-
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 time 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 provide 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 me took place after circuit steward John Troughton had
agreed that the email that Rev Timms had sent him in August 2016 was perfectly in order.
Because John Troughton had finally understood Peter Timms' point and agreed that
the email was perfectly in line with standing orders, 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 at the start of the
complaints inquiry as his justification for
sending the false confession to Rev Timms. He alleged that the email was a breach of
confidentiality. Given that the originator of this
evidence, John Troughton, had now retracted his allegation, it seemed a good opportunity to
present this to Mr. Kitchin. He could use John Troughton's mistake 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 rationale 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 Mr. 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, for I had copies of all his replies. So perhaps he had never seen
Rev Timms' rationale for sending the email to John Troughton.
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, mean 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 hopefully 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. After all, I
added, he had a right of reply and I had a duty to offer one to him.
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 the police interview under caution at Hatfield, and after what must have been
extensive inquiries by the police and perhaps the CPS, 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.
If the allegation was indeed “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 own 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' in the
report written 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”. The police clearly believed that it
was, as I claimed, a peace initiative.
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 between Mr. Kitchin and
myself. 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.
A further regrettable consequence of the Church's action is that, because the
police have bee involved, various national journalists, civil rights lawyers and
the Free Speech Union are now aware of the Methodist Church's attempts to cover
up this scandal.
All
this calls into question the judgement and competency of Mr. Chris Kitchin – whose role in this is
considered elsewhere on this website. Did he actually
consider the point I was making during our face to face meeting - or was he so
obstinately fixed in his position that he was not even listening?
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 further 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