impose any disciplinary sanctions on the perpetrators, including their own lawyers.
Read it here and decide for yourself: http://nineveh.live/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/Appendix-re-Weaponization-of-Safeguarding-Appendix-for-ISB.pdf
Transcript of Interview by Kate Wood with Prof. Percy.
Note that he wasn’t allowed to have a legal advisor present, and the ‘friend’ who accompanied him was told she was not an advocate nor able to engage in the conversation. Note also the hostile tone of her questioning, and the repeated duplicitous claims, and the refusal to disclose who has instructed her for the work or to discuss the process she was following.
You can read the interview here: http://nineveh.live/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/Kate-Wood-Report-and-Transcript-and-Analysis.pdf
An Appendix regarding Kate Wood’s Investigation
There have been many criticisms about the ‘independent’ investigation conducted by Kate Wood into “Hairgate” in terms of its competence and its impartiality. This document summarises some of the issues and also contains copies of some of the original documents which have given rise to these concerns and criticisms. Read this for yourself and decide whether this was a fair and impartial investigation of a very serious matter.
The Appendix is available at: http://nineveh.live/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/Appendix-Re-Kate-Wood-Report.pdf
Summary notes about “Hairgate”
These summary notes lay out a legal analysis of the processes followed during the pursuit of Prof. Percy and concludes that there is no basis for suggesting that the alleged incident in Christ Church Cathedral (which Prof. Percy has consistently maintained never occurred) could in any way be described as ‘sexual harassment’.
You can read these and decide for yourself: http://nineveh.live/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/Notes-on-Incident-and-Allegation-05-04-21.docx.pdf
The Bogus “Risk Assessment” (or are they an “Assessment of Risk”)
This is a full copy of the apparently official Church of England Risk Assessment performed in relation to Prof Percy following the “Hairgate” incident. Except that this is not a genuine Church of England form, but just something that someone has apparently made up and then copied a Church of England logo off of the internet in order to make it look like an “official” document.
We are sorry that you will have to rotate this in your viewer to read it properly but some pages are portrait and some landscape: http://nineveh.live/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/Risk-Assessessments-re-Dean-Christ-Church.pdf
A Simple Analysis of the “Weaponisation” of Safeguarding against Prof. Percy
This document details how a number of parties attempted to use false allegations to destroy the reputation of Prof. Percy. http://nineveh.live/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/Safeguarding-Deliberate-Origination-and-Curation-of-Concerns-and-Allegations-2020-Onwards.pdf
A Statement from Survivors and Victims re Proposed Safeguarding Practice Review
Victims and Survivors of abuse write to express their concerns about the handling of safeguarding by the Church of England National Safeguarding Team and the Archbishops’ Council.
A Statement Published by Prof. Percy
In October 2021, Prof. Percy sent a letter to members of the Christ Church Governing Body detailing the highly restrictive conditions under which he was expected to live. There are a number of annexes to the letter which provide a lot of background detail.
The Terms of Reference for Kate Wood’s Inquiry into Prof. Percy as provided by Winkworth Sherwood – A Rigged Investigation ?
These are the Terms of Reference for Kate Wood’s report. Wood would later say that she “had never heard of Graham Ward” (the Cathedral Safeguarding Officer) or met him or interviewed him which seems rather odd for Safeguarding Investigation. Wood also actively colluded with others in corroborating prosecution witness statements against Prof. Percy several days AFTER the he had given evidence, and she had told him her investigation was finished.
Wood refused, however, to interview any witnesses for the Dean’s defence. The Dean was not given the chance to submit a witness statement. The witness who “saw nothing untoward” was removed from Wood’s report despite the Terms of Reference specifying that she should establish ‘both sides of the story’ and having the freedom to interview anyone she chose. The Dean’s evidence was unfairly redacted.
Was the objective to obtain a desired outcome irrespective of the truth ? Who might have had reason to try to damage Prof. Percy’s good name while he was in the middle of litigation against Christ Church ?
A member of Christ Church claimed Wood’s work was authorised and funded by Chapter. He later admitted that this was not the case. This person repeatedly changed his story as to what he was doing in Wood’s investigation. Plainly, he was not neutral.
The Dean was told he could NOT have a lawyer with him when Wood was interviewing him, as the interview was preliminary, and not disciplinary. This was patently untrue given that under the Terms of Reference she was invited to comment on whether she felt that further disciplinary action should be taken. Read these for yourself: http://nineveh.live/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/Terms-of-Reference-for-Kate-Wood-and-WSLaw.pdf