-
THE
TABLES TURNED.
How
the Methodist Church went to law to
cover
up its harassment of Rev Peter Timms - and came off
worst.
Peter
Hill, the webmaster of this site, examines the Methodist Church’s
latest attack on his site and considers the implications of the
outcome.
The
campaign on this website took a heavy blow over the summer. The
Methodist Church had become tired of seeing the truth about its
complaints system being spread all over the worldwide web, so it
hired top class solicitors to bring the police into the matter. It
attempted to put a stop to the bad publicity it had created for
itself by its infamous
treatment of the Rev Peter Timms over the past seven years.
In
late June I was interviewed under caution, as the responsible
journalist, by the police at Hatfield Police station. It was a
lengthy interrogation, lasting one and a half hours. The
charge was harassment. Harassment can lead to imprisonment six
months with the further possibility of an unlimited fine.
The
central allegation was that this website contained
false
and malicious assertions against members of the Methodist Church –
and that this constituted harassment.
I
denied that there was any malice involved. My counter-argument was
that such allegations could not be oppressive if they could easily
be rebutted. Why had the Church not done that?
The
Church has repeatedly been challenged to rebut the allegations on
this site. Church officials have been offered a “right of reply” to
the allegations on the site and have ignored all the approaches.
Instead of rebutting the allegations, they have claimed that all
such offers have constituted harassment.
The
police officers said that the Church’s solicitors claimed that I
had sent numerous letters to Mr. Chris Kitchin. He was the
leader of the inquiry panel which looked into Rev Timms
complaints – and the man who had sent the false confession to Rev
Timms and tried to persuade him to sign it. They claimed I had
attacked Mr. Kitchin’s integrity. The officers knew Mr. Kitchin.
Until recently Mr. Kitchin was a magistrate in Hatfield and a
member of the Police Advisory Board. The court where he had held
sway was less than a hundred yards from the police interview
room.
Why
the Church had chosen to complain to this particular police force,
when their offices, and those of their solicitors, are in central
London is a question to ponder.
According to the police, the Church claimed that the allegation that
the document
in question was a false confession was “baseless”.
They also claimed that the article entitled “Whatever
happened to John Troughton” was designed to
threaten and intimidate Mr Troughton. The solicitors also wanted my
film “The
Disciples of John Wesley” removed from the website.
There
were numerous similar allegations – but there was one allegation
that particularly interested the police officers.
On
23rd April 2018 I had visited Mr. Kitchin at his home. The police
wanted to know why I had done this without any invitation. I told
them that it was a “peace move” – one of several attempts to find a
peaceful solution to this affair. I had previously written to Mr
Kitchin without receiving a reply. The solicitors told the police
that Mr. Kitchin found the meeting offensive; he had felt
intimidated and humiliated.
I
replied that I recalled the visit very well – for I had prepared
carefully for it. I did not understand why Mr. Kitchin should have
felt intimidated or humiliated by it – he certainly showed no sign
of that during our conversation.
The
lead-up to this visit was a meeting I had had with Rev Peter Timms.
There had been a major development, for the man who had started the
whole affair, John Troughton, had admitted his mistake. Rev Timms
and I discussed the possibility of peace talks.
One point I made about what had happened in 2016 was of particular
interest to us. I
pointed out that there had been a period of some confusion during
the complaints inquiry in late 2016 – and it might suggest an
opportunity for talks. This was a period of confusion when Rev
Timms had been taken into hospital with heart problems and had
asked me to take on more onerous tasks beyond the simple
secretarial work that I had been doing for him. That handover of
responsibility might provde the excuse that the Church needed to
resolve the dispute.
The
handover of responsibility between us might, I said, have
caused some confusion. I had been taking dictation from the phone
which Rev Timms was giving from his hospital bed. I was sending out
letters in his name and reading letters to him over the phone. I
also attended two meetings with Rev Alan Bolton at Methodist Church
House in order to try to sort out what I could see had become a
mess.
A
mentioned above, this discussion between Peter and I took
place circuit steward John Troughton, had
agreed that the email that Rev Timms had sent him in August
2016 was perfectly in order. No fault was now attached to that
email, yet that email, and the fault attached to it, was what
had begun everything.
It
was this email to John Troughton that Mr. Kitchin had used as his
justification for sending the false confession to Rev Timms. He
alleged that it was a breach of confidentiality. Given that the
originator of this evidence had now retracted his allegation, it
seemed a good opportunity to present this to Mr. Kitchin as a means
of extricating himself from the mess that he had created by sending
the false confession. After all, Rev Timms had convinced John
Troughton of the correctness of the email by using the
very same argument that had been presented to Mr. Kitchin in
October 2016 by Rev Timms – from his hospital bed.
Perhaps, I suggested to Rev Timms, this was when the inquiry had
gone wrong. Had Kitchin ever received that particular
document with Rev Timms' justification for sending the email?
