Whatever happened to John Troughton?
When
John Troughton came to the Bexhill area some fifteen years ago he came with a
fine reputation. He was in his mid-fifties by then, but was thinking of his
retirement.
He had been
trained in electronics, and that was still his trade to some extent until he
retired in 2017 - but his true life was in charity.
John had been a
Methodist since he was born. He grew up inside the Church. In his thirties he
became an accredited local preacher. As he approached middle-age, his religion
moved him further into areas of society where he could help people.
It was in 1992,
when he was 40, that he began to concentrate on charitable works. He took his
wife and family to Devon. There, he set about providing spiritual, and even
financial, support for despairing fishermen and their families in a mission in
Brixham.
Within two years
the Troughtons had left Devon for the West coast of Scotland. John began helping
to provide a lifeline for sailors in Mallaig on the West Coast of Scotland.
Mallaigh had once been the busiest herring port in Europe – and, though now in
decline, it was still the main commercial fishing port on the west coast of
Scotland.
John became an
assistant at the Fisherman’s mission in Mallaigh, taking care of families of men
lost at sea and those who had fallen on hard times. With
the decline in the herring trade, there had been a decline in fishing in
Mallaigh as the port turned to catching prawns.
After
three and a half years in Mallaig, John Troughton, took his wife and family back
South - to the Queen Victoria Seamen's Rest in London.
John’s Methodism
no doubt played a part in his new position, for the Seaman’s mission was funded
by the Methodist Church. He became the assistant manager there. For the next ten
years, he was in overall control of some 180 rooms and half a dozen residential
flats. It took good management and organisational skills. It also put him in
daily contact with ex
servicemen suffering with post traumatic Stress Disorder.
In his
mid-fifties, John ended his wanderings by moving to Bexhill. He now lives in
retirement in a terraced cottage near to the new roundabout, just outside
Sidley.
Once established
in the local Bexhill Methodist Community, John once again turned to doing
charitable work. He became close to Christopher
Stewart-Maxwell a prominent and influential former civil engineer who, in
retirement, had become a local historian and conservationist. Because of this
connection, John became a founding member of the “Snowflake” organisation.
“Snowflake” is a
highly regarded organisation based
in St Leonards. It assists homeless and rough sleepers within the Hastings and
Rother area.
John
soon demonstrated his organisational skills. He became a director of the
“Snowflake” company and deputy chair of the trustees. Many poor people in the
area have reason to thank John Troughton for his work. His work in St Leonard’s
was in line with his lifetime commitment to the poor. It had become his mission
to look after the unfortunates in our society.
When he
was approaching the age of seventy, John resigned his trusteeship
in “Snowflake” - in 2019. By then he had been heavily engaged in his work as
Circuit steward in the Methodist Church for several years. It was a heavy and
prestigious job for which he was well-suited. He was also a prominent member and
trainer on the local Methodist Safeguarding committee.
But
something had changed. In 2014 John Troughton began a vicious campaign to damage
the reputation of the oldest Methodist minister in the area – Rev. Peter Timms.
This campaign led to Rev Timms being suspended from all Methodist activities;
he has suffered very much as a consequence.
Why
John Troughton should have started this remains a mystery – for the two men were
similar in their benevolent aims, though on different levels of society and with
different levels of authority and responsibility.
John
Troughton looked after poor and ailing seamen and those in need on the South
Coast. It had become his mission in life.
Rev
Peter Timms devoted his life to prisoners in our jails. He had been a leading
prison governor, responsible for many reforms to help the system. It was his
life’s work, his mission.
The
lifestyles of the two men were different. Rev Timms was an ordained minister,
with a masters degree. He had been given an O.B.E. by the Queen for his services
to prison reform.
John
Troughton had worked tirelessly in his chosen area without any such reward.
Nevertheless, one must wonder why such an worthy man as John Troughton, with
such a loving approach to those in his care, could turn into someone who was
ready and willing to torment and pursue an innocent octogenarian Methodist
minister. For that is what John Troughton did. In 2014 he began a campaign
against the Rev Peter Timms which continues to this day.
It
began at a routine Methodist circuit meeting in 2014. An argument developed
among the local ministers about the appointment of a new Superintendent for the
circuit. John Troughton, who was then a relatively new steward, involved himself
in the argument.
