RECONCILIATION.

From 2014 to the present day, Peter Timms has attempted to be reconciled with those members of the "the chosen few" who have been breaching standing orders. He did so  at every step of the affair. Reconciliation was always refused him. The divide opened up before him.

The first instance of this refusal to hold reconciliation talks was in the first phase of the case - the complaints that Peter Timms raised about favouritism in the Bexhill circuit.

When the local complaints officer, Rev David Chapman,  wrote to the Acting District Chair, Rev Dr Philip Luscombe, concerning  Timms' complaint about favouritism, the answer from Luscombe about discussion was short and brusque:

“I consider a meeting with the complainant would not achieve a local resolution and would merely delay the final outcome of the complaint.”

When Peter Timms complained to the Assistant District Chair, Rev Rose Westwood, about the manner in which she had intervened to silence him at the local Circuit meeting, her response was:

"“I have yet to be convinced that a meeting with Revd Peter Timms would be productive at such a late stage.”

Rev Ian Pruden, whose stationing as Superintendent  had been the cause of all the complaints about favouritism, also refused to meet with Peter Timms.

When Rev David Chapman eventually wrote his report about the dispute to the Connexional complaints office, he devoted half of it to this aspect of the case.  It seems that he wished the head of the complaints office, Rev Alan Bolton, to be fully aware of the refusal by the three respondents to meet with the complainant in reconciliation.

But, given their adamant refusal to talk,  how could he change their attitude to the injustices that had been heaped upon their lowly minister?

A lady of left-wing sympathies, Rev Val Reid had helped to organise an exhibition in the prestigious Hinde Street Methodist Church in central London. It was an elaborate depiction of the wall which the Israeli government was building across the West Bank. The wall hampered Palestinian workers and had become the source of a huge political argument.

The London Jewish community was furious about the Methodist Church meddling in Israeli affairs  - and supporting, in their view, the wrong side in this bitter political fight.

The resultant dispute with the Methodist Church needed high-level discussion - and Val Reid had been summoned to Methodist Church House to explain her actions.

A year later, in late 2017, Peter Timms thought that things might have changed. Looking back, he realised that, if Val Reid's public reputation had been in any way weakened in late 2016, the Methodist Church's position  in the dispute with the London Jewish community might have also been weakened. So she had had to be supported, no matter what.

THE OPPORTUNITY

The Troughton campaign is covered elsewhere on this website.   It was what Peter Timms once described as a series of "nuisance grievances". It was  designed to make him spend time in defending  himself against dozens of spurious charges - even though he was suffering from a weak heart. It was a deflection - concocted to stop him continuing to protest against the false confession.

Troughton had agreed in the reconciliation talks that the rationale was sound - would the Connexional panel now agree with him?

At the same time, Timms also realised that the Connexional complaints panel had probably not heard about Troughton's change of evidence.

This was possibly the new situation that Peter Timms needed  to approach members of the complaints team for reconciliation. He reasoned that if any of them had read the rationale before they had sent the false confession to him , eighteen months before, they would not have made the mistake which has caused such a fuss. And they could be forgiven for their error. The blame lay with the heart attack.

Hill and Timms discussed several possible approaches in the light of John Troughton's change of mind in March 2018.

They agreed that it was no use approaching Methodist Church House. The chief legal expert, Louise Wilkins, had refused to read any more about the case. Letters from Peter Timms were being placed in a file, unopened. Rev Gareth Powell was backing her in this decision.

Rev Gareth Powell, it seemed,  would certainly not hold a meeting about the subject. He had apparently washed his hands of the whole affair. He left it to the South East District Chair Rev John Hellyer. Rev Hellyer had been even more aggressive in his approach to Timms than Rev  Powell.

Rev Alan Bolton, the Head of the Complaints Department  had said he could not intervene, even though he knew that the panel's demands were not in accordance with standing orders. His successor, Donna Ely, continued the policy of not discussing anything with Peter Timms.

Church House was simply not listening any more.

This left only one feasible way forward - to approach the original source of the controversy,  the members of the connexional complaints team.

Indeed, Rev Gareth Powell might listen if he were approached by the members of the complaints team for reconciliation talks about the self-incriminating document.