I was sure he had never given any answer to it, so perhaps he had
never seen it.
The
handover and the illness had caused confusion. Was there
something that either of us had not read? Had there been a reply
from Mr. Kitchin that had somehow got lost?
Or
was there something that Rev Timms thought I had sent to Mr.
Kitchin - when in fact I had not? Did the fact that Mr
Kitchin had not replied to the letter, which contained the
justification for the email in question, suggest perhaps that he
had never received it? Had the panel thought that Rev Timms had no
justification for sending the email?
It
was a chink of light in the darkness, but Mr. Kitchin would need to
see it as such.
Rev
Timms left it to me to decide what to do with this possible cause
of misunderstanding. I saw little point in writing to Mr. Kitchin
about it – he never replied to letters – so I decided that the only
way to explain our position was to explain it to Mr. Kitchin in
person. In discussion, we might perhaps agree that there had been
some regrettable mistake made at that time. Such an approach
required careful consideration and planning.
The
essential element of the plan was not to blame Mr. Kitchin
for what had happened, but to blame instead Rev Timms’ health and
the confusing circumstances that he and I had found ourselves
because of it during the inquiry in late 2016. It was a “way out”
of the conflict for Mr. Kitchin. Most importantly, it was a way out
that would mean that no one, particularly Mr. Kitchin,
would lose face. Pride is often the cause of intractable disputes.
The affair would be classified as a regrettable error for which no
one was at fault.
This
was why, I explained to the police officers in Hatfield, I had
turned up on Mr. Kitchin’s doorstep as I did. The visit was
essentially a friendly one, designed to discuss, and agree
on, a way out of the conflict. I was to offer Mr. Kitchin a good
excuse for the outrageous behaviour that he had exhibited to Rev
Timms during late 2016. The excuse was that he had not received and
read Rev Timms’ justification for the email that he had sent to
John Troughton and which had prompted the sending of the false
confession.
Not
only did I prepare this meeting carefully, but I had determined to
make a very good record of it, just in case I were to be later
criticised for having knocked on his door. I was determined to be
ready for just such an eventuality as I now found myself
faced with in the Hatfield Police station. (For
a full note on the meeting with Mr. Kitchin, CLICK
HERE)
I
read to the police officers various extracts from letters I had
sent at other times to Mr. Kitchin, in which I had offered
similar “peace talks.” I quoted paragraphs such as:
“Please
do not complain that I am harassing you, for that is not my
intention. And please never claim that I have not given you many
opportunities to deal with this matter in confidence in a fashion
which would not reflect badly on your reputation.
I
explained that Mr. Kitchin had replied to none of these letters.
The police pointed out that I was clearly aware from
the above text that I was harassing Mr. Kitchin by what I had
written. I replied that I had been trying my hardest not to
harass him. However, a gross miscarriage of justice had taken place
and, given that he refused to respond to any of the peace
overtures sent to him by letter, the only possible way forward was
a face to face chat.
The excuse about the confusion that Rev Timms'
illness had caused was a golden opportunity for Mr. Kitchin. He
should be encouraged not to dismiss lightly - as it seemed he
had dismissed my letters to him. A quiet chat was the best way
forward.
At
the time of my visit to his home, I was still convinced that Mr
Kitchin, who was both a magistrate and a member of the local police
advisory board, was an honourable man. I felt sure that when he was
offered a way out of the mess that his mistake had created, he
would readily accept the hand of friendship.
In
fact his attitude during the conversation was that the matter was
“water under the bridge” and that he no longer had any hand in it.
He was passing the responsibility onto the Methodist Church
executive.
The
police officers asked why I did not deal with the executives in
Methodist Church House. I replied that I had done so, but years had
passed and those persons now in office did not know the full detail
of the case. The way out of the mess that I was offering required
someone who recalled the events of late 2016 well. Furthermore, I
explained, the key to the matter was that if Mr. Kitchin
acknowledged that a mistake had been made, a peaceful solution
could be swiftly agreed. So it had to be assessed and agreed with
him.
Mr.
Kitchin was the key to the problem. He needed to acknowledge the
mistake - at least in private. Only he could do that and it
was only fair to approach him about it rather than Methodist Church
House.
The
police officers seemed impressed by my assertions that the
conversation between Mr Kitchin and myself had been perfectly
courteous. They asked if I had had any sense that Mr. Kitchin was
in any way affected by our conversation. They clearly had
intimidation and humiliation in mind.
I
replied that the only time when I had wondered about Mr. Kitchin’s
reaction to me was at the very end of the conversation, as we
walked to his front door. He had asked me where my car was. I
thought this an odd question in the circumstances, though it was
harmless enough in itself. We had parted on friendly terms after a
conversation of almost half an hour.