When
Rev Timms began to speak, one of the ministers who disagreed with his opinion
interrupted the debate and demanded that he step down from the podium. John
Troughton decided to intervene to help the minister who had objected. He
advanced to the front of the hall, threatening to pull Rev Timms down from the
podium. This level of violence was unprecedented in the Bexhill Methodist
community and several members stopped John before he could carry out his threats
to harm Rev Timms.
It did
not end there. When Rev Timms issued complaints about what had gone on at the
meeting, John Troughton, now chief steward, set about prejudicing the inquiry.
Rev Timms had sent him a confidential internal email - John Troughton
immediately passed it on to the leader of the complaints inquiry in London. It
was a short email, simply pointing out that the person whose employment was
under consideration, at an invitation meeting that John Troughton chaired, was
the subject of a complaint. The implication of the email was that this situation
could cause complications for the local circuit. What if they employed a man who
was subsequently censured by the national executive?
John
Troughton considered that this internal email was a breach of the
confidentiality of the complaints system. The leader of the national panel of
inquiry, having heard Troughton’s accusations, sent a extraordinary document to
Rev Timms. It was this unprecedented action which was to cause the Methodist
Church a lot of distress over the next half decade.
The
document that the complaints panel sent to Rev Timms was a false confession. It
demanded, with coercion, that Rev Timms sign an admission of guilt to a
misdemeanour of which he had no knowledge – and which had nothing to do with his
complaints about the 2014 meeting.
Rev
Timms had no idea that John Troughton had sent the confidential internal email
to the complaints team who had considered it sufficient to find the hapless
minister guilty. He had been accused and tried – and found guilty – in complete
secrecy. It had all been done behind his back.
Consider the situation – Rev Timms and John Troughton had attended worship
together, with this betrayal of Methodist community spirit in place. No doubt
they exchanged the usual pleasantries – with John Troughton fully aware that he
had effectively stabbed his minister in the back.
The
coercion that the church authorities used to persuade Rev Timms led eventually
to him being suspended from all church activities – until he agreed to sign the
false confession.
Even
then, Rev Timms continued to refuse to sign the self- incriminating document. By
now the affair was becoming a national scandal because of a film that had been
made about it – and there was also a website that showed how the church had
tried to threaten Rev Timms into submission.
And so
John Troughton entered the fray again. He determined to further incriminate Rev
Timms. It was now 2016 – two years after the original trouble when he had
threatened the octogenarian minister with violence.
John
Troughton hatched a remarkable attack – one which no one could have thought
possible from a man so ready to help and care for those in need. His life’s work
had been to help the needy – he now made it his life’s work to bring Rev Timms
down and make him sign the false confession.
Troughton issued a formal complaint against Rev Timms’ conduct in the matter. It
went to the national headquarters of the Methodist Church in London.
He
repeated the claim that Rev Timms had broken the rules in sending the internal
email to him in 2014 – the claim which had initiated the false confession and
the scandal that followed.
This
new complaint revealed new details of his actions – and a remarkable side of his
character. He revealed that before he had sent the copy of the email to the
leader of the inquiry panel in 2016, he had collected all the relevant documents
concerning it – and destroyed them. Having made the accusation against Rev
Timms, he destroyed the evidence which would have proved it false!
He now
called Rev Timms’ objections to the false confession “a campaign”. He accused
Rev Timms of orchestrating such a campaign - ignoring the fact that Rev Timms
had had nothing to do with the emails and notes that were now flying around
Bexhill.
It did not end there. John Troughton
criticised actions that Rev Timms had taken elsewhere in Bexhill. He claimed
that a lady whom Rev Timms had employed as a church treasurer had shown signs
of suffering from dementia. He offered no evidence for this - except his
accusation.
This was a gross defamation of a lady
who was highly respected in the Bexhill community. John Troughton seemed to
ignore the fact that claiming
that someone has
dementia, when there is no clinical documentation to back up the allegation, is
libellous. But then, it is clear that John Troughton has a poor grasp of the
law.
Troughton also complained that Rev
Timms had allowed various church members to pay some of the minor church bills
out of their own pockets – something that many church members do. He thought
that such costs should be listed in church accounts. It was clear from this
that, unlike Rev Peter Timms, John Troughton would not be paying for a broken
window to be replaced out of his own pocket. Such was how much he really cared
for his church.
He
claimed that the church accounts – drawn up by the “demented” lady treasurer and
properly audited - were in a bad state and should not have been signed off as
they were. John Troughton has no qualifications as an accountant.
Troughton further claimed that Rev Timms had planned to demolish one of the main
churches in Bexhill in order to create a parking lot. This was total nonsense,
but John Troughton added to this by claiming that Rev Timms should have found
the money to repair parts of that same church.
