Bredhurst Churchyard Consultation - Our Verdict

  

You must hand it to the Church of England, since 1534 it has been in the practice of managing and controlling people. It didn’t let itself down in that quest when, after a long dispute over the rules of a churchyard in Bredhurst Kent, it set about showing itself at its Machiavellian best.

 

A carefully contrived consultation was undertaken and the “consultation verdict” was laboriously unfolded using power point, delivered by a rather stern looking member of the pastoral team taking the place of the Reverend Canon Senior. The verdict itself was presented with all the warmth of a Malahide Cod, in what some might say, was a rather patronising, perhaps superior fashion.

 

It was known that the consultation document was written in such a way that the outcome was designed to find in the church’s favour. The survey went beyond it’s original stated remit; the eligibility criteria changed several times; the timescales changed; it was a year late; was overlong; displayed undisguised bias and was littered with leading questions; there was no independent person or body involved in the process to ensure fairness and transparency, even though that was offered; the survey would not stand up to professional external scrutiny;  if it was a public consultation, it would be facing a Judicial Review;  it was a closed process from start to finish with the Church in total sole control.

 

Having unfolded the results, which unsurprisingly found in the church’s favour, the floor was opened for questions. These came thick and fast and as the questions from the floor became increasingly difficult to answer the Reverend Senior’s stand in began to look for support, her eyes evermore frequently drifting towards the Archdeacon who was standing at the back of the hall. The senior clergyman inched his way slowly towards her around the perimeter of the hall, you could feel the temperature rising and she looked at him like a lost child imploring for help.

 

Taking control of the microphone the Archdeacon was very keen to wrap things up, as awkward question followed awkward question each in turn exposing the flaws in the consultation process. Many of these lay at his own feet: most people are unaware that although he signed a document agreeing that the Bredhurst Community Bereavement Forum would be involved in drafting the consultation, he reneged on that commitment. In addition, he declined the offer of Maidstone Conciliation Services to act as an independent body to oversee the collation and review of the consultation returns.

 

After one particular question and in an effort to close things down the Archdeacon declared that this would be the last question he would answer. However one bereaved father wanted to be heard….. the Archdeacon tried to rebuff him but…… a female voice from the back of the hall began to insist, she wanted to hear this father’s question. She repeated this request several times and the request gathered momentum and support within the hall and you could see the reluctance and look of resignation on the Archdeacons face as he was forced to capitulate and accept one more question.

 

This bereaved father, who deserved the accolade of ‘speaker of the day,’ exposed how the Archdeacon had failed the consultation process. How as mentioned above he withdrew from mediation, how he had reneged on allowing input from the bereavement group and agreeing to external scrutiny, how of 200 solicited contributors only 90 responded such was the needless complexity of the document, The Archdeacon could not hide his relief as the meeting was eventually drawn to a close.

 

Had the church continued with mediation, allowed independent oversight of and been open and honest throughout the consultation there is no doubt that those who want to see a more relaxed interpretation of the rules would have accepted the outcome.

 

As it stands anyone with any level of intelligence can see that the church has manipulated the process in the content of the questions, the extraordinary length of the document, constant deferral of the closure date and gerrymandering on a shameful scale to design, craft and achieve the answers they wanted for the outcome they desired. 

 

As with resolving any differences, if one side feels they have been treated unfairly or cheated, as they do quite rightly in this case, resolution simply becomes more difficult.

 

Britain is a nation that has a unique take on fairness and the church has signally failed in that regard to meet the bar that we as a nation expect from an institution such as the church, which is at the heart of our establishment. Their determination to impose their will at any cost has seen them foster an acrimonious atmosphere at Bredhurst churchyard, a place that should be the epitome of calm and serenity has been transformed into a place of division, hurt and anguish.