Conservative candidate Miriam Cates was Trustee of ‘Conversion Therapy Church’

[SheffieldForum]

Conservative candidate Miriam Cates (Penistone & Stocksbridge) was a trustee of a Sheffield church accused of promoting conversion therapy practices, according to an independent report commissioned by the Church of England’s Diocese of Sheffield. The report found that St Thomas Philadelphia church endorsed practices aimed at changing or suppressing sexual orientation or gender identity between 2014 and 2019.

 

Investigation Findings

 

The investigation followed a complaint from Matt Drapper, who claimed he underwent an “exorcism” ritual at the church in 2014. The report by Barnardo’s, published Monday, found that prayers of “deliverance” were commonly used to "cure" individuals of homosexual thoughts, which were part of the church’s culture during Mrs Cates' tenure as a trustee.

 

Diocese and Church Response

 

The Diocese of Sheffield expressed regret, stating, “We apologise unreservedly to the survivor for the distress this has caused and to anyone else similarly affected by such practices in the past. The Diocese of Sheffield believes, along with the wider Church of England, that conversion therapy is unethical, potentially harmful and has no place in the modern world.”

 

The Network Church Sheffield (NCS) acknowledged the findings, stating, “We have accepted the outcomes of the first investigation and are saddened that 8 years ago one of our community was not cared for in the way we would have liked. We sincerely apologised to them for this. Whilst the leadership of the church has changed, we recognise there are significant lessons to be learned and we are determined to learn them.”

 

Safeguarding Improvements

 

The Bishop of Sheffield, Rt Revd Dr Pete Wilcox, confirmed that an action plan has been implemented to address safeguarding issues raised in the report. “I will continue to monitor progress on the action plan which NCS had put in place to deliver on safeguarding improvements recommended by Barnardo’s,” he said.

 

Miriam Cates' Response

 

Mrs Cates, who was a member of the church from 2003 to 2018 and served as a trustee from 2016 to 2018, stated she was unaware of the allegations. "I do not and have never advocated for what is referred to as 'gay conversion therapy'. I have never participated in such activities, and I was not aware – nor was there any way that I could have been aware of Mr. Drapper’s allegations, which were not – as far as I was aware – raised during the time that I was on the leadership of the Church, and only surfaced after I left," she told the BBC.

 

Election Context

 

Mrs Cates, standing for re-election in the Penistone and Stocksbridge constituency, has been a vocal opponent of banning conversion therapy during her time in Parliament.
 

Other candidates in the constituency include Andy Davies (Green), Edward Dillingham (Reform UK), Rob Reiss (Liberal Democrat), and Marie Tidball (Labour).

[RollingJ]

And I bet, if they were so minded, opponents of these other candidates could come up with equally spurious reasons why they were 'unsuitable for election'.

[Delbow]

7 minutes ago, RollingJ said:

And I bet, if they were so minded, opponents of these other candidates could come up with equally spurious reasons why they were 'unsuitable for election'.

 

Miriam Cates is unsuitable for election because she's a mad Tory who's obsessed by the culture wars to the detriment of the needs of her constituents, no additional reasons need to be found. 

[RollingJ]

2 minutes ago, Delbow said:

 

Miriam Cates is unsuitable for election because she's a mad Tory who's obsessed by the culture wars to the detriment of the needs of her constituents, no additional reasons need to be found. 

Strangely, @SheffieldForum seems to think his linked report is important. As I said, no doubt the other candidates could also be found wanting.

[hackey lad]

15 minutes ago, RollingJ said:

And I bet, if they were so minded, opponents of these other candidates could come up with equally spurious reasons why they were 'unsuitable for election'.

Very spurious  but enough for the Sheffield Forum. 

[Beechwood_S6]

4 minutes ago, RollingJ said:

Strangely, @SheffieldForum seems to think his linked report is important. As I said, no doubt the other candidates could also be found wanting.

 

especially as this already in the general election thread

 

Just now, hackey lad said:

Very spurious  but enough for the Sheffield Forum. 

 

 

[SheffieldForum]

8 minutes ago, RollingJ said:

Strangely, @SheffieldForum seems to think his linked report is important. As I said, no doubt the other candidates could also be found wanting.

Do you not think it an important topic that a report has just been published showing this information involving a local church and a local candidate? A number of news sites certainly seem to think it important as they are featuring it, so it must be of interest to some people.

 

And for the avoidance of doubt, I’d have posted it whether it was an election or not and whether it was a Conservative candidate, Labour candidate or any of the others.

 

 

[SheffieldForum]

30 minutes ago, RollingJ said:

And I bet, if they were so minded, opponents of these other candidates could come up with equally spurious reasons why they were 'unsuitable for election'.

 

Also — personally, I don’t think the subject is spurious at all - it is quite a serious subject (hence the report being commissioned and published — and all involved seemingly reacting to the seriousness of it).
 

But please do feel free to come up with those other ‘spurious’ reasons about the other candidates.

[Beechwood_S6]

3 minutes ago, SheffieldForum said:

 

Also — personally, I don’t think the subject is spurious at all - it is quite a serious subject (hence the report being commissioned and published — and all involved seemingly reacting to the seriousness of it).
 

But please do feel free to come up with those other ‘spurious’ reasons about the other candidates.

 

[RollingJ]

2 hours ago, SheffieldForum said:

 

Also — personally, I don’t think the subject is spurious at all - it is quite a serious subject (hence the report being commissioned and published — and all involved seemingly reacting to the seriousness of it).
 

But please do feel free to come up with those other ‘spurious’ reasons about the other candidates.

Strange how Barnardo's have released it at this time - especially as the initial claims were made in 2014.