Not
content with these totally un-founded slurs and allegations, John Troughton then
accused Rev Timms of several actual crimes.
Perhaps
the worst of these was his allegation that Rev Timms had so intimidated a woman
that she was afraid to be in the same building as him. This is a crime for which
the punishment can be several years in prison.
This
allegation was completely false. The lady herself denied it - and proved the
point by entering the same building as Rev. Timms. When evidence of the lack of
truth in the outrageous charge was so easy to find – why on earth did John
Troughton ever think about making it? Did he really want the police to enter
into the affair and charge Rev Timms with sexual abuse? It seems that he did –
for his criminal allegations increased.
He next
claimed that Rev Timms had abused members of the Methodist Church in Bexhill.
They had been abused, he claimed, not only physically, but also mentally.
In fact
of course, it was John Troughton himself who had offered physical violence to
Rev Timms at the meeting where all this had blown up, and it was John Troughton
who had instigated the mental abuse of Rev Timms by the church authorities in
demanding that he sign the false confession.
John
Troughton also claimed that Rev Timms had abused the finances of the church in
Bexhill. Any financial irregularity is a serious offence – and that is what John
Troughton charged Rev Timms with. He did not specify exactly how this had been
done, how the books had been fiddled, for what reason, nor who had benefited
financially from the fraud, but he made the accusation nevertheless.
This
all occurred in the early months of 2018. John Troughton had appeared to have
acted impulsively and without reason. When Rev Timms pointed out the falsity of
these criminal charges, his persecutor acted bewilderingly and irresponsibly in
reply.
When
confronted, John Troughton withdrew all the charges and apologised for having
presented them. He thought that this was a sufficient response. He had thrown
mud at Rev Timms to see where it might stick and when nothing stuck, he
stopped. He made no attempt to justify his initial attacks in any way - and he
continued to oppose Rev Timms’ objections, now calling them “a campaign”.
And he
issued further complaints.
The
quarrel rumbled on until March 2018 when Rev Timms finally persuaded John
Troughton to face him across a table so that they could formally discuss the
matter and be reconciled. A neutral convenor was in charge of the meeting – a
member of the church from another district.
Once
again John Troughton made an allegation that a criminal activity had taken place
– that the meeting was secretly “bugged”. There was no evidence of this. He had
concocted the accusation out of thin air. He has never apologised for this.
Over
four hours, during March and April 2018, the discussion between the two men
continued. It was the first time in two years that Rev Timms had been able to
discuss with John Troughton the email from 2016 that had caused all the fuss.
And
eventually John Troughton saw the light. Now under a neutral chairman, he
realised that the game was up. He admitted that Rev Timms’ rationale for sending
the internal email in 2014 was perfectly correct and acceptable.
Why had
it taken him two years to understand Rev Timms’ rationale for sending the email?
Had John Troughton’s eyes been clouded over by hatred? And did he now realise
the damage that had been done to the Church because he had sent the email on to
the National Executive? It seems not.
One
might think that any reasonable person might have left the matter there. Having
launched his second wave of attack on Rev Timms in 2016 and caused a tremendous
upheaval inside the Methodist Church, John Troughton had finally effectively
admitted that he had been wrong in the actions he took – which had so damaged
the reputation of the Methodist Church. He had, either deliberately or stupidly,
misinterpreted Rev Timms’ reason for sending the email and had, himself,
breached the standing orders of the church by leaking it and then destroying all
the evidence surrounding it.
His
submission of all points in the discussion was not, however, the end of his
attack on the minister.
Within
a month, John Troughton dismissed the official report by the independent neural
chairman of the meetings. He retracted his acceptance of Rev Timms’ explanation
for the “offending” email. The four hours of discussion had been for nothing. He
had shaken hands on the agreement with Rev Timms in front of a highly- esteemed
neutral member of the church. He had given his word that it was all over – then
he had broken his word.
This is
not the action of a man who has devoted his life to helping the poor and needy.
It is not the action of a man given to making sane sensible judgements. It is
the action of a man with hatred in his heart who accuses without evidence, a man
who is quite capable of destroying evidence when it suits his purpose. It is not
the action of a man who is worthy of protecting the church with his safeguarding
advice. It is not worthy of a man who has been a preacher in the Methodist
Church for almost half a decade. This is a man who stabs his chosen enemy in
the back.