Some
four weeks after this interview under caution at Hatfield, and
after what must have been extensive inquiries by the police, I was
informed that no further action would be taken. I was happy to
agree that I would not approach Mr. Kitchin again. But there were
no sanctions and no action taken against the website. This decision
had important implications for Rev Timms.
It
also has serious implications for the Methodist Church. The
Church’s solicitors had claimed that the allegation, that the
document sent to Rev Timms was a “false
confession”, was “baseless”. It would seem that the
police do not agree – for if the allegation was “baseless” the
repetition of the allegation on this website would certainly
constitute harassment. The police would have demanded, at the very
least, that I cease using the term.
The
charge that the behaviour of myself and Rev Peter Timms was
unwarranted and contrary to law is similarly rejected - for
the police decided that what had occurred did not constitute any
crime and was therefore perfectly legal.
The
Methodist Church has wasted thousands of pounds of its members’
money in attempting to have me sent to prison or fined – and to
shut down this website. All this was done to cover up their
misdeeds.
The
legal judgement has been made. It is now time for a judgement
within in the Church, not only on the Timms case, but also on
whether it is right to threaten people with a prison sentence in
order to stop them telling the truth.
The
facts of the Timms case are simple and can be assessed by all the
members of the Methodist Church. (
For a full chronology of the case, click here)
1.
When Rev Timms complained about actions taken by other ministers in
his circuit, he was sent a document by the leader of the complaints
panel that can only be construed as a false
confession. It was requested that he sign this document
admitting he had breached standing orders, when no such breach had
occurred or even been mentioned. This request was actually
contained in the first document issued to him by the panel of
inquiry; he knew nothing of the charges of which he was
allegedly guilty. Such was quite contrary to the standing
orders of the Church. Persuasion, or coercion, followed - that was
again contrary to the standing orders.
2.
When Rev Timms complained, his objection to the false confession
was categorised as 'manipulative',
'harassing' and 'bullying' by the panel led by Mr. Kitchin -
and this counted against Rev Timms in the deliberations of the
inquiry panel.
3.
Subsequent objections, made by Rev Timms after the complaints
panel found against him, have been categorised as “harassment”
Even simply stating the facts of the case in the public
domain has been labelled as “harassment”.
The
visit I made to the home of Mr. Kitchin, made because of his
persistent refusal to answer any letters about the “false
confession”, has been described as “offensive intimidating
and humiliating”.
Members
of the Methodist Church may judge for themselves. whether or not
Mr. Kitchin had any just cause for categorising the encounter
as such. You may judge for yourself whether or not Mr. Kitchin
was offered a way out in a way in which he would suffer no
loss of face. You may judge for yourself whether he turned that
offer down.
After the meeting, I made a note of the conversation. Mentioned
above, this note
is an authentic account of what was said.
In
fact it is the Methodist Church which has conducted a campaign of
bullying and intimidation against Rev Timms and Peter Hill.
Their attempt to involve the police, with the clear threat of
imprisonment, has blown up in their faces.
Their
action calls into question the wisdom and integrity of certain
members of the Methodist Church.
After
all, someone in the Church told the solicitors that the
allegation of the “false confession” was “baseless”.
True, several executives in the Church have said it before, but who
said it to the solicitors? Was it the head of the
complaints section, Deacon Donna Ely? Was it the Secretary to
Conference Jonathan Hustler? Was it Rev John Hellyer who is on
record of having said something
similar in the past? Or was it Mr. Chris Kitchin, the man
who sent the offensive document to Rev Timms?
If
the revelations on this website were in any way “baseless”, would
not the police have taken action? Does their inaction not
indicate that they considered the offensive document to be, in
reality, a false confession? And does this not suggest
that to now state otherwise is to promulgate a lie?
Above
all, what this sorry affair has demonstrated is that the assault on
the facts about the false confession and the cover-up that
followed, has failed. It is the accusations
made by the Methodist Church against Rev Timms and this
website that have been proved to be baseless.
This
is the first time that any independent third party has made any
judgement on facts of the Timms case - and the Methodist Church
lost the argument.
The
outcome of this blatant attempt to have the police support the
Methodist Church’s allegations calls into question the competence
and integrity of the officers of the Church who work in Methodist
Church House.
It
calls into question the competency of Mr. Chris Kitchin – whose
role in this is considered elsewhere
on this website .
It
further calls into question the role of Rev John Hellyer who was
the Chairman of the South East District when the Timms affair
began. After all he stated on an earlier occasion that the
allegations on the internet were “false
assumptions and statements”.
The
Church executive now faces a dilemma. Should they spend further
amounts of money on their expensive lawyers in Lincoln's Inn
Fields, in order to try yet again to gag this website and cover up
their own misdeeds with spurious charges? Or should they now
turn to those sane and intelligent members of the Methodist
hierarchy, particularly those on the Law and Polity
Committee, who think that enough is enough and that the
Church should engage with Rev Timms to explore a way to peace in
this matter?
-
ends
-Peter
Hill