The  first step towards peace in the affair was therefore to have a private chat with at least one member of the complaints team. The panel  could then discuss the situation and  they should suggest that the case be re-opened, not Timms. That was the less combative approach. Let it all be their idea.

The other minister under consideration was Rev Val Reid. Less experienced, she was Timms' favourite choice.  She was, of course, "political".  Furthermore, the Israeli - Palestinian dispute, that had rocked the Church,  might make this choice a little more problematic. After all, Val Reid might still be smarting from some of the criticism.

However, there was a further problem. A year after the arguments about the Hinde Street exhibition,  in May 2017,  Timms, as a matter of courtesy,  had sent Val Reid  a copy of his set-aside motions concerning the self-incriminating document -  the false confession.

Unfortunately, on this occasion, Val Reid had not supported the underdog. She had replied abruptly:

"I cannot play any further part in these proceedings once the Connexional Complaints Panel has reached its conclusion. It was not appropriate for you to send this material to me before receiving a response to your letter of 2nd May.

So again, the ministers involved had turned down reconciliation.

This left the only other possibility -  Mr. Chris Kitchin, the leader of the complaints panel.

A lay person, Mr. Kitchin might not feel himself as rigidly bound by the rules on confidentiality as did the two ordained ministers. He might be approached in private for tentative discussion. Further, being a magistrate, Mr. Kitchin  would be accustomed to taking part in such private conversations about cases - and keeping the confidentiality of them, in the interests of justice.

Significantly too, Chris Kitchin had never flatly refused to discuss the matter with Peter Timms. His replies to letters had generally been couched in friendly and courteous terms, no matter the content.

In the end, it seemed that perhaps Mr Kitchin was the best choice. Indeed, if the plan were to proceed, it seemed that he was the only choice.

THE SECOND REQUIREMENT OF THE PLAN - -

Further, this applied to the Methodist Church itself. If at all possible, the reputation of the Methodist Church should not suffer.

Hill and Timms discussed the kind of approach to Chris Kitchin which might allow the connexional complaints team to save face.

It was not easy - after all, had the panel  not acted very rashly in 2016 in trying to coerce Peter Timms into signing the self-incriminating document? That kind of bullying was certainly not in line with standing orders.

Then,  they had also treated Timms as a respondent. They had actually written this astonishing news to him in the first line of the "false confession".  It was a gross error, for in fact, according to their brief,  he was the complainant.  To treat him as a respondent had been a blatant mis-use  of the power granted to a  connexional complaints panel.

However, after due consideration, Timms decided that he himself  had to "take the blame". The problems had to be seen as being all the fault of Timms himself.

Looking at the chronology of the case, it occurred to him that mistakes by the panel  might perhaps be attributed to the confusion caused by the heart problems he had suffered during those desperate days of late  2016, when the inquiry had taken place.

Certainly, Timms thought, this  would avoid any suggestion that Rev Val Reid had been somewhat negligent, when she had had her mind on other more controversial matters.

They had to be offered an exit strategy, a means of "saving face".

THE  UNEXPECTED PROBLEM.

It  was agreed that when Hill met Mr. Kitchin, he  should say that he believed that the connexional panel may not have received certain important documentation. He should point to the confusion caused by Peter Timms having been taken into hospital during the panel's investigation. He should emphasise that the connexional panel had, possibly,  not received Timms' rationale - his defence against the Troughton email. 

The significance point, Hill should say, was that the accusation by the panel in the false confession might not have been actually answered by Peter Timms. Troughton's reversal of opinion  had now emphasised this. All was now changed.

Above all, Hill should say that it had all been a ‘terrible mistake’, due to unforeseeable circumstances - the confusion caused by Timms being ill..

Hill was to stress that Peter Timms accepted that if the panel members  had seen the "defence" , or rationale, in the position paper, they  would most certainly have agreed with Timms’ rationale - as Troughton had done some eighteen months later.

The whole matter could then have been quietly dropped. Even now, in March 2018, Hill was to say, this could still be done. No one on the panel had yet been made aware that John Troughton had now agreed with Timms' rationale. It would be perfectly reasonable to look at things afresh. The charge that  Troughton had made in 2016 no longer stood and could be ignored or withdrawn.