How can
this be, when John Troughton has such a wonderful record of devotion to the poor
in our society? We may only guess at his reasons for his actions - for he has
now been waging his campaign against Rev Timms for six years. Indeed, one might
say that he has made a career out of it. It is a question that many in Bexhill
may ponder.
The
answer may lie in the personal histories of these two men and their different
attitudes towards the rules of the organisation they work in.
Rev
Timms was a Prison Governor for some forty years. Prison Governors need to deal
directly with the Home Office and need to define clearly the policies that they
are subject to and the statute law that underpins those policies.
As a
governor, Rev Timms had to deal fairly and properly, in accordance with the
rules, with dangerous criminals such as members of the IRA and murderers such as
Myra Hindley. At the same time he had to deal with demands from a wide range of
interests and offices – such as the judiciary, the probation service, welfare
and medical staff and prisoner charities.
One of
the main tasks that Prison Governors need to deal with expertly is the
interpretation of the Home Office’s Prison Service rules. They must apply them
in accordance with the general principles laid down by government. This
involves careful interpretation of the legal strictures that surround the
treatment of prisoners.
John
Troughton’s experience in life has been quite different to this. The rules he
lived with were much more simple. There was little need for interpretation – and
the recipients of his charitable actions were usually so grateful for his help
that his interpretation of any particular rules was never questioned.
Close
examination of the original argument that sparked John Troughton’s campaign
against Rev Timms shows that this difference of approach may be important in
understanding John Troughton’s more violent moments.
Rev
Timms’ objections at the 2014 circuit meeting were essentially about the
interpretation and application of a new Standing Order – SO 545. This had come
into effect a few days before the meeting. It concerned extensions of the role
of presbyters.
Rev
Timms claimed that what was under consideration at the meeting was indeed an
extension – or at least could be. The agenda of the meeting did not help –
it merely referred to “the employment” of the minister. This could mean either a
temporary or a permanent appointment. The minister under consideration had
already been acting in the job for about half a year.
During
the ensuing arguments, an Assistant Deputy District Chair took over and told the
meeting that the appointment of a new Superintendent had to be made that very
night. She claimed that SO 545 meant that it had to be done within three days.
Rev
Timms disagreed. He thought this hasty – and not required by the new standing
order. He considered the hasty action discriminatory against other potential
applicants. His reading of the new standing order was to the effect that a
selection could be delayed for a year. The incumbent could stay in the job
temporarily whilst things were handled properly.
The two
ministers had two different interpretations of this new Standing Order. The
wording of the agenda of the meeting did not help – indeed it confused the
issue. Rev Timms considered that the meeting might be accused of a lack of
impartiality if it rushed the proceedings. But John Troughton shouted him down.
Could
it be that John Troughton did not appreciate what Rev Timms was arguing at the
meeting in 2014? Is that why he suggested dragging the minister from the podium
by brute force? Did he believe that there was to be no discussion or
consideration of different possible interpretations of a new standing order?
Considering his later rash actions in this affair, it is perhaps doubtful that
he ever got that far in his thinking.
Rev
Timms’ approach to the rules was along the same lines that he had adopted
throughout his working life. When the new standing orders had been published at
the turn of the century, he had read them avidly. In spite of the fact that the
new standing orders appeared to have been written by lawyers, for lawyers, he
was accustomed to reading and absorbing such documents. So he had kept abreast
of any changes.
As for
John Troughton, he was not in any position of power inside the Methodist Church
when the new standing orders were introduced. He was very busy looking after the
men in the Seaman’s Mission in London. It seems that he never caught up with the
changes. As a consequence of this, he led himself up the wrong track.
Perhaps
the simple lesson of all this is that as men grow older they become less
adaptive to change. Neither Rev Timms nor John Troughton could change their
approach to the way in which rules are applied in an institution. Their
different approaches led to a fatal dispute that is still unresolved.
But the
consequences of John Troughton’s many mistakes still affect the life of the
Methodist Church in Bexhill. His great charitable work in the past means that
many members of the Church remain his friends. Those people are naturally
mystified by his attitude towards on of Bexhill’s most loved ministers.
John
Troughton’s latest efforts have led to a disciplinary inquiry at which Rev Timms
might be expelled from the Methodist Church.
Is this
really what John Troughton intended to happen with his persecution of Rev Timms?
Or is the destruction of a minister more important to him than truth, honesty
and justice?
--00--
This
document is written in line with Standing Order 1100 which demands openness in
dealing in the Methodist Church
-Peter
Hill