So it was decided. The opening towards a bridge over the divide was to be caused by unavoidable confusion. In that confusion, Timms had made the  mistake of not sending the rationale to the panel.

During the meeting, Hill was to offer a copy of Troughton's retraction to Mr. Kitchin, in the hope that he might use this as an excuse to contact the other members of the panel - or Methodist Church House - with his doubts,  and somehow persuade them to reconsider the case.

 THE VISIT.

The sharp contrast between the differing interpretations of this visit illustrates the extent of the existence of the divide within the Methodist Church.

Lies were told by one side or the other. It is for the reader to determine  who lied  - and to then speculate as to why such lies were told.

Methodist Church House hired expensive lawyers, Farrers in Lincoln's Inn, who are used by the Queen. They told the police that Hill's  visit was  highly inappropriate. He had left the leader of their connexional complaints panel feeling harassed and intimidated. 

He added that, if anyone thought that there was  some sort of misjustice,  then the right thing to do was to write to Gareth Powell (Secretary to Conference) with the evidence.

He thought that there was no scope for trying to work out an agreement - because there was no place for it in the system.

He played, as a cricketer might say, " a straight bat". He had failed to discern the true peaceful intent of the approach.

HILL'S SECOND ATTEMPT.

Hill tried to give Chris Kitchin some more time to think things through. He quickly began going through the story again, how there had been confusion and the complaints panel   may not have seen the important position paper containing  Timms' rationale.

However, Mr. Kitchin rose and went towards the door. Hill followed him. The meeting was over.

Hill had meant to raise the question of reconciliation and how it might affect the outcome, but he did not get the chance. He had driven to Bedfordshire and spent twenty five minutes with Mr. Kitchin. It had achieved nothing. The peace offer had been spurned.

NOVEMBER 2018.

GARETH POWELL INTERVENES.

The chief executive of the Methodist Church, Rev Gareth Powell,  simply refused to discuss this major breach of standing orders.

At this meeting, Peter Timms was harangued for three hours. He was told that he had to accept the report by the Connexional complaints panel. He had to accept that his approaches to the panel had been manipulative and harassing. He had questioned the time limits they had imposed. He had challenged the Connexional team on a variety of issues. He had refused to answer certain questions and he had disputed the meaning of certain standing orders. Above all, he had attempted to dictate what the connexional team should do.  He had bullied them. 

There was no mention of the false confession that Peter Timms had been told to sign. In fact, Gareth Powell's demands implicitly included the demand that he should accept it.  Nor was there an explanation of the information that the connexional panel had obtained from spies in Bexhill.

There was no mention of the bullying that Peter Timms had himself  suffered from various members of the "chosen few".

The Secretary to Conference, Rev Gareth Powell  completely failed to recognise that Peter Timms' attempts to be reconciled with the Connexional complaints panel about the self-incriminating document, and the coercion which accompanied it, was quite separate to the original complaints he had made about the activities of local ministers.

A SECOND CONSEQUENCE OF THE PEACE PLAN.

Some six months after the abortive meeting in Methodist Church House, there was a further move by the executives there. They attempted to have this website taken down and have its webmaster, Peter Hill, imprisoned.

In the summer of 2021 Rev Peter Timms was expelled from the ministry of the Methodist Church.

Some in Methodist Church House may have criticised Rev Val Reid when she  raised the hackles of the Jewish community in London with her left-wing views about the Palestinians being the victims of Israeli territorial expansion. Those same people who had opposed Rev Donald Soper in the seventies might have criticised her for using her position in the Methodist Church to influence politics in the Middle East.

However, the Methodist Church was not ready to say anything against Val Reid  when she conspired to breach standing orders by agreeing with her fellow  complaints panel members to send a false confession to an aged octogenarian minister who was suffering from heart problems.

Clearly, it is also acceptable to Church House that  Connexional complaints panel members may spend some two months threatening sanctions - if the venerable target of their misdeeds will not sign such a heinous document. All such immoral acts are, apparently sanctioned by  the Methodist Church.

--00--